Amendment H: Opposing sides differ on the likely outcomes of open primaries • South Dakota Searchlight

Supporters of open primaries say shifting to a top-two primary system will whittle candidates down to those who represent a majority of South Dakota voters. But opponents argue it will limit voters’ choices each November.

Amendment H, one of seven statewide questions on South Dakotans’ Nov. 5 ballot, proposes opening up future primary elections and placing all candidates, regardless of party, on a single ballot. The top two vote-getters would advance to the general election.

Currently, only registered Republicans are allowed to vote in Republican primaries. Democrats and independents can vote in Democratic primaries.

The measure would amend the state constitution to implement the change. A “yes” vote supports replacing partisan primaries with a top-two system for all state and local offices. A “no” vote opposes the initiative and keeps South Dakota’s current primary system in place.

Sioux Falls businessman and longtime Republican Joe Kirby leads South Dakota Open Primaries. He hopes the reform increases voter turnout so independents get a “meaningful vote” and candidates change primary campaigns to appeal to all voters.

Washington became the first state to adopt a top-two primary system in 2004, but wasn’t able to implement it until 2008 due to court challenges. California adopted the system in 2010 and implemented it in 2012. Nebraska uses a top-two primary system for state legislative offices, and does not list political parties because the Legislature is nonpartisan.

Both the South Dakota Republican Party and the South Dakota Democratic Party oppose the measure. Democratic Party Executive Director Dan Ahlers said the amendment would not significantly affect voter turnout or candidate moderation.

Increasing voter turnout?

Proponents of Amendment H point to the South Dakota June 2024 primary’s 17% voter turnout — the lowest in recent history — as a reason to switch to a top-two system. In a Republican-leaning state, the primary is more important to many Republican candidates than the general election, even though about half of South Dakota registered voters can’t cast their vote in Republican primaries.

Aside from this year’s primary — which included no statewide races, one Democratic legislative primary and 44 Republican legislative primary races — voter turnout in South Dakota primaries increased over the last decade.

Kirby said a top-two primary would significantly increase voter turnout because it would allow “meaningful” primaries for non-Republican South Dakota voters. 

Citing a fiscal estimate from the Legislative Research Council, Kirby said voter turnout would grow by 50,000 voters — which would have increased turnout from 17% to 25% in this year’s primary, or from 32% in 2022 to 40%.

But Ahlers said that estimate is taken out of context. The Legislative Research Council merely estimated the number of extra ballots needed for primaries, not the actual turnout.

“They always have to put a buffer number in there,” he said.

If Amendment H passes, Ahlers doesn’t expect voter turnout to increase significantly. It’s not a primary model that will draw people out to vote but rather the candidates and the issues, Ahlers said. That’s the responsibility of parties, he said, to recruit quality candidates and encourage people to vote.

Average voter turnout in Washington has been lower in some years since the adoption of open primaries, including 31% in 2014, and higher in others, including 54% in 2020. Turnout has been similarly mixed since the implementation of open primaries in California, ranging from 25% in 2014 to 48% in 2016, and never yet equaling the state’s modern, pre-open-primaries high of 58% turnout in the 2006 primary.

Michael Ritter, an assistant professor specializing in election research at Washington State University, said that “more accessible primaries” do boost primary turnout, generally. Open primary models can make voting more accessible to citizens, and it may also increase a person’s commitment to political advocacy, he said.

But, Ritter said, open primary models don’t boost turnout by 10% or more. Just by a few percentage points, or less than 5%.

“That may sound trivial, but it can be important because a lot of elections in this country are decided at the margins,” Ritter said.

Appealing to all South Dakota voters or limiting their options?

Kirby said a top-two primary system shifts away from “party control” and encourages candidates to appeal to all South Dakota voters rather than just a party.

“It’s better to empower the voters of the state,” Kirby said. “Parties will no longer be in control of elections. The voters will be.”

Ahlers said the constitutional amendment is pushed by Republicans who are “frustrated with their own party.” He said the amendment will “disenfranchise voters” because a top-two system could limit the political diversity of candidates on the general election ballot. Two Republicans could appear on the general election ballot rather than a Republican with a Democrat, Libertarian and independent.

“You hear the word ‘open’ and you think, ‘Great. An open process where everyone can participate.’ But this limits your choices. It limits the opportunity for more voices to be heard,” Ahlers said.

In California, the top-two system has motivated new kinds of political strategizing. 

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Adam Schiff ignored his two Democratic opponents in this year’s primary and instead focused attention on Republican candidate Steve Garvey, even though Garvey has little chance at winning the general election in the Democratic-leaning state. That strategy helped Schiff maneuver Garvey into position as Schiff’s preferred general election opponent, a CalMatters columnist wrote earlier this year. Instead of appealing to moderate voters, Schiff made a partisan appeal to manufacture a relatively easy campaign for himself in the general election.

“Gamesmanship happens in politics,” Kirby countered. “That’s not at all a flaw in the open primary system.”

Republican Rep. Bethany Soye, of Sioux Falls, who opposed Amendment H during a recent debate at the Downtown Sioux Falls Rotary, said the top-two system will make it harder for independent or “grassroots” candidates to run for office because campaigning will be more expensive. They’ll run against more opponents and have a longer campaign cycle, which will “guarantee the perpetual rule of big money” in South Dakota, Soye said.

“The general election is going to be in June and there will never be another independent candidate on the ballot in November,” Soye said.

Washington’s primary came under fire this year as a “bloody mess” because the ballot had an overwhelming number of candidates, wrote a Seattle Times columnist. There were 28 candidates listed on the ballot for governor alone.

There is no limit in Amendment H on the number of candidates that can run in a primary. Kirby said the South Dakota Legislature can address that concern if the measure passes, such as setting the number of petition signatures needed to file a candidacy at a higher level to discourage frivolous campaigns. 

The potential for a legal challenge

The attorney general’s explanation of Amendment H notes that the amendment might be challenged in court, but doesn’t say why. The office did not respond to questions from South Dakota Searchlight.

Ahlers dislikes another portion of the amendment’s language, which says “a candidate may select the name of a political party to be listed next to the candidate’s name on the primary ballot.” Ahlers said that provision “encourages voter deception” by allowing candidates to identify with a party even if they aren’t registered with that party.

While candidates can already register under one party and then switch registration once elected, Ahlers said that’s harder to pull off under the current system.

Kirby said if someone is “misrepresenting themselves,” political parties and the media will hold them accountable. He said it hasn’t been an issue in other states.