South Dakota Amendment V, Top-Two Primary Amendment (2016)
| South Dakota Amendment V | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Elections and campaigns | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
The South Dakota Nonpartisan Elections Amendment, also known as Amendment V, was on the ballot in South Dakota as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 8, 2016.[1] The measure was defeated.
| A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of establishing nonpartisan elections. |
| A "no" vote was a vote against establishing nonpartisan elections. |
Election results
| Amendment V | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 196,781 | 55.49% | ||
| Yes | 157,870 | 44.51% | ||
- Election results from South Dakota Secretary of State
Text of measure
Ballot question
The question that appeared on the ballot was as follows:[2]
| “ |
A vote "Yes" is for adding provisions to the Constitution to establish nonpartisan elections. A vote "No" will leave the Constitution as it is. [3] |
” |
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[4]
| “ | An initiated amendment to the south Dakota constitution establishing nonpartisan elections[3] | ” |
Attorney General explanation
The Attorney General explanation for this measure was as follows:[5]
| “ | Currently, most general election candidates for federal, state, and county offices are selected through a partisan primary or at a state party convention. This constitutional amendment eliminates those methods by establishing a nonpartisan primary to select candidates for all federal, state, and elected offices. This amendment does not apply to elections for United States President and Vice President.
Under the amendment, candidates are not identified by party affiliation the primary or general election ballot. All qualified voters, regardless of party affiliation, may vote for any candidate of their choice. The two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election. For certain offices where more than one candidate is elected at the general election, the number of candidates advancing to the general election will be double the number of seats to be filled. If the amendment is approved, a substantial re-write of state election laws will be necessary. A vote “Yes” is for adding provisions to the Constitution to establish nonpartisan elections. A vote “No” will leave the Constitution as it is. [3] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article VII, South Dakota Constitution
The proposed amendment would have added a new section to Article VII of the South Dakota Constitution. The following text would have been added:[1]
| Section 1 - That Article VII of the Constitution of South Dakota be amended by adding thereto NEW SECTIONS to read as follows: | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
§4 There is hereby established an open nonpartisan primary election, in which each candidate nominated for an office appears together on the same ballot. Neither the candidate's party affiliation nor lack of party affiliation may appear on the primary or general election ballots in any election. This section applies to the election of candidates for all federal, state and county elective offices except for the election of President and Vice President of the United States. §5 An open nonpartisan primary election shall be conducted to select the candidates who shall compete in the general election. All registered voters may vote in the open nonpartisan primary election for any qualified candidate, provided that the voter is otherwise qualified to vote for the candidate for the office in question. The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary election shall compete in the general election. However, for any office to which more than one candidate is elected, the number of candidates who compete in the general election shall be the number of candidates to be elected times two. §6 Each qualified voter is guaranteed the unrestricted right to vote for the qualified candidate of the voter's choice in all elections. No voter may be denied the right to vote for the qualified candidate of the voter's choice in a primary or general election based upon the voter's party affiliation or lack of party affiliation. §7 Each candidate running for an elective office shall file, with the appropriate elections officer, petitions containing the signatures of registered voters in an amount to be established by law. The signature requirements established shall be based on the total votes cast for that office in the previous general election and sha1l be the same for all candidates for that office, regardless of party affiliation or lack of party affiliation. §8 Nothing in this article restricts the right of any person to join or organize into a political party or in any way restrict the right of private association of political party. Nothing in this article restricts a party's right to contribute to, endorse, or otherwise support or oppose candidates for elective office. Each political party may establish such procedures as the party determines to elect party officers, endorse or support candidates, or otherwise participate in all elections. However, no such procedures may be paid for or subsidized using public funds. All qualified voters and candidates shall be treated equally by law and regulations governing elections regardless of party affiliation or lack of party affiliation. To the extent that any privileges or procedures are made available to any candidate or political party, such privileges and procedures shall be made equally available to all candidates or political parties, regardless of party affiliation or 1ack of party affiliation. §9 The provisions of §§4 to 9, inclusive, of this article apply to all elections occurring after January 1, 2018, except for the election of President and Vice President of the United States, and shall supersede any existing law, regulation, and elections procedure to the extent that such are inconsistent with this article. The Legislature, Secretary of State and loca1 officials sha1l make such changes in and additions to laws, regulations, and elections procedures as are necessary to fully implement the provisions of this article in time for the open primary election in 2018 and for each open primary and general election thereafter. Laws, regulations and elections procedures implementing this article shal1 permit and encourage all qualified voters in South Dakota to vote in primary and general elections for the candidates of the voter's choice.[3] | |||||
Support
Vote Yes on V - South Dakotans for Non-Partisan Elections led the support campaign for Amendment V.[6]
Supporters
- South Dakotans for Nonpartisan Elections[7]
- League of Women Voters of South Dakota[8]
- AARP South Dakota
Campaign leadership
The Vote Yes on V website listed the following individuals as campaign leaders:[6]
- Rick Knobe (I), former Mayor of Sioux Falls
- Joe Kirby (R), Business Leader
- Pam Merchant (D) — served in state senate, current Brookings School Board member
- De Knudson (R), former Sioux Falls City Councilor
- Drey Samuelson (D), US Senator Tim Johnson’s former Chief of Staff
- John Timmer (R), former State Legislator and “Father” of Term Limits in South Dakota
- Rick Weiland (D), former advisor to US Senator Tom Daschle
- Casey Murschel (R), former State Legislator and Sioux Falls City Councilor
- Bernie Hunhoff (D) — Former senate and house Democratic leader in the South Dakota legislature.
- Dave Volk (R), Former State Treasurer and Governor Janklow’s Secretary of Commerce and Regulation
- Vernon Brown (I), former Sioux Falls City Councilor
- Brian Hagg (R), Former Pennington County Republican Party Chair
- Nick Reid (I), Local Business Owner
- Chuck Parkinson (R), Former Reagan/Bush Administration Appointee
- Tamara Pier (D), Former City Attorney for Rapid City
- Kim Wright (I), Director of South Dakota Voice of Independents
- Pam Murray (I), Independent Voter Activist
- Brett Monson (I), former Independent Candidate for State Legislature
Arguments in favor
Official argument in favor
The official argument in favor of this measure as listed in the "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet" was as follows:[5]
| “ |
Amendment V - Nonpartisan Elections is Supported by:
Does Politics Make You Feel FRUSTRATED?? ANGRY?? You’re not alone! Politicians are elected to win for their party, not America. 109,000 South Dakota independent voters can’t fully participate. 90% of Americans lack confidence in our political system. The voters deserve better. Amendment V Fixes Our Politics:
How Does It Work? Just Like Our Local Nonpartisan Elections for Mayor or Judge Have you voted for Mayor, City Council, School Board, or Judge? Then you already know how it works. All the candidates -- regardless of party -- are listed on a single ballot. Every voter - including independents - can just vote for who they want. The top two vote getters move on to a runoff style election in November. That’s it!! Nebraska’s Nonpartisan Legislative Elections have worked for over 80 years. They have a higher voter turnout than South Dakota, and the most competitive Legislative elections in the country. Doesn’t South Dakota deserve that? Who Opposes Nonpartisan Elections? The Partisan Establishment. “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The political establishment wants to scare voters against Amendment V! Do you think they care about the voters? Or keeping their power? But Republican, Democratic and Independent voters agree: let everyone vote for who they want! Join the League of Women Voters, Republicans like former Reagan/Bush Appointee Chuck Parkinson, Democrats like former US Senator Tim Johnson, and Independents like me who put our country first. Vote Yes on V! For the Voters! Rick Knobe (Independent) Chair of the Vote Yes on V Committee [3] |
” |
Individual arguments
Drey Samuelson, co-chair of the campaign for Amendment V, said,[7]
| “ | People in this country are increasingly suspicious of each other, and the partisan system is completely dividing the country. ... One of the best solutions to this problem is an open primary system. This would encourage cooperation rather than division.[3] | ” |
The website for South Dakotans for Nonpartisan Elections said,[7]
| “ | Adoption of a single, nonpartisan primary election system has proven its ability to insulate states from the partisanship and dysfunction that has gripped most of the country. ... In the partisan arena of South Dakota, all the independence and creativity that are consistent hallmarks of the nonpartisan system have disappeared, to the detriment of the State.[3] | ” |
Nick Reid, campaign field coordinator for South Dakotans for Nonpartisan Elections, said,[9]
| “ | The beautiful thing about this is it's a very bipartisan effort. I mean, we've got from left to right and middle and everything in between, because this is not something that rests upon, you know, what party you're affiliated with, it really comes back to, again, voter empowerment and understanding that we need to take the next step in the evolution of democracy here in the country, and here in the State of South Dakota is where it starts.[3] | ” |
Rick Knobe, chairman for Vote Yes for Amendment V, said the following:[10]
| “ |
"Independents can't vote in the Republican Primary, [...] There's a hundred and fifteen thousand Independents in the state that are banned from voting in the Republican Primary and that's the most important primary in the state of South Dakota.[3] |
” |
Opposition
Vote No on V led the opposition campaign for Amendment V.[11]
Opponents
- South Dakota Republican Party[12]
- South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry[13]
- No On Amendment V[14]
- Gov. Dennis Daugaard[15]
- Sen. John Thune[15]
- Rep. Kristi Noem[15]
Arguments against
Official argument against
The official argument against this measure as listed in the "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet" was as follows:[5]
| “ |
Amendment V gives politicians the constitutional right to hide party information from South Dakotans. The people deserve constitutional rights, not politicians. Amendment V takes party registration information away from voters at the moment they need that information most: when voting. Amendment V makes our ballot less transparent. While proponents call it an “open” primary, they never tell you that it is actually a HIDDEN Primary. Amendment V puts California’s merged primary system into South Dakota’s constitution. Merging the two primaries into one will not give any South Dakotan an additional election in which to participate. Everyone will be able to vote in June and in November, just as they do today. Independent candidates will be harmed by California’s system. Because only two candidates will be permitted in the general election for most races, voters are denied a third option. We have a great state. California should be taking notes from us, instead of us copying them. Amendment V is a constitutional overhaul. Because Amendment V works major changes to our South Dakota constitution, it will be almost impossible to fix when we, the voters, realize that we have been robbed of our right to know who we are voting for. Amendment V is sponsored and promoted by veteran Democrat political operatives. Do not be fooled by claims that this is “non-partisan.” Most of the money raised by Amendment V came from out-of-state. The single biggest donor is an organization from New York City. Do not be fooled by claims that this is a “grassroots” or “South Dakota” effort. South Dakota voters have a right to know who they are voting for. The bottom line is: Amendment V makes South Dakota’s elections less transparent. Vote NO on Amendment V Faithfully Submitted, Will Mortenson Chairman, VoteNoOnV.com [3] |
” |
Individual arguments
Rep. Don Haggar (R-10) said the following about Amendment V:[10]
| “ |
Any time you want to make a decision, especially about who is going to represent you and who's going to make decision about public policy, [...] more information is always better. Amendment V, in essence, is an anti-transparency decision.[3] |
” |
Campaign finance
As of February 8, 2017, the support campaign for this initiative featured one ballot question committee, South Dakotans for Non-Partisan Elections, that received a total of $1,867,162.98 in contributions. The support campaign spent $1,845,810.40.[14]
One ballot question committee, No On Amendment V, registered to oppose the initiative. The opposition campaign raised $300,091.00 in total contributions and spent $300,091.00.[14]
The top donor in support of this initiative, Open Primaries, provided 61 percent of the campaign's total funds. The group contributed $1,145,121.35 in contributions.[14]
The top donor in opposition to this initiative, the South Dakota Republican Party, provided 57 percent of the campaign's total funds, contributing $171,247.50.[14]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $1,667,675.48 | $199,487.50 | $1,867,162.98 | $1,646,322.90 | $1,845,810.40 |
| Oppose | $260,472.00 | $39,619.00 | $300,091.00 | $260,472.00 | $300,091.00 |
| Total | $1,928,147.48 | $239,106.50 | $2,167,253.98 | $1,906,794.90 | $2,145,901.40 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.[16]
| Committees in support of Constitutional Amendment V | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Vote Yes on V -- South Dakotans for Non-partisan Elections | $1,667,675.48 | $199,487.50 | $1,867,162.98 | $1,646,322.90 | $1,845,810.40 |
| Total | $1,667,675.48 | $199,487.50 | $1,867,162.98 | $1,646,322.90 | $1,845,810.40 |
Donors
The following were the top donors to the committee.[14]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open Primaries | $994,948.00 | $150,173.35 | $1,145,121.35 |
| Vincent Ryan | $117,916.71 | $0.00 | $117,916.71 |
| TakeItBack.org | $40,000.00 | $38,874.99 | $78,874.99 |
| South Dakota First | $70,000.00 | $0.00 | $70,000.00 |
| Drey Samuelson | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
| Joe Kirby | $50,000.00 | $0.00 | $50,000.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.[14]
| Committees in opposition to Constitutional Amendment V | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| No on Amendment V | $260,472.00 | $39,619.00 | $300,091.00 | $260,472.00 | $300,091.00 |
| Total | $260,472.00 | $39,619.00 | $300,091.00 | $260,472.00 | $300,091.00 |
Donors
The following were the top donors to the committee.[14]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| South Dakota Republican Party | $141,549.50 | $29,698.00 | $171,247.50 |
| Daugaard for South Dakota | $55,000.00 | $0.00 | $55,000.00 |
| Frank Farrar | $15,000.00 | $0.00 | $15,000.00 |
| Lawrence & Schiller | $0.00 | $9,921.00 | $9,921.00 |
| Friends of John Thune | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| Heartland Values PAC | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| John Calvin | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| KRISTI PAC | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| Rounds for Senate | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Path to the ballot
The required number of valid signatures is tied to the number of votes cast for the office of the Governor of South Dakota in the most recent gubernatorial election. Since the initiative is proposed for 2016, the number of required signatures reflected the votes cast in the 2014 gubernatorial election.
Supporters needed to collect 27,740 signatures by the November 9, 2015, deadline. The sponsor of the petition confirmed that 39,182 signatures were submitted and the secretary of state certified the measure on January 8, 2016[17]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired signature gatherers directly to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $185,514.92 was spent to collect the 27,740 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $6.69.[18]
State profile
| Demographic data for South Dakota | ||
|---|---|---|
| South Dakota | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 857,919 | 316,515,021 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 75,811 | 3,531,905 |
| Race and ethnicity** | ||
| White: | 85% | 73.6% |
| Black/African American: | 1.6% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 1.2% | 5.1% |
| Native American: | 8.6% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 2.6% | 3% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 3.3% | 17.1% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 90.9% | 86.7% |
| College graduation rate: | 27% | 29.8% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $50,957 | $53,889 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 15.3% | 11.3% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in South Dakota. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here. | ||
Presidential voting pattern
South Dakota voted Republican in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.
Pivot Counties (2016)
Ballotpedia identified 206 counties that voted for Donald Trump (R) in 2016 after voting for Barack Obama (D) in 2008 and 2012. Collectively, Trump won these Pivot Counties by more than 580,000 votes. Of these 206 counties, five are located in South Dakota, accounting for 2.43 percent of the total pivot counties.[19]
Pivot Counties (2020)
In 2020, Ballotpedia re-examined the 206 Pivot Counties to view their voting patterns following that year's presidential election. Ballotpedia defined those won by Trump won as Retained Pivot Counties and those won by Joe Biden (D) as Boomerang Pivot Counties. Nationwide, there were 181 Retained Pivot Counties and 25 Boomerang Pivot Counties. South Dakota had four Retained Pivot Counties and one Boomerang Pivot County, accounting for 2.21 and 4.00 percent of all Retained and Boomerang Pivot Counties, respectively.
More South Dakota coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in South Dakota
- United States congressional delegations from South Dakota
- Public policy in South Dakota
- Endorsers in South Dakota
- South Dakota fact checks
- More...
See also
External links
Support
Opposition
Opposition
- Vote No On V [www.votenoonv.com website]
Sponsor contact information
- Rick Weiland - 1109 South Phillips Ave, Sioux Falls SD 57105
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 South Dakota Secretary of State, "Initiative petition," accessed December 8, 2015
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, "Yes/No Recitations," accessed August 5, 2016
- ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ South Dakota Attorney General, "Attorney General's statement-Amendment establishing nonpartisan elections," August 12, 2015
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 South Dakota Secretary of State, "South Dakota 2016 Ballot Question Pamphlet," accessed August 18, 2016
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Vote Yes on V, "Home," accessed October 7, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Independent Voter Project, "South Dakota moves a step closer to nonpartisan elections," March 29, 2016
- ↑ KOTA News, "Joint endorsement for Amendment V," September 13, 2016
- ↑ KEVN, "Group launches campaign to support Amendment V," March 29, 2016
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 KDLT, "Taking A Closer Look At Amendment V," October 25, 2016
- ↑ Vote No on V, "Home," accessed November 7, 2016
- ↑ American Clarion, "South Dakota GOP opposes Amendment V," July 6, 2016
- ↑ KCSR, "(SD)-SD Chamber Opposes Non-Partisan Election Amendment," September 24, 2016
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 South Dakota Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance Statement," accessed December 12, 2016
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 The Gazette, "Foes launch campaign against nonpartisan election measure," August 2, 2016
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedREF - ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, "2016 Ballot Questions," accessed December 8, 2015
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State Campaign Finance Reporting System, "Vote Yes on V - South Dakotans for Non-Partisan Elections," accessed September 22, 2016
- ↑ The raw data for this study was provided by Dave Leip of Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections.
 |
State of South Dakota Pierre (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
