South Dakota Republicans continue to resist open primaries. But some Republicans are suggesting we have open petitions.
Senate Bill 79, tossed into the hopper this morning by Senator Ernie Otten (R-6/Tea), would allow independent voters to sign nominating petitions for party candidates. SB 79 would continue to allow party members to sign petitions for independent candidates. SB 79 would continue to prohibit party members from signing petitions for candidates from other parties.
The obvious benefit of SB 79 is allowing independents to participate in a nominating process that currently largely excludes them. In 2016, out of 959 candidates in partisan races, only 20 were independents (and all but three of those were in county races, which really ought to be nonpartisan elections anyway, but that’s another bill). In 2014, there were 67 independent candidates out of several hundred. In most cases, when independents bump into someone with a nominating petition, the circulator has to say, “Sorry, you can’t sign.” That rejection probably makes independents feel a little less enthusiastic about a democratic process from which they already feel somewhat disconnected. Giving independents this small additional opportunity to participate may have the opposite, positive effect.
SB 79 would give partisan candidates for statewide offices over 120,000 more voters whom they could ask to sign their petitions. That gain would be a huge boost for South Dakota’s third parties: our Libertarians and Constitutionists have much lower signature thresholds, but they also have only 1,667 and 469 members statewide, respectively, to ask for signatures. In some counties (like Clark, Miner, Buffalo…), those parties don’t have members to fill even one petition for their own candidates for county office. Allowing Libertarians, Constitutionists, and new parties to seek signatures from independents would make it much easier for them to get their party label on the ballot, build their brand, and combine petitioning with recruitment.
Senate Bill 79 doesn’t offer totally open petitions: Democrats still couldn’t sign for Republicans (and why would we want to?! Down with Trumpists!) and vice versa (insert your complementary partisan invective in the comment section). But allowing independents to sign partisan petitions would give independents more chances to participate in democracy. SB 79 also offers one more leg up to our third parties. If you see a downside, let me know; otherwise, Do Pass SB 79!
Under Otten’s proposal, if I were seeking the Constitution Party nomination for governor, a malevolent party-raider could theoretically qualify to challenge me in a taxpayer-financed primary without getting a single signature from an actual Constitution Party member.
The Constitution Party doesn’t even want taxpayer-financed primaries. Why won’t meddlesome authoritarians like Ernie Otten just butt out and let us nominate by convention?
There’s the downside I was waiting for!
I have no problem with allowing third parties to nominate at convention. I hope Judge Schreier makes that possible with a favorable ruling in the Libs v. Krebs lawsuit.
I agree that SB 79 makes possible the scenario Kurt describes—switch registration to CON, circulate a nominating petition among indies, and trigger a primary against the intended CON nominee. However…
(a) If the point is to keep the CON from becoming Governor, isn’t it easier to sit back and let the GOP and Dems beat the Con in the general election, as usual?
(b) Would that trick work? The fake Con would still have to stand for the primary, in which only Cons could vote, unless the Cons opened their primary to allow indies to vote, as we Dems do. Wouldn’t Cons smell a rat and stick by their nominee, as surely as Dems would stick with Billie Sutton, even if Neal Tapio declared himself a Dem and tried to steal our nomination?
(c) Might not that trick backfire? The trickster wants to hurt the Con party, but the trickster gets them all sorts of free press by triggering a statewide primary.
Cory asks:
Maybe, but what if the point is to keep me out of the general election?
What if the party-raider is wealthy and previously unknown? I’d rather be evaluated in a convention setting than in an ad war.
It might backfire if he doesn’t win. It might be successful beyond his wildest dreams if he does.
Authoritarian Republicans would force the Constitution Party to go through a primary we don’t want, force us (and other South Dakotans) to pay for it, and force us to accept primary candidates we don’t even support. This is morally wrong regardless of the practical consequences.
I appreciate your principled resistance of unnecessary government spending, but the primary wouldn’t cost the Constitution Party itself a penny.
Are you telling me you couldn’t afford to send letters to the 471 members of your party and tell them you’re the real deal and then beat some rich punk who’s so petty that he would invest in an effort to keep one third-party candidate from getting on the general election ballot?
I agree that nomination at primary avoids this problem. But is the seemingly unlikely possibility of such dirty tricks enough to outweigh the potential benefits of engaging independents in the process and helping third parties raise their profile?
Cory writes:
I’m not going to attempt a lesson in Austrian economics, but government spending ultimately drives up the cost of any goods or services the party purchases.
I’m not saying that, but what if the party-raider sends two letters to each member claiming he’s the real deal and I’m the petty punk?
I believe it is.
“Austrian economics”? I get the feeling this is another irrelevant abstraction. The Government spends money printing 1,000 Constitution Party ballots. Tell me how that spending increases the Constitution Party’s costs.
Any cost you can demonstrate will be outweighed by the increased donations the party will receive thanks to increased press.
As for the party raider, it occurs to me your disadvantage may be non-unique—i.e., your convention nomination may be susceptible to the same disadvantage. Lee Stranahan and Chad Haber hijacked the 2014 Libertarian convention with greater ease than they could have hijacked a Libertarian primary. A primary is subject to more and longer public scrutiny. The press has more than two months to report on the attempted hijacking. Plus, the
things interlopers can do to hijack a primary—also known
as campaigning—are mostly indirect; they don’t guarantee that 50%+1 of voters will check my name instead of yours. If I walk into the convention with enough goons, I stage my coup by convention rules and win my nominees before KSFY reports anything on the Saturday night news that no one watches.