Darn—no do-over conventions for Democrats, and no Democratic nominee for Attorney General!
The South Dakota Democratic Party held its planned convention on June 6, following a gangbuster fundraiser featuring President Joe Biden as keynote speaker. The party nominated candidates for Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Public Utilities Commission (go, Frank!), and Commissioner of School and Public Lands but not for Attorney General, leaving the path clear for the eventual Republican nominee, Lance Russell, to advance to that job without a November contest.
On July 20, the SDDP notified Secretary of State Monae Johnson that it intended to convene again on August 10, this time videotronically, for the purpose of nominating candidates. None of the June 6 nominees had signaled they were dropping out, and even if one or more had, such vacancies can be filled by the state party central committee, so the only practical, legal reason to hold a second convention would have been to nominate a Democratic candidate for Attorney General.
On Thursday, August 6, South Dakota Democratic Party Chair Shane Merrill sent the following e-mail to party leaders and delegates (a) confirming that adding a Democrat to the A.G. race was the purpose of the August 10 convention but (b) announcing that the August 10 convention is off:
This letter serves as formal notification that the South Dakota Democratic Party (SDDP) has officially rescinded the notice previously filed to convene a second 2026 State Convention on August 10, 2026.
Following extensive consultation with our Executive Committee and legal counsel, we determined that the SDDP will not proceed with a second convention to nominate a candidate for Attorney General. This decision protects the organization from potential legal challenges and the significant costs associated with imminent legal injunctions. Our priority remains safeguarding the integrity of our party and the viability of our current statewide candidates.
The South Dakota Secretary of State has been formally notified of this decision. Consequently, the nominations made during our official State Convention held on June 6, 2026, in Sioux Falls will stand as our permanent and final slate of candidates for the upcoming election cycle.
We sincerely apologize for the late notice and any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused. We took these steps under difficult statutory time constraints, but we believe this path is the most responsible course of action for the future of our party.
Should you have any questions or require further clarification regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to reach out to me directly or to our Executive Director, Dan Ahlers.
Thank you for your continued dedication and service to the South Dakota Democratic Party [Shane Merrill, SDDP Chair, e-mail to Democratic officials and delegates, 2026.08.06].
Merrill here indicates that cancelling convention #2 was less a result of not finding a willing candidate and more a retreat before vague threats of litigation lodged publicly by SDGOP spin blogger Pat Powers, who frothingly argued that SDCL 12-5-17 allows each party to hold “a state convention”, not multiple state conventions.
Were the SDDP to convene Monday to nominate a candidate for Attorney General and reaffirm its nomination of candidates for the five other constitutional offices, the party would have won any legal challenge Powers or his Republican sugar daddies might have filed to nullify those nominations. South Dakota allowed the Democratic Party to hold a second convention and nominate valid candidates in 2018. Spinster Pat’s superficial semanticism ignores easily retrievable case law, South Dakota state law, and the South Dakota Legislature’s own drafting guide which make clear that, in legal contexts, the singular article “a” means “one or more“. As SDCL 2-14-6 states, “Words used in the singular number include the plural, and the plural, the singular, except where a contrary intention plainly appears.”
Chair Merrill would have needed more than this free blog post to win that argument; the SDDP would have had to lawyer up, go to court, and burn up some of the big money Joe Biden made for them on June 6 that could be better spent on hot dogs and chips for Jane Kleeb at the September 19 Roundup in Box Elder and some good aggressive postcards for their Legislative candidates (all of whom have remained on the ballot; the only Democratic Legislative candidate who withdrew was Carl J. Petersen for District 28A House, and Chas Jewett has stepped in to fill that slot).
But if there was a Democratic lawyer in the chute ready to run against Lance Russell, the SDDP disserved that brave soul and itself by retreating from that potential legal fight and the bigger fun of pounding on Lance Russell all fall. A party firing on all cylinders would leap at the chance to fill the ballot, launch another bold Democrat into public recognition, and enlist a lawyer to beat up on Republicans in court (again—remember, Republicans have a much worse record in court than they do at the polls). But the SDDP has only so much fight in it, so, alas, no A.G. challenge this year.
As Dana Hess notes, Democrats are letting one measly legal challenge deter them from taking a shot at an elected office that could give a huge boost to the brave candidate and the party:
This is supposed to be a good year for Democrats in November. Some people are predicting a blue wave. In South Dakota, it’s more likely to be a blue trickle.
Yet, it’s hard to understand why there isn’t a Democratic candidate for attorney general. It’s true that the candidate would be running against odds that heavily favor the Republican candidate. But the payoff could be huge in the event of an upset.
A Democratic attorney general in heavily red South Dakota would stand out nationally. If the presidential pendulum swings back to Democrats in two years, a Democratic attorney general from South Dakota could be in line for a place on the federal bench or an appointment as U.S. attorney. Maybe Democratic lawyers in this state don’t dream big enough [Dana Hess, “Parties Repeat Mistakes as Republicans Set Elections Back and Democrats Fail to Find a Key Candidate,” South Dakota Searchlight, 2026.08.08].
Merrill’s official convention-withdrawal request to the Secretary of State, received and filed August 6, says the June 6 candidates are permanent, though of course those five candidates were already made permanent by the filing of their nominations in June and the absence of any candidate-withdrawal requests by the August 3 deadline.