PIERRE, S.D. - A move to bring nonpartisan elections to South Dakota is gaining support. On the November general election ballot, state voters will decide whether or not to pass Amendment V, which would remove party-label requirements for voting in the June primaries. This month, the League of Women Voters of South Dakota and AARP South Dakota both announced support for the amendment.

AARP State Director Erik Gaikowski said if approved, it could open the door for about 115,000 independent voters to have their voices heard.

"In the past, those independents have been locked out of the primary process," she said. "I think it just allows more of the voting public to really have a say in who's representing them from their home districts."

Currently, independents are allowed to vote in the Democrats' primaries, but not the Republican primaries. Opponents argue that removing the party requirements would heavily favor the Democratic Party in the heavily Republican state.

But Gaikowski believes South Dakota's government would become more representative of voters if the requirements are removed. He said the idea has been working for decades in other states.

"Nebraska's been doing it for 80 years," he added. "Democrats and Republicans, they work together on legislative issues, and it truly is a people's body. And it really puts it back on the parties to do their due diligence in getting their candidates out and working to connect with those voters."

Amendment V would require all candidates for an office to run on a single ballot, which all state voters could access. Currently, the state's Republican Party and Governor Dennis Daugaard oppose the measure.


get more stories like this via email

A new bipartisan poll looks at how Latino voters in Arizona are feeling about President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office - and pollsters describe them as frustrated.

The poll from UnidosUS indicates the most important issues for Latino voters continue to be the cost of living and inflation, as well as jobs and the economy, followed by housing costs and health care.

Janet Murguia, president and CEO of UnidosUS, said Latino voters are feeling "dismissed," adding that saying Trump isn't living up to his campaign promises.

"They are also concerned by proposed cuts in life-saving programs such as Medicaid, Social Security," she said, "and anti-hunger programs like SNAP that millions of Latinos rely on to help mitigate the cost of living."

While Trump did make gains with Latino voters in the 2024 election, Murguia said some are having "buyer's remorse" as they're seeing the potential impacts of the president's policy decisions. Nearly half of those polled - all American citizens and registered voters - said they worry about being targeted by immigration enforcement.

Ray Serrano, director of research and policy for the League of United Latin American Citizens, agreed Latinos' optimism for the Trump administration is dissipating, even among those who supported him.

"What we thought was 'securing the border' now translates to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, Jocelynn Rojo," he said, "these stories that just echo throughout our communities and haunt us, and show us a new face of cruelty and the lack of due process."

Serrano asked that if Latino voters are feeling disillusioned with the Republican Party - as many did with the Democratic Party - where do they fall on the political spectrum? He said time will tell, but thinks the poll is a clear depiction of what he calls "the rise and immediate fall of the possible Trump Latino Democrat."

UCLA political science professor Matt Barreto said what happens with the economy will likely dominate how the administration is viewed moving forward, but immigration will also play a role.

"If the immigration scenario continues to look ugly and the economy is not rebounding," he said, "I think those are both ingredients for potentially a bad midterm for Republicans."


get more stories like this via email

Nevadans do a lot online, from paying bills to shopping and even voting.

Senate Bill 74, which would require the Secretary of State to allow registered voters who cannot physically get to the polls or access a mail ballot to use an approved electronic transmission system to cast their ballot, has made it out of committee and is advancing within the state legislature.

Nevada already allows overseas voters, those with disabilities and tribal members to cast ballots electronically, which helps expand ballot access to rural voters.

C.Jay Coles, deputy director of legislative affairs for the nonprofit Verified Voting, contended expanding Nevada's Effective Absentee System for Elections is a "high risk activity." He argued when it comes to election administration, officials must balance security and accessibility.

"In this particular instance with internet voting or electronic ballot return, the security risk outweighs the accessibility benefit," Coles contended. "The balance isn't there, the scales are not balanced."

Proponents of the measure countered the legislation would increase ballot accessibility and ease the process by which a ballot is returned. Coles called the measure a "noble" attempt but suggested Nevada look to other alternatives like sending voters blank ballots electronically, have them mark their selections using an electronic device but then requiring them to print and return it by mail or in-person.

Federal agencies have expressed concern and believe electronic ballot return technologies are high-risk even with controls in place.

Coles acknowledged while some states have already implemented similar processes for certain voters, expanding them could pose serious consequences.

"At some point in the future when there are enough ballots connected to the internet, where then our adversaries could access that system, or systems, and make those changes to alter the outcome of an entire election, that is the worst case scenario," Coles emphasized.

Coles asked lawmakers to consider the unintended consequences of expanding Nevada's electronic ballot return system.

"Six months after an election, we learn that the 'EASE' system was hacked and that the declared winner of the election, in fact is not the winner of the election and the wrong person was seated. What do we do?" Coles questioned. "There are no laws to address that."


get more stories like this via email

Arkansas Secretary of State Cole Jester is facing legal action from the League of Women Voters of Arkansas.

The organization filed a federal lawsuit over five bills it said are unconstitutional and restrict the work of canvassers.

Kristin Foster, special projects coordinator for the league, said the ballot initiative process allows citizens to propose statutes or constitutional amendments and collect signatures to place the proposals on a ballot. She added recent bills passed by lawmakers take away such rights.

"They have put so many restrictions on, and they are so layered and complex, that the ability to just get a petition out in the field and let people sign it is nearly impossible," Foster contended.

In a written statement, Jester argued the petition system is filled with fraud and bad actors. There have been only five criminal convictions related to election fraud in Arkansas over the last 20 years, according to the Heritage Foundation.

The lawsuit challenges restrictions including a ban on paying canvassers per signature and the requirement that canvassers are residents of the state.

David Couch, legal counsel for the league, said lawmakers have been adding restrictions since 2013.

"You have to show a photo ID to sign a petition. There's no need to do this because every signature on the petition, when you turn it in to the Secretary of State, is matched against the voter registration logs," Couch pointed out. "You have to read the entire ballot to the person before they sign the petition. These laws are not to prevent fraud."

The complaint also noted voters rejected proposed election restrictions in 2020 and 2022.

Foster added the over 300 volunteers who work for the league all played a role in getting the lawsuit filed.

"The entire lawsuit has really been driven by volunteers, people who participated in ballot initiatives, to the folks working on the actual suit," Foster explained. "We are very much a volunteer-driven organization and that makes it challenging when they're putting laws in place that threaten people with criminal action if they make a very simple mistake."