Voters next month will be shaping how future elections operate in many states, including South Dakota, where nonpartisan primaries are on the ballot.

Constitutional Amendment H would shift primaries in South Dakota to an open, "top two system." Every voter would get a single primary ballot listing all candidates and the two in each race with the most votes move on.

Currently, political parties decide which registered voters can participate in their primaries. The Democratic Party now allows registered Democrats, Independents and unaffiliated voters to do so. Republicans have a "closed" primary, for registered party members only.

Joe Kirby, chairman of the group South Dakota Open Primaries, said changing the system would increase participation.

"Candidates would change their messaging so they would appeal to all voters in the state," Kirby explained. "Instead of, as they currently do, appealing to the partisan few that show up for our primary elections."

Only 17% of registered voters in South Dakota cast ballots in this year's primaries, according to the Secretary of State. Kirby pointed out under the current system, more than 150,000 voters are left out.

A similar measure to create a nonpartisan primary was defeated by South Dakota voters in 2016. Kirby noted opponents include what he calls "party bosses" on both sides of the aisle because the new system, he acknowledged, would give more power to voters.

"Our job this election cycle is to get out the word about what it is and how it would work," Kirby emphasized. "Because if people understand it, they tend to like it."

South Dakota is one of several states where voters will be deciding on nonpartisan primaries, including Arizona, Idaho and Montana.


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.

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."

Groups working for human rights causes in Iowa warn proposed cuts being debated in Congress would trickle down to the people least able to sustain them.

The Trump administration has proposed $880 billion in cuts over the next decade to Medicaid and other services, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Progress Iowa Executive Director Mazie Stilwell said those cuts would fall most squarely on average Iowans, many of them kids, who don't have a voice in the process.

"There is so much fear right now, and it's fear from everyday working Iowans who know there's no one fighting for them," said Stilwell. "It's the Iowans who know that when push comes to shove, and when programs are put on the chopping block, they're the ones who are going to suffer."

The Trump administration has said it is working to downsize the federal government and cut expenses.

About 270,000 Iowans receive SNAP or federal food assistance, and more than 700,000 get their health coverage from Medicaid.

Stilwell contended that Iowans aren't the only ones afraid of potential social service cuts, but politicians are too.

She said she suspects that's one reason they aren't showing up at town hall meetings, that have long been the hallmark of grassroots democracy in the state.

"What we've seen is these members of Congress running away from their constituents," said Stilwell. "They are refusing to answer their questions. They are trying to make a mockery of their constituents and their efforts."

Stilwell said in light of the just-passed income tax filing deadline, Iowans want to know their money is being used to represent their interests - and not to fund tax cuts or corporate interests.

Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Zach Nunn, both Republicans, voted in favor of the measure that would social service programs.