This interview originally aired on "In the Moment" on SDPB Radio.
The election is officially less than a week away. The countdown clock is ticking a little louder now.
Before it runs out, our Dakota Political Junkies bring us a news roundup and one more look at what's on your ballot this Tuesday.
Seth Tupper is editor-in-chief of South Dakota Searchlight. Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen is co-host of the weekly political podcast Dakota Town Hall.
____________________________________________________________
The following transcript was auto-generated and edited for clarity.
Lori Walsh:
Seth Tupper, it all starts with the US House, which is a statewide election. Dusty Johnson, the incumbent Republican and his challenger, Democrat Sheryl Johnson. What has stood out to you about this race?
Seth Tupper:
Well, top of mind for me, we recently did a story on the money aspect of this and it just reflects the lead that Dusty Johnson has. He has, between his campaign committee and all of his political action committees, almost $6 million.
And then I think Sheryl Johnson raised about 170. And obviously, the money race isn't everything, but it's reflective of the fact that this was a rather large uphill battle for Sheryl Johnson, the Democratic nominee in a state where Republicans far outnumber Democrats against a guy who's going for his fourth term and is an incumbent Republican in a Republican state who already had a bunch of money coming into the race and she started from zero. So just a tough uphill climb.
But for Democrats, it's sad to say, but at least they fielded a candidate this time. Last time, I think he just ran against the Libertarian in the general election and that was it. They didn't have a Democratic nominee.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Oh, that's right. Collin Duprel, that's who that was.
Seth Tupper:
So there's that. The Democrats got somebody on the ballot, I guess.
Lori Walsh:
So Seth, okay, I mean, all joking aside, the infrastructure of the party and the ability to raise money, the lack of investment from the Democratic National Party, what's going on with that in South Dakota and do you see it changing anytime soon?
Seth Tupper:
I don't really. I mean, who knows what the future holds? I mean, every election when the Democrats don't do very well in South Dakota, we all have the stories saying is this the death of the Democratic Party?
Well, if you look at history, these things are cyclical, and there have been times where Democrats have had opportunities to make gains and they've seized those opportunities, and that might happen again. Who knows? But as we sit here today, do we have an indication that that's going to happen? Probably not.
But if Vice President Harris wins and we have a Democratic president for eight years, and maybe Democrats can piggyback on that and make some gains. Who knows?
Lori Walsh:
Right. Murdoc, anything you want to say about Dusty Johnson as a candidate? He's hard to beat.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Hard to beat. To your guys' point about the party, I think the Democratic Party's focus has been about what district race they could pick up more than anything. I mean, Democrats that I talk to talk about district races. They don't talk about Dusty's race.
Lori Walsh:
All right, so South Dakota Senate, South Dakota House of Representatives, that's going to be different depending on what district you're on.
Seth, where can people find out more about their district candidates?
Seth Tupper:
Yeah, we have a handy dandy guide on our website. Our voter guide.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
It is good too, by the way. If I could also give it a plug.
Seth Tupper:
Thank you.
Where the candidates are listed and you can find links to the legislative maps and that kind of thing. But yeah, there do appear to be some districts around the state. In Sioux Falls, there are some districts where the numbers of Republicans versus Democrat versus Independent registered voters are a little more even. And so the races there are more competitive, and there are some Democrats running hard.
Here in Rapid City, we have a couple of Democratic candidates in the city for legislature that are running hard.
There's a Democrat running down in the Yankton area to try to replace Republican Jean Hunhoff, who was upset in the primary, maybe opening the door for a Democrat down there.
So I think that's right. Democrats do have some hope of maybe making some headway in the legislature this year, but I think they only have 11 members of the 105 member legislature right now. So even making gains, they'd still be at a huge disadvantage.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
More U-Hauls in Pierre than elected Democrats in Pierre.
Lori Walsh:
Murdoc, any Senate or State House races that you have your eye on in any of the districts you think are particularly good to watch?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
32, 15, like Seth mentioned, I think it's a harder race for Arch Beal than it probably has been and probably for Larry Zickman.
I think the race I find interesting is 34. Taffy Howard, who is certainly a namesake of the more right end of the Republican, if it's fair to say the Republican has a schism. And so can Two Bulls pull it off as a Democrat in 34 in a historically more moderate Republican district? I think that's an interesting race to watch.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah, I'm always watching 10 and 14 because I was in 14 and now I've been pushed to 10, and so I'm just watching close to home how some of those candidates have moved across the street essentially and how those districts will shake out after being redistricted.
All right, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. Seth, tell me a little bit about these candidates because they can't quite campaign like everyone else can campaign.
Seth Tupper:
Yeah, that's a little bit of a bizarre nature of this race. Kristie Fiegen, a Republican who's been on the commission for quite some time, I think she was appointed in 2011, is running for reelection, and the Democrats nominated a guy named Forrest Wilson, who's from out here in the Black Hills as their nominee. And then Gideon Oakes is running as a Libertarian.
And so what you mentioned there, I think is referencing the fact that especially Commissioner Fiegen has been hesitant to talk about any issues that are either before the commission or might come before the commission because the commission sits as like a quasi-judicial body where they have to regulate rates and disputes and that kind of thing. And so she doesn't want to comment on anything that's actually before the commission. So that's made it hard to get specific answers sometimes out of the candidates in that race.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah, South Dakota, Supreme Court retention. Murdoc, what's this all about? This is another easy one.
I wouldn't say it's easy to decide. I'm just saying it's not a super complicated race.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
It's not a complicated race. I think it's also something that the state has always been able to trust, right? Oh, well, they're there. They'll vote. It's one person.
I've noticed lately, if you pay attention to any politics in South Dakota for a while in a community or in a statewide group, you'll find a Facebook group that's of a certain political alignment one way or the other. And boy, they're really paying attention to this race, I notice. They spend all day posting about this, and they're just hyper into it and they're digging into what looked to me like, wow, they're really going after personal votes. Or how do you think they stand on this weird Facebook post that the judge has made in the past that might not matter to this at all? It is interesting how they're sleuths of sorts.
Lori Walsh:
So essentially, once somebody is on the South Dakota Supreme Court every three years after appointment and eight years after that, the voters get to say should we retain this person? Which is presumably an opportunity to get rid of someone who is corrupt or has some kind of personal issue during that time.
Seth, anything that you would add to the retention? Except it's on your ballot.
Seth Tupper:
Those folks on Facebook have quite an uphill battle, I think, too. This is just a yes or no vote to keep him or get rid of him, basically.
Lori Walsh:
Right. It would be very unusual to have him not retained. All right, president of the United States.
Who's on the South Dakota of ballot? You get some choices here, Seth.
Seth Tupper:
Yeah. I think the interesting thing that people will be surprised about is that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is still on the ballot because he did not withdraw before the deadline to withdraw from our ballot.
And what you'll see on the ballot is actually the presidential electors, the people who will cast the electoral college votes if this person or that person wins. But basically Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, a libertarian named Chase Oliver and then RFK Jr., who's on the ballot but isn't actually running.
Lori Walsh:
All right, here we are. The meat of the thing, which is the ballot measures.
Question one, updating gender references in the state Constitution. What's going on here? Seth, we saw this come out of last legislative session.
Seth Tupper:
Yeah. So it was kind of like a dual two-pronged thing where the legislature did update a bunch of references in our codified laws that were old references dating in some cases back to statehood, where people assumed only a man would ever hold office in South Dakota. And so they updated a lot of those reference to more neutral language, like instead of saying, "he" they just change it to the governor or whatever. And so they passed that and that had a broad support in the legislature and Governor Kristi Noem signed it.
But to change those references in the Constitution, that has to go to a public vote. So they put that on the ballot and that's what we're voting on. Basically, making similar changes in the Constitution. A lot of instances where it might say he, him or his, just changing those to more neutral terms like the governor or things like that.
Lori Walsh:
Right. All right. Murdoc, there was some polling on this.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Surprising polling, I thought.
Lori Walsh:
Like 80% of voters are like, nope, we don't want that. What's going on there?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
What's interesting to me is the swing of this, right? If you would've took the anecdotal coffee shop poll in South Dakota in April, I think this thing passes, and now it is a woke thing, right?
Lori Walsh:
Somebody thinks it's a woke thing and they don't have patience for it.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
The way the ballot is written when you read it. And I think that then language shares some talking points on some of the more cable news type aspects of it. And rather than taking a position on it one way or the other, I just think it's an, "ooh, no, that's a Constitutional Amendment." It's a little too scary.
Lori Walsh:
Interesting. Not a lot of consequences to it either way, Seth, although an interesting commentary on how we're reading it.
Seth Tupper:
Yeah, I think it's more just a litmus test on do people actually read the ballot measure or do they just have a knee-jerk reaction to what they think it's about? It'll be interesting to see how that plays out for that reason.
Lori Walsh:
All right. Question two is Amendment F, Medicaid work requirements.
Seth, what's going on here?
Seth Tupper:
In the past, South Dakota voters passed a ballot issue expanding Medicaid eligibility. That came with, I guess, a prohibition on further restrictions. The legislature came back this year and said, "We'd like to have the option to put work requirements on people that get expanded Medicaid." And so since this is in the state Constitution, again, that has to go to voters. So they put that on the ballot, essentially asking voters, "Would you give us permission to consider imposing work requirements on people that get this expanded Medicaid eligibility?"
Lori Walsh:
All right, let's look at question three. Abortion rights, Murdoc?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Oh, sure. I'd love to start there.
Seth Tupper:
You take that one.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Sure, kick it over to the three dudes in the Rapid City studio. We'd love to talk at length.
Lori Walsh:
This is an audio voter guide. There's an intentional simplicity about this for people who are just starting to pay attention. So no, we don't have to do an hour, but what exactly does the Amendment say? Help walk us through that.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
So G, is as described, it's an initiated amendment establishing a right to abortion.
Lori Walsh:
I'll just jump in and say one of the delightful things as a woman is to watch all the male reporters have to talk about this.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Watch us dance around it?
Well, it puts abortion into a constitutional right. There are certainly some polling that's undecided on this, but it's certainly one of the, it's probably the most expensive ballot issue, maybe the most money raised. And it's historically something people are one issue voters on.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah, go listen to the Lee Strubinger podcast "Unplanned Democracy."
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Wonderful plug.
Lori Walsh:
It builds on the work of Denise Ross, the wonderful journalist who is no longer with us. Her television documentary, which you can also find, really dives deep into this.
But Seth, to Murdoc's point about the money and how expensive this is. And the polling shows it's too close to call. We really don't have any idea how this is going to shake out on Election Day, do we? But we also know that a lot of people are invested in it.
Seth Tupper:
Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we just had a story recently where a group out of Illinois, a political nonprofit that was founded by the Democratic governor there contributed $500,000 to this, just a week and a half to go to the election or something. So we might see more of that still. I mean, there could still be money pouring into that. And I think that's an indication of how close it is that both sides see it's close and they realize that there's an opportunity here that might not come around again for a long time, and they're trying to do everything they possibly can to sway it one way or the other.
Lori Walsh:
Most of the ads and billboards and flyers that I've seen around Sioux Falls are kind of what I've seen in the past about when a heartbeat begins and parental responsibility and love of children. I haven't seen a ton of nastiness about this.
What are you guys getting out in your neck of the woods for campaign materials?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
I think it's maybe one of the few instances where this topic has almost been purposely not negative. Again, anecdotally in South Dakota, it seemed like it was more popular, and then the popularity of it slowed as the election got tighter. And I think that goes to the money raised at this thing.
Lori Walsh:
I did see my first sign that said "G for Girls," so it was a yes for G, and it had little cartoon characters of girls, which I thought was interesting and new, but most of everything that I've seen has been very consistent with what I've seen in the past.
So I'm curious, Seth, have you seen anything that has made you turn your head and say, wait, what is that? How are they positioning that?
Seth Tupper:
Really, the only thing, what I've noticed really is as far as the no side had the advantage for a long time in fundraising and was advertising and really was winning the advertising race. And then the funny thing was the other night I saw a commercial on TV that was the first time I had seen a yes on G commercial, and I thought they must've gotten some money. And then we found out the next morning they had gotten the $500,000 from this group in Illinois. And that was an ad that was trying to refute point by point all the things that the yes on G side had said. So that's really been the main thing I've noticed with the advertising is one side seemed to be dominating the advertising for a long time, and all of a sudden it's maybe back. The yes on G side has pushed back a little bit.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah, so I saw that one when we were watching the USD-SDSU football game on a bank of TVs in the restaurant. All the campaign videos were playing and you had these really starkly different views of what a Trump presidency is going to look like versus what a Harris presidency is going to look like. And of course, no sound on them. So that was kind of out of body experience to watch that in the background.
And then I saw the yes on G thing with subtitles, and I was surprised to see it in that context too. Like you Seth, I hadn't seen any television ads for G in the past, and here they are. So I mean, a lot can happen in a week, right?
Seth Tupper:
Yeah.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
It's an eternity.
Seth Tupper:
Especially when with $500,000 shows up.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
That's a lot of ads in a week.
Lori Walsh:
Amendment H, open primaries. Oh, we could talk about how they're marketing the top-two primary stuff for a long time. Who wants to start with the ad campaign for open primaries, yes and no?
Murdoc, why don't you begin this one? What's going on here?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Well, what's interesting about the no is that there hasn't been much, but it's easier to do the No, I think on this issue because it's a complicated ask. Open primaries.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah, but they just say, "No on H." And it's like, well that doesn't even tell me what H is.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
That works in South Dakota though. They don't have to be right. They just have to say no.
Lori Walsh:
I think that's a fair point. I hadn't thought of that.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
We're just conservative. We don't change our Constitution easily. And so you really got to prove it.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah, fair.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
And then too, I think the yes on H's side, call it bad luck, whatever you want, but I think they got some blow back on the veterans ad campaign.
Lori Walsh:
Don't get me started.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
With an issue like this, you have to reach the low, I don't mean that as an insult, but you have to reach the disengaged and uninterested on this topic to get them to your side. I just think that takes such a unique pitch to any state, not just South Dakota
Lori Walsh:
And Seth, this is a moment where the yes on H for open primaries, they send out these pamphlets that have people with tape over their mouths and you're silencing the votes of all these people. And so they just had a veteran, a person in a uniform which was not appropriately done, with tape saying they're silencing our veterans. But that didn't come from the South Dakota campaign.
So help people understand Seth a little bit about where some of this stuff that ends up in your mailbox comes from. It isn't necessarily from the South Dakota open primaries people.
Seth Tupper:
Right? I've gotten a bunch of those postcards, you guys probably have too, with the ads based on veterans. You have to look at the fine print. The fine print at the bottom says that it came from a group called Article IV, which is a political nonprofit in Virginia. That's kind of, as far as I can tell, your classic dark money group. It's a nonprofit that doesn't have to disclose its donors, and we don't have any limits on contributions to ballot question committees in South Dakota, so they can kind of just waltz in here and spend as much as they want, and that's what they're doing.
And then obviously the official ballot question committee that's supporting Amendment H has been doing its own ads as well. But if you're the average everyday voter, it's pretty hard to distinguish between who's doing what.
Lori Walsh:
We've had this before. Can an outside group sink a South Dakota campaign by misleading the electorate?
Seth Tupper:
Absolutely, yeah.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Common practice. It has a long history of success, I think.
Lori Walsh:
Example?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
District Republicans are this conservative because of a lot of outside money. I mean, you add up the money in Republican primaries and a lot of it is South Dakota money but a lot of the more negative, really harsh PAC ads come from out-of-state attacks.
Seth Tupper:
Yeah. An example I think of out-of-state money working is actually the one I always think of is Marsy's Law, back in, I think it was 2016, a guy from California spent I think $2 million of his own money to put that on the ballot and do all the advertising. It passed.
Lori Walsh:
IM 28. This is the human consumption tax. Murdoc, we'll start with you because when we get to marijuana, we got to start with Seth.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Right? Fair enough. I could sit 29 out too, full disclosure.
I guess when I think about Initiated Measure 28 on a campaign level, I look at no on 28's ability to get 400 organizations or whatever it is. And then their ability to go whistle-stop tour. Every public hearing, I think, is a testament to that campaign. That campaign has the traditional run the billboards, get the signs, run the ads, but they also have that more classic campaign of make sure you talk to every voter. You can door-to-door retail politics, I think is going to be what gets that home.
Lori Walsh:
Seth, what would you add to that?
Seth Tupper:
Yeah, I totally agree. I mean, this is something that you would expect would be widely popular. Hey, let's get rid of a tax, right? Do you want taxes on your groceries? Nope.
So the fact that it's close and could fail, I guess is a testament to the no side's ability to really get out and then do exactly what Murdoc was just talking about.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
That, or at least leverage the scare threat of an income tax, which is universally unpopular, I think that we found.
Lori Walsh:
Right. So Seth, to Murdoc's point about the idea of running a billboard about say no on H, and maybe that's all you have to do.
I know someone who had someone come to the door looking for a vote in a district, and then before he left, he said, "These ballot questions? Vote no on all of them." How common is the vote no on everything? Make your job easier. Straight party line, a straight-no vote.
Seth Tupper:
I'm glad you brought that up because yeah, I've just been noticing that surprisingly, how many of those signs I've seen in Rapid City that say vote no on everything.
Lori Walsh:
Really? I haven't seen any of those here.
Seth Tupper:
Yes, there's quite a few and I don't know how big of a group that represents, but there's definitely kind of a subgroup of people who are just committed to vote no. There's also some that are yes on these two, no on everything else, but I have seen lately quite a few vote no on everything signs. So there's some of a little movement out there.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
I also pay attention to unique lawn setups where you'll see, for example, you'll see a Mike Derby sign, even though he doesn't even have a race or opposition, and you'll see a yes on 29 or a no on 28 and a yes on G. I'm seeing the most variety of lawn signs and I'm so interested in how those get negotiated at the kitchen table and what a subset of democracy that is, right?
Lori Walsh:
I have to drive around again this weekend and take a look, but I just haven't seen as many signs in my neighborhood as I have seen in the past. I think I can say that safely. There are some, but maybe like four. It's just not a neighborhood filled with signs right now, and I find that curious too.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
You've stumbled on why I haven't slept much in the last couple of weeks.
Lori Walsh:
Let's talk about Initiated Measure 29, recreational marijuana, because this is something that you care about personally and have been involved in. So we're going to go to Seth for an overview of what's happening with IM 29.
Seth Tupper:
Yeah. Now I'm nervous here sitting and talking about this with Murdoc sitting here.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
No, no. You'll notice I'm the nice one of the bunch.
Seth Tupper:
But basically, we already have a medical marijuana program in the state. Initiated Measure 29 would establish a limited form of adult-use recreational marijuana.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
That's exactly right.
Seth Tupper:
To de-criminalize that, basically. And it would not open up sales immediately. Legislature would have to consider that later. But basically that's what we're saying it should be, I guess I think of it as decriminalize a limited form of adult use and possession of marijuana and distribution is in there too, but it just means that you could give somebody marijuana and that wouldn't be illegal.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Yeah. Can you be 21 and use it? Is I guess the most simple explanation I have for it.
Lori Walsh:
Right? Yeah. And the polling data, what are we seeing about this, Murdoc?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
It's receding my hairline, Lori.
This is going to be tight. We are a conservative state. This is something I think you have to realize that the state of South Dakota is never going to have a large amount of care for the dispensary industry. So on the surface, I think it's can 21-year-old and up adults use this like 24 other states? We decide.
Lori Walsh:
How much has the IM 28 tax on human consumption debate impacted the IM 29 recreational marijuana, and will it be able to be taxed? How much of those things have been tied together in the public consciousness?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Great question. I think the no side on 28, people have tried to use it to sow confusion. I think everybody on either side of both yes and no on 29 will, if you strap them up to the lie detector, they will say, "Well, of course this will be taxed. It has to be." And so I think that's more campaign fodder than anything.
Lori Walsh:
All right. Referred Law 29, pipeline regulations. Our final ballot question. Seth, this is one where I saw nothing but no. And now all of a sudden, here comes the yeses.
Seth Tupper:
Yeah. I think you said 29.
Lori Walsh:
Yes. Oh, wait, yes.
Seth Tupper:
Yes. Referred Law 21.
Lori Walsh:
21. Referred Law 21, pipeline regulations.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
I wasn't going to correct her.
Lori Walsh:
Somebody's got to.
Seth Tupper:
As journalists, we always get these calls, I'm sure you get this and we all get it, people call us, "What's the deal with these ballot questions?"
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
"What is going on here?"
Seth Tupper:
I think you probably agree. This is the most difficult one to explain.
Lori Walsh:
Oh yeah. Everybody just says, "Well, which way should I vote?" I'm like, I'm not going to tell you how to vote.
Seth Tupper:
Exactly. Me too. And then I tell them something, and, "No, but how should I vote?"
Lori Walsh:
But how should I vote? Or who do I agree with if I vote?
Seth Tupper:
Yeah.
Lori Walsh:
That's the next thing. "Well, whose side am I on if I vote yes? And whose side am I on if I vote no?"
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Isn't that an interesting way to phrase how we decide on these ballot issues? You almost go to the internet to check your team and then you know now what to decide.
Lori Walsh:
Exactly. Wink, wink. "How is my team voting?" I'm like, "I'm not helping you here." Okay, now enough of the kids' table.
Seth, tell us.
Seth Tupper:
Boy, it's a really long story with Referred Law 21. I'll try to make that as short as I can. There's a proposal out there to build a carbon pipeline connecting a whole bunch of ethanol plants in the Midwest to capture some of their carbon dioxide, keep it out of the atmosphere, and take it up to North Dakota and bury it where it won't warm the atmosphere.
And that's created a lot of controversy because it would cross private property. And there's some landowners who don't want that pipeline on their property. And what we got from the legislature last winter was a bill that basically tried to thread the needle and said, "We're going to implement some protections for landowners and counties that are affected by these pipelines, but we're not going to close the door on this pipeline by banning eminent domain or anything like that."
So opponents of the pipeline referred this to the ballot. And so we're voting on that law that the legislature and Governor Noem signed into law last winter on regulations.
Lori Walsh:
One of the questions I keep getting asked is, "Well, is it for the farmers?" I'm like, "Well, it depends."
Seth Tupper:
Right? It is important to note that there are some landowners and farmers along this route who have signed easements and are totally fine with this. And there are others who are totally against it and don't want this at all.
And so, yeah, it definitely depends on who you talk to.
Lori Walsh:
All right, so I think we had most of our conversation with the idea that if you're going to the ballot box you have looked at some of this before.
Let's talk about undecided voters. Who is undecided? Anyone? Is anyone undecided at this point?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Disengaged, and I don't mean uninformed, but certainly people who would consider themselves informed yet maybe not political, who have kids in the house, so there are stresses in their lives that just day in and day out never come to at the dinner table that you're talking about parent-teacher conferences and bills and whatever. So there's a certain age bracket and certain disengagement of it all. And I just don't think, I mean, they might know where they sit on a single subject that's got a lot of passion like G or 29, but 21 is complicated, 28 is complicated and F can be complicated. And so I just don't know if they've taken the time.
I feel like most of these people feel like they can read the ballot in the ballot box and then decide.
Lori Walsh:
Seth, undecided voters. What do you think?
Seth Tupper:
Yeah, I agree. I think on the ballot questions, there are a lot of undecided voters because yeah, not only are they, some of them complicated, but some of them just don't fall easily into the typical, I'm a liberal or I'm a conservative type of camp.
When you look at things like open primaries or the pipeline Referred Law 21 or even necessarily marijuana when we've had such changing attitudes about marijuana over the last 20 years, I think even people who've taken the time to research and understand these questions, they just still don't know how they feel about it. And so they're having trouble deciding.
And like I said before, I think I've gotten that a lot from people I know that they're just like, "Okay, now you've told me everything about this ballot issue, but I still don't know how I'm going to vote." I've gotten that a lot this year.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
I also think the quiet decided voter is hiding as an undecided voter. It's just easier. It's not your life. You don't want to make it your life. And in the same sense where a father will in hushed tones admit to his daughter that he's voting for Harris or an elder female who has historically had a pro-life stance might change her mind on this vote, I think those two types of demos are a little hard to get a proper polling on.
Lori Walsh:
Right. Yeah. I've had several women tell me, don't tell my husband, but I'm voting for my daughter.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
And there's the 4% where we don't know inside of every margin of error that every poll has been put out so far. Right?
Lori Walsh:
And then there's a whole lot of people, like I said, who aren't putting up signs because it's none of your business who I'm voting for. And so I don't know, I guess we can still have our block party. Nobody knows how anybody voted. I don't know.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Like a silent disco.
Lori Walsh:
Exactly. All right. What are you looking for heading into election day? Any last minute things? Any predictions that you think we're going to see this final week? How long do you think it will take for us to get results? That sort of stuff. What do you want to leave us with?
Seth Tupper:
Well, I'd say I'm looking at the money, obviously we just posted a story before we started about another $400,000 that came into the pipeline campaign.
So there's just money pouring in all the time on these ballot issues trying to influence people. We're trying to watch that where the money comes from so people know who's trying to influence your vote and that kind of thing. And then I guess beyond that, obviously the results, but we've been talking a lot lately at Searchlight and part of our national group is the election. It'd be nice if Election Day was the finish, but it's really just the beginning.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
It's the beginning.
Seth Tupper:
And that if the marijuana law passes, then the legislature is going to have to consider do they want to legalize sales? And if Donald Trump wins the presidency, is our governor headed for a cabinet post in Washington?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Yeah.
Seth Tupper:
And on down the line, it seems like every one of these things on the ballot comes with something else that is triggered after the election.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
We treat it like a football game that you watch and you have a halftime for and you eat your snacks. And we won't know a lot of things on election night. I guess in the last week, I've been telling so many people that I have 22-year-old twins. They're stressed. This is new. They're so stressed. And so I reminded them a couple of years before they were born, we didn't pick a president until December in 2000. Right? And so there is some precedent for this.
Lori Walsh:
Let me tell you about the hanging chads.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Yeah, get off my lawn. But I was thinking anything I could do to try to put some calmness in it.
Lori Walsh:
Did it work or did make them feel worse?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
No, not really. They probably just made fun of me on TikTok.
Lori Walsh:
Is there any reason that there would be a special session, for example, if the food taxes or the human consumables tax is repealed? Does Governor Kristi Noem have any reason to call lawmakers together before the new lawmakers come in January?
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
You want to go first or you want me to?
Seth Tupper:
I would just say, that's a great question that I don't know the answer to. Yeah, I don't know.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Boy, maybe she'd want to, but it'd been easier to do before the book fiasco and that would be a little harder now.
Lori Walsh:
Say more, because if you're an outgoing, if you were primaried out and she says, I mean, isn't that pressure coming from the lawmakers themselves to say, "Hey, we made the budget. You better call a special session."
I mean, isn't she going to get pressure from lawmakers for that?
Seth Tupper:
I think the first thing that'll happen if I try to think it through is because there's so much debate over what Initiated Measure 28 actually says and means that the Department of Revenue is going to turn to its lawyers, and the state government in general is going to turn to the Attorney General Marty Jackley. And then they're going to have to figure out immediately what is our official position on what this actually says and what do we think it says? And then that's going to determine what happens next.
Are they going to take the position that you can't tax food if you're a city? You can't tax groceries? Well that's a pretty big deal. Or are they going to take the position that it says what the backers intended and it's very limited. So I don't know. And maybe they've done that work already, I suppose. I don't know.
Lori Walsh:
Well, you would hope.
Seth Tupper:
But I think the first thing that has to happen is somebody has to decide what we think this thing says.
Lori Walsh:
Pre-planning.
Brad "Murdoc" Jurgensen:
Well, let me put a little twist of lime on it, too. Make a list of lame duck reps and senators going out. Most of them want to run again, so they're not going to do anything. Think of the negative mailer that gets put out against you if you vote for something in a special session, right? I mean, as a lame duck you'll just get murdered.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah. All right. Lee Strubinger, are you there?
Lee Strubinger:
Oh, yeah.
Lori Walsh:
Yeah. All right. We're in podcast mode, so this isn't going to go in the air. It's all podcast. Jump in here. Any predictions for the week leading up to election day? Anything you're watching?
Lee Strubinger:
No.
[Laughter]
Lori Walsh:
Thank you for listening. This has been the Dakota Political Junkies Podcast. I'm Lori Walsh.
[Laughter]
