Runoff Election for Governor of South Dakota Tomorrow

Although South Dakota has "South" in its name, it is not in the South, like South Carolina. It didn't secede from the Union in 1861—that wasn't even an option because it wouldn't join the Union for another 38 years. Nevertheless, it has something "southern" about it: It has runoff elections when no candidate gets enough votes in the primary. But SD is not really southern, so it sets the threshold for winning the primary outright at a different level than all the southern states. It is 35% instead of 50%. In the primary, bitcoin evangelist and wealthy businessman Toby Doeden put $4 million of his own money into the election and got 31% to the 25% Gov. Larry Rhoden (R-SD) got. Tomorrow, Doeden has a chance of ousting the governor.

For South Dakota voters, this runoff is obviously a big deal and Republican voter registration has soared since the June primary. Early voting is also way up.

Rhoden is a traditional Reagan-style Republican. He is not especially fond of Donald Trump. Doeden is very MAGA. That could play a role, but so could Rhoden's incumbency, although Rhoden was never elected governor. He was elected Lt. Governor, and when Kristi Noem got out of Dodge (OK, Pierre) and moved to her flying bedroom in D.C., Rhoden became governor.

Doeden's main issue is his plan to eliminate property taxes, starting with owner-occupied property.. His ads attack the governor, who he calls "Lyin' Larry," relentlessly on this issue. Rhoden has called Doeden "reckless." A recent Emerson College poll has Rhoden at 62% and Doeden at 32%. The winner will face Democrat Dan Ahlers in November, but no Democrat has been elected governor of South Dakota since 1975. (V)

Democrats in Array, Launch Lefty Lumberjack

Amazing as it sounds, the Democrats dumped a unsuitable candidate just before an election and found a replacement post-haste and did it with transparency, voter input, and little carping. Troy Jackson is no clone of he-whose-name-shall-no-longer-be-spoken, but his politics are basically the same and that seems to be enough for progressives. He is older, not a great speaker, and doesn't look like a Hollywood working-class hero, even though his ancestors have been chopping down trees roughly since the tree was invented.

Jackson is sort of known in Maine, but not so much. He was president of the state Senate, but let's be honest here. Do you know who is president of your state Senate? See the problem? To a large extent, money can fix that, though. TV and Internet ads depicting Jackson in a flannel shirt with a chainsaw in hand will go a long way here. Projecting that image on radio is a bit tougher and ME-02, which is most of the state, is very rural, so (car) radio is probably the dominant medium there. Still, unlike the now-deposed candidate and Sara Gideon last time, Jackson is from Northern Maine (Allagash, ME). If he had lived 4 miles farther north, he'd be a Canadian, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Sen. Susan Collins (R-MEW) is also from the North, which always was an advantage in ME-02. Jackson cancels that out.

After his win at the state convention, Jackson gave a victory speech. It was all about attacking Collins for being more loyal to corporations than to Mainers. He also noted that in 1996, Collins promised to serve only two terms.

A bigger issue is ICE and the killing of Joan Sebastian Guerrero in Biddeford, ME. Jackson is going to hang that around Collins' neck, due to her supporting ICE and voting to fund it extravagantly.

Republicans will focus on attacking Jackson for having a hot temper, but Jackson could turn that into an advantage. He could say: "Are you angry with how things are going in politics? Well, so am I and I let people know it." They will also call him a communist and the spearpoint of the Red Menace. It worked for Joe McCarthy, so why not now?

Well, for starters, in the 1950s, there was a Red Menace, the Soviet Union. Now Russia is a gas station with nuclear weapons that can't even defeat a mid-sized country with a hastily assembled military. No DSA member (which Jackson is not) sees Russia as a country to envy. The U.S.' main geopolitical enemy now is China, which calls itself communist, but the economy is almost pure unadulterated cutthroat capitalism. Of course, the voters the Republican ads are aiming at are not really much interested in comparing economic systems. All they know is: communism, bad. Will it work? We would guess it won't because there is no Red Menace now as there really was in the 1950s. While the war in Iran is ongoing, the Cold War is over. (V)

Tariffs* Are Now in Effect

Donald Trump just loves him some tariffs. He's not the first person to love tariffs. Former senator Reed Smoot and former representative Willis Hawley did, too. That didn't work out so well for them, but maybe better luck this time. Last year, Trump imposed tariffs on just about every country with people (and a couple with only birds). This was based on a law that gives the president tariff powers in an emergency, so he declared an emergency and levied the tariffs. The Supreme Court was not impressed with this stunt and shot it down.

In response, Trump set the DoJ lawyers to work to find another law giving him the power to levy tariffs. They found one that allows the president to levy tariffs on countries that use forced labor. And this law does not require an emergency. So Trump just declared that over 60 countries use forced labor and imposed tariffs on them. This time Trump is on better legal ground but on worse factual ground. No emergency is needed to invoke this law but he will have to show in court that the tariffed countries use forced labor. For China, that is easy. It really does use forced labor. But Australia? Canada? Norway? Proving that they use forced labor won't be easy, but it will be a year or two before any case gets to the Supreme Court. Then Trump's lawyers will look for a different law to use. Maybe all those laws should be repealed and only Congress can impose tariffs, the way it says in the Constitution? Something for Project 2029?

You know a country besides China that uses forced labor? The United States. Yup. Here is Sec. 1 of the 13th Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. (Our emphasis)

Prisoners may be subjected to involuntary servitude. It says so right there. But does that happen in practice? In the immortal words of Sarah Palin "You betcha." The use of involuntary servitude in prisons is big business. Companies can contract with a state to use prisoners to work for them for pennies an hour. The business amounts to $9 billion a year in services and $2 billion in products. Prisoners who refuse are severely punished. Some people argue that these programs violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but when amendments get into a fight with each other, the one with the highest number wins (e.g. #21 beats #18). People also argue that using prison labor depresses wages for everyone else. Others say that the programs teach prisoners useful skills so they can hold jobs when they get out.

The story about Canada using forced labor is so absurd, there must be more to it. We can think of two things that may be the real reason Trump is doing this. First, the potential for grift. With Trump, grift is always #1. Politico took a close look at the new tariff rules Their reporters found that there are exemptions for 470 products, including some food, farming inputs, seeds, metals, and much more. The tariff wall leaks like a sieve (well, OK, like a screen door). Suppose a company or country wants an exemption and asks Trump about it. He could say: "I'm pretty busy, but Don Jr. is usually responsive to people who buy a LOT of $TRUMP coins, like 1 million or more."

Second, Trump would really like to lock the tariffs in so a future president won't be able to remove them. The way he appears to be doing this is spending all the tariff money in real time. Then if a future president revokes them all, that will blow a giant hole in the budget, with no easy way to plug it. But that depends on how aggressive the next president is. It is possible that the next president says: "The tariffs are raising prices for ordinary Americans so I will revoke them and fill the budget gap by increasing the top income tax rate back to the 91% it was in the 1950s—when America was great, and also set the estate tax at 95% for estates over $100 million and eliminate all the loopholes (e.g., the stepped-up basis)." It is a gamble for Trump.

* - Except where they are not. (V)

Appeals Court Blocks Trump's Attempt to Ban Voting by Mail

Donald Trump fervently believes that absentee voting helps the Democrats, so he wants to curtail it. At least one study shows that this is not true. The study consisted of examining which party did better when Washington, a blue state, and when Utah, a red state, switched to all-mail elections. In both cases, the effect was so small it couldn't be measured. But who cares about facts when you have an opinion?

So Trump signed an XO that tightens the rules on absentee voting. On its face, this is clearly illegal, since the states run elections, not the federal government, and to the extent the federal government plays a role, it is Congress, not the president. Furthermore, XOs are instructions to federal bureaucrats, not to elected state elections officials. Needless to say, the XO ended up in court. A district court ruled that the XO was unconstitutional and enjoined Trump from enforcing the XO. Trump appealed.

On Saturday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to lift the injunction while the case proceeds. Of course, as it gets closer and closer to the election, it will become more and more difficult for any changes in voting procedures to be made. Early voting for the general election in Idaho, Minnesota, South Dakota, and Virginia begins on Sept. 18. Time is getting short, and the courts may stymie Trump for the midterms. Of course, the battle will continue for the 2028 elections. (V)

Trump Wants to Rig the Census--Again

Donald Trump is leaving no stone unturned in his efforts to retain power for himself and the Republican Party. He has tried to rig the decennial census before and is about to start down that road again. What he is trying to do is have the census bureau categorize immigrants, both documented and undocumented ones, as not actually living in the United States. In his eyes, they are just visitors, even if they have been in the country for decades. Not counting immigrants will reduce the number of House seats and electoral votes for states with large numbers of immigrants. Many of them are blue states, but Texas and Florida also have large immigrant populations, which he is apparently forgetting. Maybe immigrants will count there. Here is the announcement of the proposed new rule that will not count immigrants in 2030. So far, almost no one has even noticed.

The Constitution's infamous enumeration clause, Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause 3, begins:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (Our emphasis)

The word it uses is "persons," not "citizens." The founders knew very well that there were noncitizens in the country, yet they used the word "persons." When they meant citizens, they said "citizens." The word "citizens" appears in the original text of the Constitution 11 times. This is probably going to be one of those court cases where the Republican appointees to the Supreme Court say: "What matters are the actual words in the Constitution—except when we don't like what the words say. Then we will 'interpret' them properly."

This is not the first time Trump has tried to use the census for political ends. In Trump v1.0, he tried to insert a question asking if each person enumerated was a citizen. The (secret) goal of having this question was to frighten Latinos into not answering the census questionnaire at all, thus undercounting them. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled against the administration on technical grounds—basically, instructing it to be more careful in the exact wording next time. Now is next time.

The actual text of the rule hasn't been released yet, but it is expected to redefine what "resides" means. A foreign national with a foreign passport living in the U.S., legally or not, would be defined as "residing" in his or her home country for census and reapportionment purposes. As a side benefit, some federal programs allocate money based on population, so not counting immigrants would probably reduce the amount of money going to immigrant-heavy states. Texas and Florida would be hit, too, but Trump could just compensate them some other way, just as he compensates farmers for the loss of foreign sales they are experiencing due to his tariffs.

The "beauty" of this rule is that it sounds so benign. Who but a census taker cares about the exact meaning of "resides"? To most people, that is like whether a college student at Berkeley for 9 months and back "home" in Chicago for 3 months gets to vote in California or Illinois. Or what about a family who is on vacation out of state on Census Day (April 1). Do they "reside" in the state they were on the day of the census or where they usually live? Historically, what has mattered is where someone actually lives.

This is a sleeper issue. Trump is trying to pull a fast one here. The one potential problem for Trump is that on Jan. 20, 2029, a new president could issue an XO ordering the Census Bureau to count all the persons, legal or not, rather than only citizens. There would still be 16 months to carry out this directive. (V)

Is Darline SC's Darling?

Donald Trump wants the sister of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Darline Graham (formerly Darline Graham Nordone), who is now an appointed senator, to run for a full term. She has agreed to file. But she is not a shoo-in, by any means. Trump's endorsement has not even cleared the field. South Carolina Reps. Russell Fry and Ralph Norman are in, along with businessman Mark Lynch and attorney Duke Buckner. And, as of this weekend, famed Appalachian Trail hiker and former governor Mark Sanford is also in.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who is not running, has questioned whether someone who has never held an elective office, or even run a hot dog stand, is qualified to be a U.S. senator. Mace also questioned whether Graham can legally run. South Carolina passed a law requiring candidates to have voted in two of the most recent primaries, but that law is probably unconstitutional, as the Constitution has only three requirements for being a senator: You need to be: (1) at least 30 years old, (2) a resident of the state you are running in, and (3) a U.S. citizen.

Mace is not the only one who is skeptical of Graham, even with Trump's endorsement. Among other problems are these.

• The Name: Lindsey Graham was well known in South Carolina but not universally liked, not even by Republicans. He was a chameleon and inveterate flip-flopper. He acted like he was always afraid of something. State conservatives never liked him. In the June primary, Graham didn't even get 60% of the vote against weak, unknown opponents. If Darling Darline's campaign is going to be: "I am the female Lindsey" that might not be enough. She will probably inherit his vote ceiling, but not his floor.
  
  
• She Is Unknown: No one knows anything about her or her views, and so far she hasn't committed to any debates, Her job involved working with people who are blind. That doesn't scream "fire-breathing Republican." Maybe she is secretly a liberal pretending to be a conservative for 3½ months. Voters may think: "Why take a chance when the other candidates are well vetted?"
  
  
• The Handoff: South Carolina voters don't like having senators pushed down their throats. In both 1954 and 1966, they rejected giving appointed senators a full term. Also, Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette (R-SC) didn't get a promotion, even though the governor and Trump urged voters to give it to her.
  

Another question is money. Lindsey Graham had $2 million in his campaign account. Does Darline inherit that for the fast-approaching primary? If not, she will have to raise money quickly. (V)

DNC Rules Committee Picks Order of 2028 Primaries

Democrats are in array in Maine, but in disarray in DC. The DNC is working out the primary schedule for 2028 and competing factions are up in arms. Black voters want South Carolina to go first. Latino voters want Nevada to go first. The idea is that whoever wins the first or second nominating contest will get the nomination. That is not always the case, as shown by this history:

Iowa Caucuses Year Iowa winner Nominee 1976 "Uncommitted" Jimmy Carter 1980 Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter 1984 Walter Mondale Walter Mondale 1988 Dick Gephardt Mike Dukakis 1992 Tom Harkin Bill Clinton 1996 Bill Clinton Bill Clinton 2000 Al Gore Al Gore 2004 John Kerry John Kerry 2008 Barack Obama Barack Obama 2012 Barack Obama Barack Obama 2016 Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton 2020 Pete Buttigieg Joe Biden 2024 No caucus Joe Biden

New Hampshire primary Year NH winner Nominee 1976 Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter 1980 Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter 1984 Gary Hart Walter Mondale 1988 Mike Dukakis Mike Dukakis 1992 Paul Tsongas Bill Clinton 1996 Bill Clinton Bill Clinton 2000 Al Gore Al Gore 2004 John Kerry John Kerry 2008 Hillary Clinton Barack Obama 2012 Barack Obama Barack Obama 2016 Bernie Sanders Hillary Clinton 2020 Bernie Sanders Joe Biden 2024 Joe Biden Kamala Harris

Much of the time the eventual nominee won at least one of the first two events, but let's not get cause and effect mixed up. Sometimes there is a very strong nominee, like Al Gore in 2000, and so naturally he won both state events. But he won them because he was already very strong. He didn't get the nomination because he won Iowa and New Hampshire.

Nevertheless, South Carolina's DNC members and New Hampshire's both wanted their state to go first. Last week, the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee came up with a schedule to allow six states to hold a primary before Super Tuesday, March 7, 2028. Here is the schedule:

State	Primary date
South Carolina	January 22, 2028
Nevada	February 1, 2028
New Hampshire	February 8, 2028
New Mexico	February 15, 2028
Michigan	February 22, 2028
Virginia	February 29, 2028

Is South Carolina happy now? Yup. For the moment. Assuming this schedule comes to pass (though keep reading), South Carolina Democrats, 60% of whom are Black, will get to pick the nominee from Kamala Harris and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), right? Not exactly. In truly contested primaries, which 2028 will be, the first state tends to eliminate the also-rans rather than picking the winner. In reality, South Carolina might well have been better off staying in the #3 slot, where it could choose among the serious candidates, rather than just winnowing the chaff.

The mix of states is noteworthy. Three of the states are on the East Coast (SC, NH, and VA). Two are Western states (NV and NM). Only one state (MI) is from the middle of the country. One can also ask: "Why Virginia?" What makes it special? Why not neighboring North Carolina, which is a swing state? A candidate who wins Virginia can brag: "I can win deep blue states." Good for you. Being able to say you won North Carolina would be a much stronger recommendation.

Now all we need is for the full DNC to ratify it and we have a schedule, right? Well, no. That's not how it works. States run primaries. Parties run caucuses. The intention was to have all of these be primaries. But primary dates are set by state law. In South Carolina and New Hampshire, the Republicans hold the trifecta. Are they going to set their primary dates to please the Democrats? Don't bet on it. Of course, the DNC could decide to hold caucuses instead of primaries, but the parties pay for caucuses and the DNC is broke. In Nevada, the Democrats control the legislature but the governor is a Republican. If he is reelected in November, then Nevada is also unlike to play ball with the Democrats. If Aaron Ford (D) is elected governor, then problem (probably) solved. In Michigan, control of the legislature and the governor's mansion is up in November. Only in New Mexico and Virginia are the Democrats certain (or nearly certain) to run the show next year.

New Hampshire is a special problem since state law says it has to go first. How is the DNC going to make sure none of the ambitious candidates run there to get a jump on the others? The DNC could threaten to keep them off the stage for debates if they file, but what if the New Hampshire secretary of state just compiles the ballot on his own, listing all the candidates without regard to whether they want to be on the ballot? Then what?

Having South Carolina, with its heavily Black Democratic electorate, go first may pose a problem for some of the candidates. Pete Buttigieg knows that many Black voters do not approve of homosexuality. He might just visit the state and Nevada a couple of times and then focus mostly on virtually all-white libertarian New Hampshire. Other candidates who don't think they will do well with Black voters in a primary may also drop in to show the flag a couple of times, but mostly campaign elsewhere. The whole stunt of putting South Carolina first could backfire if many of the candidates de facto barely show up. Then winning won't mean as much.

One thing the DNC is proud of is how diverse the pre-Super Tuesday electorate will be compared to 2020. Among other things, the 2028 pre-Super Tuesday electorate will have:

• 4.6 million Black voters in the early states (up from 1.8 million)
• 4.2 million Latino voters in the early states (up from 1.8 million)
• 1.4 million AAPI voters in the early states (up from 500K)
• 370K Native American voters (up from 90K)
• 14 million noncollege grads (up from 6.3 million)
• 2.8 million kids (18-24) (up from 1.2 million)
• 1.1 million union members (up from 400K)
• 2.1 million veterans (up from 900K)

Of course, there are simply more voters this time, since two large states have been tacked onto the end, after the fab four. Nevertheless, if the exit polls are processed fast enough, by Super Tuesday it should be clear how the various demographic groups line up.

The planned Republican sequence is probably the usual one: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. However, South Carolina might be willing to move into the #3 slot because all Republicans in the state are white and South Carolina is a surefire win in November whereas Nevada is a crapshoot.

The New York Times has an article listing 60 potential candidates for both parties combined. It is pretty comprehensive, but history shows that people not on anyone's radar 2 years in advance sometimes pop up. Many will be winnowed in the invisible primary next year, when they discover the donors don't like them. The thing that stops nearly all candidacies is that the money never materializes or dries up. It almost never happens that a candidate says: "On second thought, I wouldn't be a very good president, senator, etc." (V)

Poll: Vance's Lead over Rubio Narrows

Emerson College ran a poll asking voters who they want as the candidate of their party. Here are the results:

Democrats
Candidate	Pct.
Pete Buttigieg	19%
Gavin Newsom	17%
Jon Ossoff	13%
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez	13%
Kamala Harris	8%
Andy Beshear	7%
Josh Shapiro	5%
J.B. Pritzker	3%
Ro Khanna	2%
Someone else	3%
Undecided	13%

Republicans
Candidate	Pct.
J.D. Vance	39%
Marco Rubio	38%
Ron DeSantis	5%
Donald Trump Jr.	5%
Undecided	9%

Compared to earlier this year, on the Democratic side, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and Kamala Harris are losing altitude. Neither one deserved to be as high as they were, so this is gravity kicking in. Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) is the new flavor of the month. If he wins Georgia in a landslide, that will suddenly make him an actual serious contender. Also, because he won't be up in 2028, he could chance it and have nothing to lose. If Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) decides to run for the Senate, Ossoff could inherit much of the support of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and could be a bridge between the wings of the party. One big criticism of this poll, though, is that neither of the Arizona senators were on the list. Both are potential serious candidates.

On the Republican side, J.D. Vance is dropping like a stone. He was at 53% at one point. The war in Iran is doing him no good. Also, in the charisma department, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) beats him hands down right now—and we don't even know if McConnell is alive. Sarah Longwell of The Bulwark said that voters in her focus groups are constantly telling her "Vance gives me the willies."

The Republican list omitted quite a few folks who might decide to run, including Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA), former NH governor Chris Sununu, and former VA governor Glenn Youngkin. But don't take any of this too seriously. It is much too early. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger