SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – In a rare and striking political maneuver, South Dakota’s incumbent Republican Secretary of State, Monae Johnson, has publicly broken ranks with her party to endorse her Democratic opponent, Terrence Davis, in the upcoming election. Johnson, who lost her bid for re-nomination at the state GOP convention in June, declared that "the integrity, stability, and professionalism of this office is at stake," sending ripples through the deeply conservative political landscape of South Dakota. Her endorsement marks a significant moment, highlighting the growing partisan divide over election administration and the foundational principles of democratic processes.
The move comes after Johnson was defeated by Heather Baxter, a state lawmaker whose campaign has openly aligned with former President Donald Trump’s concerns regarding election veracity, specifically citing "inaccurate voter rolls, mail-in ballots, and voting machine issues." Baxter’s previous statements and legislative actions, including a failed bill to prohibit automatic tabulating systems and an earlier website advocating for hand-counted ballots, have positioned her firmly within the "election integrity" movement that emerged following the 2020 presidential election.
Johnson, a Republican herself, justified her controversial decision by emphasizing Davis’s qualifications, particularly his background in law enforcement as a state trooper and his educational expertise in law and policy. This unexpected cross-party endorsement underscores a critical juncture in South Dakota politics, where traditional party loyalties are seemingly being tested by fundamental disagreements over the administration and perceived legitimacy of elections.
A Republican Endorses a Democrat: The Main Facts Unfold
The central narrative of this developing story is the unprecedented endorsement by a sitting Republican Secretary of State of a candidate from the opposing party. Monae Johnson’s public statement, published in the conservative blog "South Dakota War College" over the weekend, left no room for ambiguity: "I am a Republican. Terrence is a Democrat. I understand that this decision will disappoint some people in my party and anger others." The gravity of her words underscores a profound concern that transcends typical partisan rivalries.
Johnson’s decision is rooted in a perceived threat to the "integrity, stability, and professionalism" of an office traditionally viewed as non-partisan in its administrative functions. The Secretary of State in South Dakota, like in many other states, is the chief election official, responsible for overseeing voter registration, managing election procedures, certifying results, and maintaining public trust in the electoral system. This role demands an unwavering commitment to impartiality and adherence to established legal frameworks.
Her chosen successor, Democrat Terrence Davis, is presented by Johnson as the candidate best equipped to uphold these vital principles. Davis’s background in law enforcement, specifically as a state trooper, brings a dimension of practical experience in upholding laws and maintaining order. Coupled with his educational foundation in law and policy, Johnson posits that Davis possesses the requisite understanding and temperament to navigate the complexities of election administration fairly and professionally.
The contrasting figure in this political drama is Heather Baxter, the Republican nominee who ousted Johnson at the state convention. Baxter’s campaign rhetoric and legislative history align closely with a national movement that questions the security and accuracy of modern voting systems. Her initial advocacy for hand-counting ballots and her sponsorship of legislation to ban electronic tabulators reflect a broader distrust in automated election processes – a distrust often fueled by unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud in recent elections. This ideological chasm appears to be the primary motivator behind Johnson’s extraordinary endorsement, signaling a deeper conflict within the Republican Party itself regarding the future of election oversight.
A Chronology of Discontent and Defiance
The roots of this political fissure can be traced back to Monae Johnson’s own path to the Secretary of State’s office and the controversies that marked her tenure.
2022 Campaign and Initial Concerns: When Johnson first campaigned for the position in 2022, she herself raised eyebrows. During her campaign, she notably refused to explicitly state that Democrat Joe Biden had won the 2020 presidential election, instead focusing her messaging on "election integrity." This phrase, while seemingly innocuous, had become a coded term often employed by individuals and groups propagating conspiracy theories about the 2020 election outcome. Her stance at the time indicated a willingness to engage with narratives that sowed doubt about election results, an irony not lost on observers given her current pivot.
Controversies During Tenure: Johnson’s time in office was not without its challenges. Early last year, her office faced significant criticism after accidentally releasing sensitive personal information from the state’s voter rolls, including data indicating whether individuals were receiving government assistance like food aid. This incident sparked concerns about data security and administrative competence.
Further, Jim Eschenbaum, the chair of the South Dakota Republican Party, revealed a crucial point of contention that contributed to Johnson’s downfall within her own party. Eschenbaum stated that GOP delegates grew "soured" on Johnson after she failed to appear before a legislative committee to answer questions regarding a contract her office had awarded to an electronic poll book company. Her refusal to cooperate eventually led to her being issued a subpoena, a serious rebuke for an elected official. This administrative misstep and perceived lack of transparency likely damaged her standing with party faithful who prioritize accountability.
The June 2024 GOP Convention: Against this backdrop of past controversies and a shifting political landscape, Johnson faced a challenge at the state GOP convention in June. She ultimately lost the nomination to Heather Baxter, a state lawmaker who capitalized on the "election integrity" fervor within the party. Baxter’s platform, explicitly aligning with former President Trump’s concerns about voter rolls and voting machines, resonated with a significant segment of the Republican base.
Baxter’s Evolving Stance on Voting Methods: Following her nomination, Baxter’s campaign website, which initially "advocated for hand-counted paper ballots, no more voting machines," underwent a subtle but significant change. On Monday, Baxter acknowledged altering the wording, explaining that she does not possess the authority to unilaterally change how ballots are tallied and that she trusts county auditors "to do what’s best for their counties." This slight softening of her position may be an attempt to appeal to a broader electorate beyond the most ardent proponents of hand-counting, though her earlier legislative efforts to ban tabulators remain on record.
Johnson’s Endorsement of Davis: The culmination of these events was Johnson’s decision, published over the weekend, to endorse Terrence Davis. Her statement, delivered through a conservative blog, was a calculated move to directly address the Republican base while simultaneously reaching across the aisle. Johnson’s office confirmed she would not offer further comment, allowing her written words to stand as her definitive explanation for this extraordinary action.
Supporting Data: The Broader Context of Election Integrity Debates
The South Dakota political drama unfolds against a much larger national backdrop of intense debate and partisan division surrounding election administration. The concept of "election integrity," once a bipartisan goal, has been weaponized and politicized since the 2020 presidential election.
The "Election Integrity" Movement and its Origins: Following President Trump’s defeat in 2020, he and his allies propagated false claims of widespread voter fraud, leading to a movement focused on what they termed "election integrity." This movement often targets mail-in ballots, voter rolls, and particularly, electronic voting machines, alleging they are susceptible to manipulation. These claims have been repeatedly debunked by election officials, cybersecurity experts, and courts across the country, yet they continue to hold sway with a segment of the electorate.
The Role of Voting Machines vs. Hand-Counting: A central tenet of this movement, as espoused by Heather Baxter in her earlier statements, is the preference for hand-counted paper ballots over electronic tabulating systems. However, election experts and real-world experience consistently demonstrate that hand-counting ballots is significantly more time-consuming, expensive, and, crucially, more prone to human error than using tabulator machines. For large-scale elections involving hundreds of thousands or millions of ballots, hand-counting is logistically impractical and introduces numerous opportunities for mistakes, misinterpretations, and inconsistencies. Modern voting machines, conversely, are subject to rigorous testing, certification, and post-election audits (including risk-limiting audits) to ensure accuracy and detect anomalies.
Trump’s Influence on Election Administration: Former President Trump’s post-2020 agenda has consistently focused on federalizing election operations, despite the U.S. Constitution largely granting this authority to states and, in some cases, Congress. His proposals have included:
- Centralizing Mail-in Ballots: Attempting to put the Postal Service at the heart of deciding which voters can receive mail ballots, a move that would bypass state election laws.
- Proof-of-Citizenship Requirements: Pushing for a nationwide proof-of-citizenship requirement for voter registration, a measure that could disenfranchise eligible voters without ready access to such documentation.
- Non-Citizen Voting Narrative: Spreading the false narrative that non-citizens are significantly influencing U.S. elections, despite virtually no evidence of widespread non-citizen voting.
- Continued False Claims: Even six years after his election loss, Trump continues to spread unsubstantiated claims of widespread voting fraud in the 2020 election.
The National Trend of "Election Integrity" Candidates: South Dakota is not an isolated incident. The phenomenon of Republican candidates, often aligning with Trump’s views on election processes, running for statewide offices responsible for election administration (like Secretary of State or Attorney General) has been a prominent feature of recent election cycles. In many states, these candidates have successfully won their primaries, setting up general election contests that fundamentally challenge the established norms of election oversight. This trend reflects a broader effort to install officials who may be sympathetic to questioning election outcomes or implementing more restrictive voting measures based on unproven claims of fraud.
South Dakota’s Political Landscape: The impact of Johnson’s endorsement is particularly uncertain in South Dakota, a state known for its deep-red political leanings. Republicans hold a supermajority in both legislative chambers, and the state has not elected a Democrat to statewide office since 2015. Former President Trump won South Dakota overwhelmingly in the past three presidential elections. This entrenched conservative environment makes a cross-party endorsement, especially one challenging the prevailing "election integrity" narrative within the GOP, a significant gamble. It raises questions about whether enough moderate Republicans or independent voters will prioritize the "integrity" argument over party loyalty to swing the election.
Official Responses: A Divided Party and a Unified Purpose
The announcement immediately elicited reactions from all corners of the South Dakota political spectrum, highlighting the deep divisions within the Republican Party and the contrasting philosophies of the candidates.
Monae Johnson’s Stance: Johnson’s statement itself served as her primary official response. Published in the "South Dakota War College," a platform popular with conservative voters, her column was a direct appeal to her base, acknowledging their potential disappointment and anger. By declining further comment through her office, she allowed her carefully crafted words to speak for themselves, emphasizing the gravity of her decision and her conviction that the "integrity, stability, and professionalism" of the office outweighed partisan loyalty. Her past administrative issues and primary loss likely informed her decision to make a strong, principled stand on her way out.
Heather Baxter’s Rebuttal: The Republican nominee, Heather Baxter, quickly downplayed Johnson’s endorsement. In a concise statement, Baxter remarked, "It’s not surprising that she’d rather back someone who won’t change what she has done." This response suggests Baxter views Johnson’s endorsement as a defensive act, an attempt by an outgoing incumbent to preserve her legacy or administrative approach rather than a genuine concern for election integrity. Baxter’s statement also subtly implies that her own agenda would bring change to the office, a change she believes is necessary and aligns with her supporters’ concerns about election processes. Her recent adjustment to her website’s language regarding hand-counting, moving from a direct advocacy to a more nuanced "trusts auditors to do what’s best for their counties," further demonstrates an attempt to manage her public image in the face of scrutiny.
Jim Eschenbaum, South Dakota Republican Party Chair: The state GOP chair provided crucial insight into why Johnson lost the party’s nomination. His candid text message to The Associated Press revealed that delegates had "soured on Johnson" due to her refusal to appear before a legislative committee. "An involved citizenry just won’t stand for that from their elected officials, period," Eschenbaum stated, pointing to a perceived lack of accountability and transparency on Johnson’s part. This suggests that Johnson’s primary loss was not solely due to Baxter’s "election integrity" platform, but also a result of internal party dissatisfaction with Johnson’s conduct in office.
Terrence Davis’s Response: The Democratic candidate, Terrence Davis, responded by emphasizing the traditionally nonpartisan nature of the Secretary of State’s office. He underscored its mission to serve all residents "honestly and fairly." Davis’s message is a deliberate contrast to the partisan rhetoric surrounding election processes, positioning himself as a unifying figure dedicated to impartial administration rather than ideological battles. His background in law enforcement further reinforces this image of an objective public servant focused on upholding the law.
Implications: A Test of Principles and Party Loyalty
Monae Johnson’s endorsement of Terrence Davis carries significant implications, both for the immediate electoral contest in South Dakota and for the broader national discourse on election administration.
Impact on the South Dakota Election:
- Testing Party Loyalty: The most immediate question is whether Johnson’s endorsement can sway enough moderate Republicans, independents, or even disillusioned conservatives to vote for a Democrat in a heavily red state. While cross-party endorsements can sometimes have an impact, particularly from respected incumbents, South Dakota’s strong partisan lean makes such a shift challenging.
- Fissure within the SD GOP: The endorsement clearly exposes a division within the South Dakota Republican Party. It highlights a segment of the party that prioritizes established administrative practices and perceived institutional integrity over the "election integrity" narratives championed by figures like Trump and Baxter. This internal conflict could lead to a less unified Republican base in the general election.
- Increased Scrutiny on Baxter: The endorsement will undoubtedly intensify scrutiny on Heather Baxter’s positions regarding election processes. Her past advocacy for hand-counting and her current nuanced stance will be examined more closely, forcing her to articulate a clear and consistent vision for the office that can appeal to a wider range of voters.
- Boost for Davis: For Terrence Davis, the endorsement is an unexpected and invaluable boost. It provides him with bipartisan credibility and allows him to present himself as the candidate dedicated to safeguarding the nonpartisan nature of the election process, a message that might resonate with voters weary of political polarization.
Broader National Significance:
- Politicization of Election Offices: This incident serves as another stark example of the ongoing politicization of election administration offices across the United States. When a sitting Secretary of State feels compelled to endorse an opposing party’s candidate due to concerns about the "integrity" of the office, it signals a deeper crisis of trust and a struggle over the fundamental principles of democratic governance.
- The Shadow of 2020: The aftermath of the 2020 presidential election continues to cast a long shadow over local and state elections. The false claims of fraud have empowered candidates who champion more restrictive voting measures and express skepticism about established election technologies. Incidents like South Dakota’s demonstrate the enduring power of these narratives and the challenges faced by officials attempting to uphold traditional, nonpartisan election administration.
- The Role of Incumbents: Johnson’s move sets a precedent for incumbent officials, even those from the majority party, to take extraordinary measures when they believe core democratic functions are at risk. It raises questions about the responsibility of elected officials to prioritize institutional integrity over party loyalty, particularly in roles critical to the functioning of democracy.
- Public Trust in Elections: Ultimately, the outcome of this election in South Dakota, and similar contests across the nation, will have a direct bearing on public trust in elections. If candidates who espouse unsubstantiated claims about voter fraud and advocate for less efficient, more error-prone election methods win, it could further erode confidence in the democratic process. Conversely, if candidates committed to impartial, professional election administration prevail, it could help rebuild that trust.
The South Dakota Secretary of State race has transformed from a typical partisan contest into a critical battleground for the very principles of election integrity and the nonpartisan administration of democracy. Monae Johnson’s unprecedented endorsement is a powerful, if desperate, plea to voters to consider the fundamental qualifications and philosophy of those who will oversee their elections, arguing that the stakes are far higher than mere party affiliation.
