Red States and RINO Governance

In deep-red states, Republican leaders often seem to govern against the interests of their constituents. Meanwhile, Democrats engage in campaigns focused on anti-corruption and inflation in swing states but enact left-leaning policies in their strongholds. Republican voters might reasonably expect their states to reflect their values more aggressively. However, that’s not the case; the so-called Republicans-in-name-only (RINOs) are leading instead.

Whenever I call for action against these RINOs, I’m often met with the GOP’s standard refrain about “unity.” But honestly, we need to rethink how these state parties operate—whether that’s changing the nominee selection process or introducing third-party options on ballots. Without this overhaul, we risk continuing to see Democratic policies disguised under a Republican label while allowing Democrats to gain traction in places they previously didn’t.

It’s crucial for conservatives to stop viewing nominations as just a formality. If we do that, we might wonder why Republican wins don’t translate into genuine conservative governance.

Take South Dakota as a case study—it illustrates both the problem and a potential solution. The state uses party conventions to select some statewide nominees instead of direct primaries. This past summer, state Rep. Heather Baxter beat Secretary of State Monae Johnson by 18 points during the GOP convention. Activists felt that Johnson had been blocking the election integrity initiatives she had originally campaigned on.

Incumbents in statewide positions seldom lose direct primaries, yet the convention format offered activists an opportunity to hold Johnson accountable for her actions.

Of course, some might argue that those delegates are too extreme. But Johnson herself kind of validated their concerns: after losing their support, she publicly endorsed the Democrat in the general election—something quite surprising in South Dakota.

Johnson stated, “South Dakota deserves a Secretary of State who will strengthen confidence through performance rather than provocation; who will support election officials instead of hindering them for political gain; who will safeguard voter access and election security without treating these goals as adversarial; and who will treat the office’s staff, voters, candidates, and business owners with dignity.” This is the same Johnson whose endorsement raises serious questions about her commitment to conservative values.

Throughout her term, Johnson had even turned against pro-lifers who were working on a ballot initiative to secure abortion rights in South Dakota’s Constitution. House Speaker Jon Hansen (R) set up the Life Defense Fund, reaching out to petitioners to confirm their consent for signing. Johnson alleged that the group was running a “scam.”

It’s essential for petition organizers’ claims of public support to undergo scrutiny. Every signature should reflect genuine consent, and election officials ought to welcome initiatives that ensure that consent was legitimate. In fact, suspected petition fraud should definitely be examined closely. For instance, in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis’ administration looked into alleged fraud related to a similar abortion petition in 2024, discovering that circulators seemed to have forged signatures.

Johnson accused Hansen’s group of “impersonating” her staff while attempting to pressure voters into withdrawing their names from the petitions. Although she sought a criminal investigation, Attorney General Marty Jackley found no evidence of any wrongdoing.

Hansen remarked in May 2024, “By labeling our lawful activity as a scam, Secretary of State Johnson has caused significant and lasting damage to the pro-life movement in South Dakota.”

The abortion amendment was ultimately rejected by voters, but it still received 41% of the votes—quite notable for a state that is so red. Conservatives should be prepared to closely monitor petition drives concerning future initiatives for abortion, marijuana, or ranked-choice voting.

After winning support at the convention in 2022 on the promise of upholding election integrity, Johnson ended up obstructing conservatives looking to investigate or challenge election fraud. Her endorsement of a Democrat now makes it clear she was never truly aligned with conservative ideologies.

This situation offers two important lessons.

Firstly, conservatives can’t keep letting the fear of party disunity shield liberal Republicans. If a recently defeated RINO ends up endorsing a Democrat, that only strengthens the case for their removal from the party more urgently. Given the extreme nature of the Democrats’ agenda, support for them indicates a willingness to undermine the GOP from within.

Red states are filled with such politicians. For example, in Alaska, liberal Republicans have partnered with Democrats, slowly forming a uniparty. Introduced ranked-choice voting has further muddled distinctions. Although Alaska consistently backs Republican presidential candidates, it’s essentially leaning towards being part of the Democratic Party. Currently, Democrats are positioned to potentially flip a U.S. Senate seat and gain a majority in the legislature, demonstrating the risk when Republicans in conservative states collaborate with Democrats.

In Kansas, the lack of unity around a conservative agenda has led Democrats to hold onto the governorship for eight consecutive years, making the state competitive at the federal level. Former Republican Governor Bill Graves even threw his support behind Democrat Adam Hamilton against Republican Sen. Roger Marshall.

The party has allowed a liberal influence to erode its strength from within for far too long. Curiously, calls for unity often obligate conservatives while liberal Republicans seem to operate freely, even supporting the opposing party. This situation rewards the very politicians who contribute to division while silencing voters aiming to initiate change.

The second takeaway is that state conventions provide conservatives with a greater opportunity to reclaim their party than direct primaries because they attract engaged activists. Johnson’s eventual endorsement likely won’t sway the Democrats’ success in South Dakota, but the convention process allowed conservatives to identify and remove her. Good luck attempting to pull that off in a direct primary with various interests pouring money into misleading low-information voters.

While conservatives were able to reject Johnson at the convention, liberal Republicans secured important wins in direct primaries. Hansen would have likely won the gubernatorial nomination had it been determined at the convention. Instead, Gov. Larry Rhoden emerged victorious in the primary, though he has opposed reforms on initiative petitions that conservatives need to address to counteract the transition of red states turning more blue.

Simultaneously, around 16 liberal former legislators and challengers outperformed conservative freshmen in legislative primaries, thanks in part to an injection of funds from Big Tech. Interestingly, Baxter herself lost her legislative primary before defeating Johnson at the convention during the same election cycle.

Conservatives need to stop regarding nominations as just a procedural step and then wondering why Republican victories don’t result in genuine conservative governance. The selection process truly determines who gets elected and whose interests they prioritize.

Those wanting to see different outcomes must advocate for a change in how their parties nominate candidates. Stick with the current primary system, and the uniparty will keep winning nominations, it seems.