Candidate analysis from a constitutional conservative perspective
There will be a runoff for the two GOP candidates for governor on July 28, as none of the four candidates achieved the 35 percent threshold required to win outright in the June 2 primary election. Political newcomer Toby Doeden finished first with 31 percent of the votes, followed by Rhoden at 25 percent, U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson at 23 percent, and state House Speaker Jon Hansen at 21 percent. The race saw one of the highest statewide turnouts in over a decade, more than 34 percent—and for the first time in state history, a runoff is needed to decide the GOP nominee for governor.
Read more Morning Greatness: House Cancels Votes for Remainder of Week Amid Tension Over SAVE America Act
This analysis draws on their campaign websites, debate performances across three televised debates (March 31, April 13, and April 27), positional statements made, news coverage to date, and post-primary developments to differentiate the two runoff candidates—businessman Toby Doeden and Governor Larry Rhoden—on the issues that matter most to constitutional conservatives.
Note: This analysis is essentially a litmus test from that narrow perspective. There are other ideological perspectives and scorecards from various organizations that would probably result in different rankings.
Let’s get cracking!
The Core Framework: What Constitutional Conservatism Means
For this analysis, the constitutional conservative standard means limited government, lower taxes with no shell-game swaps, strong property rights, parental sovereignty in education, maximum individual liberty, fiscal accountability and anti-corruption, free markets without corporate welfare, and fealty to constitutional protections at every level. With that standard in hand, here is how the two candidates stack up.
Toby Doeden—Bold Vision, Thin Plans
Doeden runs as the true outsider and the most rhetorically aggressive candidate on taxes, government corruption, and limited government. His instincts are right; his specifics are frequently incomplete.
Property taxes. Doeden pledges to fight to reduce and ultimately eliminate property taxes so that South Dakotans can raise their families, operate farms and ranches, and grow businesses free from crushing property taxes. He has been the most aggressive on this issue of anyone in the race: Doeden wants to eliminate all property taxes in South Dakota and has suggested a consumption tax targeting “luxury items” could be used to replace property taxes, although it is unclear if the revenue from such a tax would fill the estimated $1.8 billion budget hole. He correctly identifies the fundamental dishonesty of the Rhoden approach: Doeden described the property tax reduction bills supported by Rhoden as “so-called property tax relief,” calling the combined legislation “the biggest sales tax increase in South Dakota history.”
Opponents criticized Doeden’s plan as vague, with Doeden saying the state would have enough money to eliminate property taxes after he reduces spending, grows the economy, and eliminates waste, inefficiencies, and redundancies in state government—a position that remains aspirational rather than mechanistic.
Government efficiency and corruption. Doeden pledged to create a Department of Government Efficiency that would conduct a statewide audit, including of education, and “make sure the money is going to the people and places that need it the most.” His campaign website boldly claims that South Dakota has the most government corruption per capita out of all 50 states and pledges to bring accountability to state workers, transparency to budgets, and consequences to those who engage in corruption.
Education. Doeden said South Dakota’s K-12 budget has grown, but not enough of the money has gone to classrooms, rural schools, new curriculum, or teachers—he said too much has gone to education lobbyists and bureaucrats. He has pointed out the state ranks 47th in average teacher pay and argued budget growth has served administrators rather than students. This is a legitimate constitutional conservative critique: the money should follow the child and the teacher, not the bureaucracy.
Economic development and corporate welfare. Doeden promised he would be “the most pro-business governor this state has ever seen,” but said major projects must have local support and pledged, “I will never use taxpayer money to subsidize multi-billion-dollar, out-of-state development projects.” This is a coherent, principled free-market position.
Property rights and other issues. Doeden believes the government should stay out of citizens’ lives as much as possible and opposes recent attempts to seize citizens’ land for out-of-state companies as unconstitutional. Doeden also spoke out against the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline during legislative debates over eminent domain. He also supports strong immigration enforcement, opposes DEI in government, and aligns with the Trump America First agenda. On that last point, one notable development: Doeden often mentioned Trump in his initial advertisements, although not as much in the waning weeks of the campaign as Trump’s national approval rating fell below 40 percent. The strategic pivot may reflect savvy pragmatism or ideological flexibility—either way, it is worth noting.
Post-primary positioning. Doeden told reporters that the “political movement” wasn’t a result of his own actions, instead calling it a result of voters frustrated with politicians. His statement after the primary was a mixed bag: he congratulated Johnson and Hansen for their “spirited and hard-fought campaigns” and said he hopes to “learn from and connect with them,” while simultaneously declaring he has “a bold plan and vision for South Dakota, something Larry Rhoden simply does not.” The combative tone toward Johnson supporters in particular drew criticism. Political analyst Drey Samuelson noted that Doeden’s anti-Johnson rhetoric shows he “is more interested in flexing on Dusty than he is in gaining their support for the runoff.” For the runoff, Doeden needs a significant share of the 44 percent of Republican primary voters who backed Johnson or Hansen, and alienating Johnson’s base is a self-inflicted wound.
The legislature problem. A new and serious concern has emerged post-primary: some legislative leaders predict that “should Doeden win, he’ll have a hostile legislature he’s coming in with,” with forecasts of gridlock rather than reform. House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach, a former Hansen supporter, has alleged that Doeden allies “divided and destroyed conservatives” in the legislature during the last two sessions as a way to undermine Hansen’s campaign. Whether true or not, a governor who cannot move legislation cannot govern—and that structural problem, if accurate, significantly discounts the value of Doeden’s bold platform from a constitutional conservative standpoint.
Funding and viability. Doeden’s self-funded campaign has been built on millions of dollars in loans to his campaign committee, with at least $4 million of his own money spent in the primary. His financial strategy for the runoff remains unclear.
The knock on Doeden is that his boldest proposals—eliminating all property taxes and funding it through an undefined consumption tax—lack credible financing. Aspirational statements without mechanisms are not a plan. He also has no governing experience and may face a hostile legislature. His campaign has nonetheless been more substantively populist-conservative than it gets credit for, and he forced the other candidates to take more aggressive positions.
Larry Rhoden—The Incumbent Defender
Rhoden is the sitting governor running on his record, and that record—from a constitutional conservative standpoint—remains the most problematic. He has signed multiple sales tax increases, defended status quo economic development spending, and presided over a government that has not materially shrunk. That said, a few genuine wins for property rights have emerged that deserve fair treatment.
Property taxes and fiscal policy. Rhoden proposed allowing individual counties the option to replace property taxes with a half-cent sales tax increase, arguing the approach is more equitable for counties with higher foot traffic. Critics correctly identified this as a rural-to-urban wealth transfer. More fundamentally, Rhoden signed three bills into law during the recent legislative session that allow for higher sales taxes—including a statewide sales tax increase and new optional county and city sales taxes, with revenues devoted to property tax relief. For a constitutional conservative, signing three new or higher tax mechanisms in a single session is a serious mark against him, regardless of how the revenue is designated.
Read more The Economics of Reconciliation on America’s 250th Birthday
Property rights—a genuine win. Rhoden signed a bill prohibiting the use of eminent domain for carbon pipeline projects in South Dakota, citing his longstanding commitment to property rights. In a letter explaining his decision, Rhoden emphasized his record as a legislator fighting for private property rights for over 20 years and stated, “South Dakota landowners don’t want eminent domain for a proposed carbon pipeline. They believe this infringes on their freedoms and their property rights. And to tell you the truth, I agree.” This is a substantively correct constitutional conservative position on property rights—and it cost him politically with the business community. It deserves credit.
However, some property rights voters are not fully satisfied. Some landowner-rights advocates who backed Hansen remain skeptical of Rhoden, concerned that he might support a renewed carbon pipeline project if the political environment in the Legislature shifts against them. Rhoden’s eminent domain bill earns him points; his inability to fully reassure the landowner coalition is a lingering liability.
Education. Rhoden said his administration is working to restore phonics-based reading instruction and is “getting rid of Common Core math” and “moving to common sense.” These are genuine improvements. But he remains defensive about education outcomes rather than proposing structural reform, and he has no school choice or parental rights agenda.
Economic development. Rhoden’s most distinctive economic vision is positioning South Dakota as a national security hub—tying the state’s agriculture, energy, banking, cybersecurity, and defense industries into a “systems approach” serving U.S. national security. This is a creative and potentially significant economic strategy leveraging the state’s genuine assets (Ellsworth Air Force Base, Dakota State University’s cybersecurity programs, the B-21 Raider deployment, South Dakota’s trust-asset industry). But it is an industrial policy vision—government directing the economy toward chosen sectors—rather than a free-market approach.
Corruption and government spending. Rhoden has received at least $50,000 from T. Denny Sanford despite the $4,000 individual contribution cap. Defending the status quo on spending and refusing to acknowledge the corruption problem that opponents have spotlighted is politically and philosophically weak.
Post-primary positioning and coalition dynamics. Rhoden, speaking after the primary, said his campaign stands for “building bridges” and called civility, openness, and responsiveness the cornerstones of his administration. Rhoden said his campaign is prepared financially for the runoff, having outperformed other candidates in the closing weeks on campaign finance. His campaign’s central argument for the runoff is that he is “the only candidate” who can unite divided Republican factions—a credible claim given that some connected to Johnson’s campaign and some legislative leaders see supporters of both losing candidates leaning toward Rhoden. The gravitational pull of legislative insiders toward Rhoden is a real asset—and a double-edged one, since it reinforces his image as the establishment pick.
The knock on Rhoden is fundamental: he is the incumbent defending a system his opponents—with some justification—paint as having failed South Dakota families on taxes, education outcomes, and accountability. His “Strong, Safe and Free” brand is appealing, but the record does not fully support it. His genuine win on the carbon pipeline eminent domain partially offsets the tax increase record; it does not erase it.
The Runoff Dynamics
Several factors will shape the July 28 outcome that were not in play before the primary.
Endorsements pending. As of late June, neither Hansen nor Johnson had endorsed Rhoden or Doeden. Those endorsements, when they come, could move votes. The Johnson camp appears more likely to break toward Rhoden; the Hansen camp is more divided, with property rights and anti-pipeline advocates leaning toward Doeden. Hansen’s former spokesman, Austin Goss, said that voters who share Hansen’s anti-establishment message “are going to go to Toby.”
Turnout calculus. Political experts expect turnout to fall below the 42 percent of Republicans who voted in the primary, and analysts suggest it will be “easier for Rhoden than Doeden” to secure the majority needed in a lower-turnout runoff. Lower turnout typically favors organized, establishment-aligned campaigns with strong county-level infrastructure—an advantage for Rhoden.
The arithmetic. If Doeden continues the momentum from the primary, Rhoden may be the first sitting governor to lose his primary since former Kansas Gov. Jeff Colyer lost the Republican primary in 2018. But Rhoden finished only 6 points behind Doeden and needs to convert a majority of the Johnson/Hansen combined 44 percent—an achievable but not guaranteed task.
Concluding Thoughts
From a constitutional conservative standpoint, Toby Doeden remains the stronger candidate on the merits of his platform—his instincts on property taxes, government efficiency, anti-corporate welfare, and corruption are sound and bold. His primary finish, leading all four candidates, validates that voters frustrated with the establishment found his message compelling. His genuine record on opposing eminent domain for out-of-state pipelines aligns with constitutional conservative property rights principles. The concerns remain unchanged: no governing experience, no credible revenue replacement mechanism for eliminating property taxes, and a post-primary temperament on coalition-building that raises questions about whether he can govern effectively—particularly if he enters office facing a hostile legislative caucus.
Larry Rhoden ranks second from a constitutional conservative standpoint. He is not a bad governor by conventional Republican standards, and his eminent domain bill on carbon pipelines is a genuine constitutional conservative achievement that deserves acknowledgment. But he has presided over net tax increases, defended corporate economic development spending, offered incremental improvement rather than structural reform, and his coalition in the runoff skews toward the legislative and donor establishment that constitutional conservatives have every reason to distrust.
The runoff is genuinely competitive. Doeden has the ideological argument; Rhoden has the institutional infrastructure and the turnout advantage.
Reminder: this analysis is from the narrow perspective of constitutional conservatism. The candidates’ stated positions on various issues important to South Dakotans will assist Republican voters in their decision-making process, as ultimately those publicly expressed opinions are what differentiate them.
