1912 United States presidential election in South Dakota
November 5, 1912
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
County Results
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Elections in South Dakota |
|---|
The 1912 United States presidential election in South Dakota took place on November 5, 1912, as part of the 1912 United States presidential election. Voters chose five representatives, or electors, to the Electoral College, who voted for president and vice president.
South Dakota voted for the Republican nominee, former president Theodore Roosevelt, over the Democratic nominee, New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson, by a margin of 8.49%.
Despite incumbent president William Howard Taft winning the national Republican nomination, the South Dakota Republican Party, under the control of progressives and heavily influenced by senator Coe I. Crawford, instead nominated electors pledged to Theodore Roosevelt, with the Progressive Party not appearing on the ballot.[1] This selection proved controversial with conservative Taft supporting Republicans who unsuccessfully attempted to overturn the decision in court.[2] As a result, South Dakota was the only state in the 1912 election not to have president Taft either on the ballot or as a write in option (as in California).[a] The state's other senator Robert J. Gamble, who supported Taft, predicted that the anger amongst conservative Republicans was such that many would support Woodrow Wilson purely to defeat Roosevelt.[3] Despite this Roosevelt carried the state albeit with a much reduced margin from Taft's victory in 1908.
With 50.56% of the popular vote, South Dakota would prove to be Roosevelt's strongest state in terms of popular vote percentage in the 1912 election and the only one in which he achieved a majority of the vote.[4] This was the only non-former Confederate state to give any candidate an absolute majority of the vote.
Primaries
Democratic Party
June 4, 1912
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A primary for the Democratic presidential candidate was held in South Dakota on June 4, 1912.[5] The race was between four competing slates of national delegates. The first slate to announce its candidacy was aligned with the faction of the local Democratic Party supporting Edwin S. Johnson's campaign for the Democratic nomination for governor.[6] This group ran under the motto "Wilson-Bryan Progressive Democracy" and pledged to support Woodrow Wilson as its first choice for the presidential nomination, with William Jennings Bryan as a second choice should he become a viable candidate. If neither Wilson nor Bryan were available, the delegates were bound by their motto to support a progressive candidate.[7]
In March, the South Dakota Democratic State Central Committee announced its support for the candidacy of P. F. Wickhem in opposition to Johnson and that they would name a ticket with the motto "Wilson-Clark-Bryan Democracy" to oppose Johnson faction candidates at all levels.[6] On 10 April, the Wickem faction filed its list of delegates to the national convention under the title "Wilson-Clark-Bryan Democracy".[8] These delegates were favourable to either Wilson or Champ Clark, with Bryan as a third choice if viable.[9]
Former Senator Richard F. Pettigrew, who had recently assisted Clark's campaigns in Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and other states, returned to South Dakota to find the Democratic electorate divided between two tickets that both placed Wilson first in their mottos. Seeking to create a slate that would give Clark first preference, Pettigrew entered negotiations with the Wickhem faction, which he considered receptive after Wickhem's campaign was weakened by the publication of a telegram he had sent to Senator Alfred B. Kittredge opposing the Hepburn Act.[7]
On 7 May, the Wilson-Clark-Bryan Democracy switched its support from Wilson to just Clark. Lee, head of the slate, stated that:[9]
This move on the part of our delegates on the Wilson-Clark-Bryan progressive democracy ticket is made only after due consideration and careful deliberation. There seemed to be considerable opposition for a preference vote on the part of the Johnson democratic members of the state committee, they, as I am convinced, being pledged body and soul to Wilson, and so the committee decided to take no action. But we democrats who believe in fair play, and not being pledged to any presidential candidate especially, decided that in due fairness to all concerned that the democratic voters of South Dakota should have a chance to express a preference. Senator Pettigrew was present at the meeting, and made it plain to myself, as well as the majority of those on hand, that Clark was more preferable than Wilson. For some time prior thereto I had believed that Wilson would be the more acceptable, but the more I learn of him the more I am convinced that he should not receive the nomination. His attitude towards progressive principles, the more one digs into the situation, is not at all creditable, to say the least. I feel now that he is an uncertain quantity, and in line with that belief will support Speaker Clark until after the primaries.
Later, a slate of electors under the motto "Clark for President"[10] and one for a man named Homber B. Brown entered the race.[5] The Wilson-Clark-Bryan Democracy accused the Clark for President slate of being an attempt to split the Clark vote and[10] sought its removal from the ballot. The Secretary of State of South Dakota refused to withdraw the third ticket, but as both tickets were publicly known to support Clark, stated that the votes of both should be acredited to Clark.[11]
As the combined vote of the pro-Clark slates exceeded that of the pro-Wilson slate, the Wilson-Clark-Bryan Democracy delegates were issued certificates under the law by the Democratic State Chairman. Later, the State Canvassing Board issued certificates to the Wilson-Bryan Progressive Democracy delegates.[10]
The Democratic National Committee determined that the pro-Wilson delegates should be seated. This decision was overturned by the Convention's Credentials Committee, which voted 28-23 to seat the Clark delegates instead. F. H. Martin of Wisconsin, who voted against the reversal, took the matter to the floor of the convention.[10] The convention voted 639.5-437 to adopt the minority report of the Credentials Committee, which seated the Wilson delegates.[11]
| Candidate | Votes | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wilson-Bryan Progressive Democracy | 4,694 | 35.17 | |
| Wilson-Clark-Bryan Democracy | 4,275 | 32.03 | |
| Champ Clark | 2,722 | 20.40 | |
| Homer B. Brown | 1,655 | 12.40 | |
| Total votes | 69,010 | 100 | |
Republican Party
June 4, 1912
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
County Results
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
A primary for the Republican presidential candidate was held in South Dakota on June 4, 1912.[5] Theodore Roosevelt won all 10 delegates against Robert M. La Follette and William Howard Taft.[12]
| Candidate | Votes | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theodore Roosevelt | 38,106 | 55.22 | |
| Robert M. La Follette | 19,960 | 28.92 | |
| William H. Taft (incumbent) | 10,944 | 15.86 | |
| Total votes | 69,010 | 100 | |
Results
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | Theodore Roosevelt | 58,811 | 50.56% | |
| Democratic | Woodrow Wilson | 48,942 | 42.07% | |
| Socialist | Eugene V. Debs | 4,662 | 4.01% | |
| Prohibition | Eugene Chafin | 3,910 | 3.36% | |
| Total votes | 116,325 | 100% | ||
Results by county
| County[14] | Theodore Roosevelt Republican |
Thomas Woodrow Wilson Democratic |
Eugene Victor Debs Socialist |
Eugene Wilder Chafin Prohibition |
Margin | Total votes cast | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # | % | # | % | # | % | # | % | # | % | ||
| Aurora | 652 | 41.69% | 801 | 51.21% | 43 | 2.75% | 68 | 4.35% | -149 | -9.53% | 1,564 |
| Beadle | 1,493 | 46.76% | 1,464 | 45.85% | 166 | 5.20% | 70 | 2.19% | 29 | 0.91% | 3,193 |
| Bennett | 68 | 26.88% | 179 | 70.75% | 3 | 1.19% | 3 | 1.19% | -111 | -43.87% | 253 |
| Bon Homme | 1,228 | 51.77% | 1,059 | 44.65% | 45 | 1.90% | 40 | 1.69% | 169 | 7.12% | 2,372 |
| Brookings | 1,389 | 58.00% | 740 | 30.90% | 58 | 2.42% | 208 | 8.68% | 649 | 27.10% | 2,395 |
| Brown | 1,746 | 35.57% | 2,488 | 50.69% | 385 | 7.84% | 289 | 5.89% | -742 | -15.12% | 4,908 |
| Brule | 643 | 40.96% | 842 | 53.63% | 67 | 4.27% | 18 | 1.15% | -199 | -12.68% | 1,570 |
| Buffalo | 83 | 42.56% | 105 | 53.85% | 4 | 2.05% | 3 | 1.54% | -22 | -11.28% | 195 |
| Butte | 649 | 44.36% | 601 | 41.08% | 189 | 12.92% | 24 | 1.64% | 48 | 3.28% | 1,463 |
| Campbell | 574 | 74.93% | 150 | 19.58% | 10 | 1.31% | 32 | 4.18% | 424 | 55.35% | 766 |
| Charles Mix | 1,817 | 51.26% | 1,625 | 45.84% | 59 | 1.66% | 44 | 1.24% | 192 | 5.42% | 3,545 |
| Clark | 949 | 54.67% | 668 | 38.48% | 36 | 2.07% | 83 | 4.78% | 281 | 16.19% | 1,736 |
| Clay | 1,262 | 55.69% | 929 | 41.00% | 27 | 1.19% | 48 | 2.12% | 333 | 14.70% | 2,266 |
| Codington | 1,195 | 48.44% | 1,111 | 45.03% | 71 | 2.88% | 90 | 3.65% | 84 | 3.40% | 2,467 |
| Corson | 508 | 49.42% | 455 | 44.26% | 49 | 4.77% | 16 | 1.56% | 53 | 5.16% | 1,028 |
| Custer | 395 | 43.26% | 419 | 45.89% | 91 | 9.97% | 8 | 0.88% | -24 | -2.63% | 913 |
| Davison | 1,364 | 48.78% | 1,266 | 45.28% | 68 | 2.43% | 98 | 3.51% | 98 | 3.51% | 2,796 |
| Day | 1,209 | 51.87% | 787 | 33.76% | 111 | 4.76% | 224 | 9.61% | 422 | 18.10% | 2,331 |
| Deuel | 887 | 62.69% | 441 | 31.17% | 15 | 1.06% | 72 | 5.09% | 446 | 31.52% | 1,415 |
| Dewey | 509 | 52.26% | 411 | 42.20% | 42 | 4.31% | 12 | 1.23% | 98 | 10.06% | 974 |
| Douglas | 765 | 50.80% | 714 | 47.41% | 11 | 0.73% | 16 | 1.06% | 51 | 3.39% | 1,506 |
| Edmunds | 640 | 43.13% | 729 | 49.12% | 26 | 1.75% | 89 | 6.00% | -89 | -6.00% | 1,484 |
| Fall River | 846 | 50.09% | 712 | 42.16% | 100 | 5.92% | 31 | 1.84% | 134 | 7.93% | 1,689 |
| Faulk | 568 | 43.76% | 615 | 47.38% | 23 | 1.77% | 92 | 7.09% | -47 | -3.62% | 1,298 |
| Grant | 828 | 52.34% | 619 | 39.13% | 55 | 3.48% | 80 | 5.06% | 209 | 13.21% | 1,582 |
| Gregory | 1,348 | 50.96% | 1,176 | 44.46% | 96 | 3.63% | 25 | 0.95% | 172 | 6.50% | 2,645 |
| Hamlin | 1,058 | 66.79% | 474 | 29.92% | 17 | 1.07% | 35 | 2.21% | 584 | 36.87% | 1,584 |
| Hand | 738 | 43.54% | 826 | 48.73% | 44 | 2.60% | 87 | 5.13% | -88 | -5.19% | 1,695 |
| Hanson | 708 | 50.46% | 632 | 45.05% | 21 | 1.50% | 42 | 2.99% | 76 | 5.42% | 1,403 |
| Harding | 600 | 54.45% | 325 | 29.49% | 113 | 10.25% | 64 | 5.81% | 275 | 24.95% | 1,102 |
| Hughes | 447 | 41.50% | 544 | 50.51% | 63 | 5.85% | 23 | 2.14% | -97 | -9.01% | 1,077 |
| Hutchinson | 1,451 | 67.84% | 647 | 30.25% | 12 | 0.56% | 29 | 1.36% | 804 | 37.59% | 2,139 |
| Hyde | 398 | 56.86% | 232 | 33.14% | 53 | 7.57% | 17 | 2.43% | 166 | 23.71% | 700 |
| Jerauld | 545 | 47.52% | 436 | 38.01% | 11 | 0.96% | 155 | 13.51% | 109 | 9.50% | 1,147 |
| Kingsbury | 1,152 | 53.23% | 747 | 34.52% | 113 | 5.22% | 152 | 7.02% | 405 | 18.72% | 2,164 |
| Lake | 1,174 | 59.87% | 657 | 33.50% | 79 | 4.03% | 51 | 2.60% | 517 | 26.36% | 1,961 |
| Lawrence | 1,692 | 37.84% | 2,412 | 53.95% | 326 | 7.29% | 41 | 0.92% | -720 | -16.10% | 4,471 |
| Lincoln | 1,674 | 66.40% | 719 | 28.52% | 56 | 2.22% | 72 | 2.86% | 955 | 37.88% | 2,521 |
| Lyman | 990 | 51.43% | 766 | 39.79% | 135 | 7.01% | 34 | 1.77% | 224 | 11.64% | 1,925 |
| Marshall | 601 | 47.85% | 541 | 43.07% | 45 | 3.58% | 69 | 5.49% | 60 | 4.78% | 1,256 |
| McCook | 1,063 | 49.33% | 962 | 44.64% | 56 | 2.60% | 74 | 3.43% | 101 | 4.69% | 2,155 |
| McPherson | 649 | 65.23% | 327 | 32.86% | 6 | 0.60% | 13 | 1.31% | 322 | 32.36% | 995 |
| Meade | 1,032 | 46.28% | 975 | 43.72% | 152 | 6.82% | 71 | 3.18% | 57 | 2.56% | 2,230 |
| Mellette | 261 | 44.01% | 320 | 53.96% | 5 | 0.84% | 7 | 1.18% | -59 | -9.95% | 593 |
| Miner | 851 | 51.33% | 720 | 43.43% | 39 | 2.35% | 48 | 2.90% | 131 | 7.90% | 1,658 |
| Minnehaha | 3,051 | 50.20% | 2,576 | 42.38% | 256 | 4.21% | 195 | 3.21% | 475 | 7.82% | 6,078 |
| Moody | 932 | 52.10% | 637 | 35.61% | 119 | 6.65% | 101 | 5.65% | 295 | 16.49% | 1,789 |
| Pennington | 1,073 | 45.52% | 1,135 | 48.15% | 117 | 4.96% | 32 | 1.36% | -62 | -2.63% | 2,357 |
| Perkins | 1,052 | 50.07% | 832 | 39.60% | 177 | 8.42% | 40 | 1.90% | 220 | 10.47% | 2,101 |
| Potter | 439 | 48.72% | 423 | 46.95% | 17 | 1.89% | 22 | 2.44% | 16 | 1.78% | 901 |
| Roberts | 1,361 | 55.35% | 812 | 33.02% | 201 | 8.17% | 85 | 3.46% | 549 | 22.33% | 2,459 |
| Sanborn | 880 | 56.63% | 577 | 37.13% | 19 | 1.22% | 78 | 5.02% | 303 | 19.50% | 1,554 |
| Spink | 1,432 | 47.34% | 1,347 | 44.53% | 128 | 4.23% | 118 | 3.90% | 85 | 2.81% | 3,025 |
| Stanley | 981 | 44.29% | 1,051 | 47.45% | 137 | 6.19% | 46 | 2.08% | -70 | -3.16% | 2,215 |
| Sully | 292 | 51.05% | 242 | 42.31% | 19 | 3.32% | 19 | 3.32% | 50 | 8.74% | 572 |
| Tripp | 1,153 | 51.27% | 982 | 43.66% | 82 | 3.65% | 32 | 1.42% | 171 | 7.60% | 2,249 |
| Turner | 1,603 | 61.35% | 906 | 34.67% | 22 | 0.84% | 82 | 3.14% | 697 | 26.67% | 2,613 |
| Union | 1,396 | 56.54% | 965 | 39.08% | 22 | 0.89% | 86 | 3.48% | 431 | 17.46% | 2,469 |
| Walworth | 585 | 52.19% | 451 | 40.23% | 55 | 4.91% | 30 | 2.68% | 134 | 11.95% | 1,121 |
| Yankton | 1,511 | 51.61% | 1,289 | 44.02% | 61 | 2.08% | 67 | 2.29% | 222 | 7.58% | 2,928 |
| Ziebach | 371 | 48.43% | 349 | 45.56% | 36 | 4.70% | 10 | 1.31% | 22 | 2.87% | 766 |
| Totals | 58,811 | 50.56% | 48,942 | 42.07% | 4,662 | 4.01% | 3,910 | 3.36% | 9,869 | 8.48% | 116,325 |
See also
Notes
- ^ Other incumbent Presidents not on the ballot in all states have been Benjamin Harrison in Florida in 1892, Taft in California also during the 1912 election, Harry S. Truman in Alabama in 1948, and Lyndon B. Johnson also in Alabama in 1964.
References
- ^ Holt, James (1967). Congressional Insurgents and the Party System, 1909-1916. Harvard University Press. p. 68.
- ^ Schlup, Leonard. Coe I. Crawford and the Progressive Campaign of 1912 (PDF). p. 122. Retrieved April 14, 2020.
- ^ Schlup, Leonard. Coe I. Crawford and the Progressive Campaign of 1912 (PDF). p. 126. Retrieved April 14, 2020.
- ^ "1912 Presidential Election Statistics". US Election Atlas. Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Retrieved March 5, 2018.
- ^ a b c d e "South Dakota Official Election Returns and Registration Figures: South Dakota Secretary of State". sdsos.gov. Retrieved December 6, 2025.
- ^ a b "[Article]". Reporter and farmer. March 21, 1912. p. 6. ISSN 2993-9070. OCLC 41569499. Retrieved December 15, 2025.
- ^ a b "[Article]". The herald-advance. May 31, 1912. p. 10. ISSN 2577-3402. OCLC 43593668. Retrieved December 15, 2025.
- ^ "[Article]". The citizen-Republican. April 11, 1912. p. 2. ISSN 2475-3351. OCLC 42201755. Retrieved December 15, 2025.
- ^ a b "[Article]". The Madison daily leader. May 7, 1912. p. 2. ISSN 2640-5210. OCLC 35670568. Retrieved December 15, 2025.
- ^ a b c d "CLARK FORCES WIN CONTESTS.; South Dakota and District of Columbia Delegates Are Seated". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved December 15, 2025.
- ^ a b "Atlanta semi-weekly journal., June 28, 1912". Atlanta semi-weekly journal. June 28, 1912. pp. 1–2.
- ^ "[Article]". The Miller press. June 6, 1912. p. 1. ISSN 2770-0577. OCLC 12862535. Retrieved December 6, 2025.
- ^ "1912 Presidential Election Results South Dakota".
- ^ South Dakota Secretary of State; Official Vote November Election, 1912 Presidential Electors