South Dakota Senate
Mike Rounds (R) holds this seat and is running again. 2 candidates were on the ballot on November 3, 2026. The Cook Political Report rates it safe Republican.
Who should win this race, and why?Say what you think. Other readers can answer you.Discuss
Mike Rounds
Republican · holds this seat today
ALiberty Score AOn the liberty side in 77 of 79 votes and bills.
Raised $3,810,748 since January 2025: 43% from PACs and other committees, 42% from people, 14% transfers and other income. The filing at FEC.gov
Brian Bengs
Independent · retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, independent
FLiberty Score F56 out of 100 across 4 principles. Graded on what Bengs has said and done, because I have no votes in Congress to count for Bengs.
Raised $1,855,763 since January 2025: 97% from people, 2% from PACs and other committees. The filing at FEC.gov
Higher on Liberty Score: Mike Rounds. Mike Rounds: A, 98 out of 100 from recorded votes. Brian Bengs: F, 56 out of 100 from words and actions, with no votes in Congress to count.
Voting in South Dakota: how to register, vote early or vote by mail. Election Day was November 3.
Side by side
A solid letter is a grade from recorded votes on that principle. An outlined letter is on the same scale, for a candidate with no votes: it comes from what that candidate has said and done, and every source is listed below.
Brian Bengs, on the record
I have no votes in Congress to count for Bengs, so the grade above comes from this list: what Bengs has said and done on my principles. Each line has its source, and each is marked with the same test I use for votes.
-
He wrote that the Iran war was hasty and ill-defined and rested on the hope that killing the Islamic Republic's leadership would collapse the country.
“we hadn’t entered a hasty and ill-defined war on nothing more than the hope that killing Iran’s leadership would collapse the country entirely.”
- By the test I use for votes
- Against liberty
Condemning the military action against the regime is the against side of the Iran regime measure.
-
He wrote that after Iran broke a ceasefire deal the United States retaliated, and that this is clear under international law.
“Iran plainly violated the framework deal, so the United States retaliated. It’s cut-and-dry in terms of international law”
- By the test I use for votes
- With liberty
Treating a US strike on Iran after a violation as lawful is the with side of the Iran regime measure.
-
Says he would not have voted to start the Iran war and would not vote to continue it, without naming a policy or bill.
“If I were a United States Senator, I wouldn't have voted to get into this quagmire in the first place.”
- By the test I use for votes
- Not clear either way
Opposing the war with no named policy is unclear for anyone.
-
He wrote that the United States, as Israel's main supplier, must impose consequences on Israel for breaking the law of armed conflict.
“As Israel’s primary benefactor on the international stage, the U.S. government must enforce accountability by imposing consequences for Israel’s disregard of LOAC.”
- By the test I use for votes
- Against liberty
Conditioning the United States' backing of Israel on its conduct is against liberty on free nations.
-
He wrote that Hamas's 7 October attack gave Israel the legal right to respond with force in self-defence.
“In the eyes of the law, Hamas’ actions on October 7th constituted an illegal armed attack, giving Israel the legal entitlement to respond with self-defensive military force.”
- By the test I use for votes
- With liberty
Backing Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas is with liberty on free nations.
-
He criticised a waiver of sanctions on Russian energy sales, saying the sanctions had penalised Putin for attacking Ukraine.
“Our sanctions kept Russia’s oil income in check and penalized Putin for attacking Ukraine.”
- By the test I use for votes
- With liberty
Backing sanctions on Russia over Ukraine is with liberty on free nations.
-
He wrote that NATO is the cornerstone of transatlantic defence and that leaving it would be a mistake.
“NATO remains the irreplaceable cornerstone of transatlantic cooperation and defense.”
- By the test I use for votes
- With liberty
Backing NATO is with liberty on free nations.
-
He called for a 2 percent wealth tax on households worth $50 million to $1 billion and 3 percent above $1 billion.
“I believe that a 2% wealth tax for households worth $50 million to $1 billion and 3% for households over $1 billion would be an effective tool to help lower the national debt”
- By the test I use for votes
- Against liberty
A wealth tax is against liberty on free markets.
-
Says the ultra-rich should pay their fair share and that taxes can also be lowered for small businesses, naming no tax.
“we can actually lower taxes for small businesses and people who work for a living.”
- By the test I use for votes
- Not clear either way
Lower taxes with no tax named is unclear.
-
Bengs says the ultra-rich should pay higher taxes again, as in the 1960s.
“It's long past time for the ultra-rich to pay their fair share once again, like they had to in the 1960s.”
- By the test I use for votes
- Against liberty
Raising taxes on the wealthy is against liberty on free markets.
-
He said he supports robust border fencing in urban areas.
“I support Border Security with robust border fencing in urban areas.”
- By the test I use for votes
- With liberty
A border barrier is with liberty on borders.
-
He set out a plan to break up ICE and change how Border Patrol operates.
“break ICE apart, change the way CBP operates, and return the DHS’s mandate to what it was originally meant to do.”
- By the test I use for votes
- Against liberty
Breaking up ICE is against liberty on borders.
-
Says immigration reform must include a strong border security component and more legal immigration.
“effects-based reform must include a strong border security component and increased legal immigration.”
- By the test I use for votes
- With liberty
Calling for strong border security is with liberty on borders.
Who is on the ballot: the state election offices, as listed on Wikipedia on November 3, 2026, checked against the candidate file of the Federal Election Commission. Race rating: the Cook Political Report, November 2, 2026. See a name that is wrong or missing? Say so in the discussion.
Who should win this race, and why?
Say it where other readers can answer you. Opinions, videos and corrections about this race are all in one place.
Discussion
South Dakota Senate
Opinions, videos, corrections and bug reports about this race, all in one place. What readers post is their words, not mine. My answers carry the Host tag.
Leave out anything private about anyone. The rules, what your account keeps, and what readers have changed so far
Know this race better than I do?
Argue it with the hosts on a call. The community meets every day, and members help decide what goes on these pages.