South Dakota

Should South Dakota constitutional amendments require a 60% majority to pass?

Published

1 year ago

January 19, 2025

Should South Dakota constitutional amendments require a 60% majority to pass?

Resolution sponsor argues out-of-state donors are shaping South Dakota elections; Opponents say campaign finance reform is the answer

PIERRE — Lawmakers are considering a resolution that would start the process of making it more difficult for voters to pass a constitutional amendment in South Dakota.

The State House Affairs Committee heard testimony on House Joint Resolution 5003, a bill that would ask voters during the next general election whether to change the votes needed to pass a constitutional amendment from a simple majority to a 60% threshold.

The joint resolution was amended to the 60% figure at the start of the bill’s hearing on Friday. The prime sponsor of the bill, Republican Rep. John Hughes of Sioux Falls, had initially suggested a two-thirds majority in the initial version of his legislation.

The committee passed the resolution on an 11-2 vote, sending it to the full House for consideration.

Out-of-state interests have undue influence on South Dakota elections, resolution sponsor says

Hughes argued South Dakota has become a “convergence point for out-of-state interests to take advantage and exploit” the state’s simple majority requirement to pass constitutional amendments.

The Sioux Falls lawmaker referenced several large donations made in the weeks before the 2024 general election to Dakotans for Health, a group pushing to enshrine the right to abortion in the South Dakota Constitution — though Hughes did not directly name the group or the ballot question in his statements.

Hughes pointed to a $500,000 donation made by Think Big America, a nonprofit backed by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, in October.

Pritzker made another donation of $250,000 to Dakotans for Health on Nov. 1, according to a report filed with the South Dakota Secretary of State.

Another group backed by conservative activist Leonard Leo later matched the Pritzker nonprofit’s donation with a $500,000 that went to No G for SD, a ballot question committee. That money went to pay for ads opposing Constitutional Amendment G, which was rejected by 59% of South Dakota voters in the election.

“We have big checks coming in: $100,000 from a guy in California, $500,000 from the governor of Illinois. What on earth is the governor of Illinois doing to shape and mold the political and social values of South Dakota?” said Hughes, who failed to mention Leo’s large donation.

South Dakota law allows ballot question committees, or groups with a position on a specific ballot question, to receive unlimited amounts of money from individuals, political action committees, political parties, entities and other ballot question committees.

Nathan Sanderson, executive director of the South Dakota Retailers Association, spoke in support of the resolution, saying amending the constitution “should be more difficult” than amending a statute. Sanderson led the effort to oppose Initiated Measure 28, which was sponsored by Dakotans for Health co-founder Rick Weiland.

But opponents contend the change would actually work to the benefit of wealthy groups and individuals.

Opponents: Reforms to campaign finance laws, not majority requirements, is needed

Chase Jensen, a lobbyist for Dakota Rural Action, told the committee he agreed with Hughes on part of his testimony, particularly regarding the influence of out-of-state money in the state’s elections.

But he argued the state’s campaign finance laws need to be reformed, specifically when it comes to how outside money is allowed to be brought into state elections, rather than “changing the power of the people.”

During the recent election, only one out of seven ballot questions passed the simple majority threshold (50% plus one vote).

Constitutional Amendment F, which proposed to enforce work requirements on individuals who apply for expanded Medicaid benefits, passed with 56% of votes in November.

Jensen said raising the bar would only make it more difficult for legislators and citizens to pass constitutional amendments in the future.

“With the unprecedented concentration of wealth in our society, in our politics today, we believe raising the threshold of votes wouldn’t deter out of state money. It would only open the tap even further,” Jensen said.

Zebediah Johnson, a lobbyist for the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota, told the Argus Leader the majority of constitutional amendments proposed over the last two decades have been referred to voters by legislators.

South Dakota’s early populist movement adopted the initiative and popular referendum process into the South Dakota Constitution in 1898, becoming the first state in the U.S. to do so.

“There is no need for South Dakota, which created the American ballot initiative, to deviate from the norm in such an extreme manner,” Johnson said.

South Dakota voters have a recent history of rejecting changes to the state’s majority requirements.

In 2018, South Dakotans considered Amendment X, which proposed to raise the vote threshold to 55%. That failed after only receiving 46% of the vote.

Voters also rejected Amendment C in 2022, which would have required any future ballot measure that increases taxes, or spends $10 million over five years, to pass by at least 60%. This proposed change was also defeated after only receiving 33% of votes.

Source link

Click to comment

South Dakota

Feeding South Dakota

Published

10 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

South Dakota

SD Lottery Millionaire for Life winning numbers for Feb. 26, 2026

Published

22 hours ago

February 27, 2026

Press Room

The South Dakota Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at Feb. 26, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from Feb. 26 drawing

03-14-22-50-57, Bonus: 04

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your prize

Prizes of $100 or less: Can be claimed at any South Dakota Lottery retailer.
Prizes of $101 or more: Must be claimed from the Lottery. By mail, send a claim form and a signed winning ticket to the Lottery at 711 E. Wells Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501.
Any jackpot-winning ticket for Dakota Cash or Lotto America, top prize-winning ticket for Lucky for Life, or for the second prizes for Powerball and Mega Millions must be presented in person at a Lottery office. A jackpot-winning Powerball or Mega Millions ticket must be presented in person at the Lottery office in Pierre.

When are the South Dakota Lottery drawings held?

Powerball: 9:59 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
Mega Millions: 10 p.m. CT on Tuesday and Friday.
Lucky for Life: 9:38 p.m. CT daily.
Lotto America: 9:15 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
Dakota Cash: 9 p.m. CT on Wednesday and Saturday.
Millionaire for Life: 10:15 p.m. CT daily.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a South Dakota editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Source link

South Dakota

SNAP soda ban headed to desk of South Dakota governor, who’s concerned about costs

Published

1 day ago

February 26, 2026

Press Room

SNAP soda ban headed to desk of South Dakota governor, who’s concerned about costs

State Sen. Sydney Davis, R-Burbank, speaks in the South Dakota Senate at the Capitol in Pierre on Feb. 10, 2026. Davis is sponsoring a bill that would ban the use of SNAP benefits for soda purchases. (Photo by Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)

By: John Hult

PIERRE, S.D. (South Dakota Searchlight) – The question of whether South Dakota moves to ban the use of government food assistance for sugary drinks is in the hands of Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden, who has signaled his opposition to the bill all through the 2026 legislative session.

The state Senate voted 27-6 on Wednesday to endorse House Bill 1056, after the House passed it earlier 58-11. Assuming the same levels of support, both margins are wide enough to overcome a Rhoden veto, should he choose to issue one.

The bill directs the Department of Social Services to ask for a federal waiver to allow the state to bar the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for the purchase of soft drinks.

SNAP is a federal program, managed by the state, through which people with low incomes get a monthly allowance for food through a debit-like card that can be used at most stores to buy nearly any consumable grocery item save alcohol and prepared foods.

Representatives from Rhoden’s office testified against the bill in House and Senate committees, arguing that the administrative costs would be too high. A fiscal note attached to the bill between its passage in the House and its appearance on the Senate’s Wednesday calendar estimated that implementation would cost $310,000 through the first two years. Those costs would come from hiring an extra employee and contracting for software to track sales, file reports and help retailers determine which drinks are banned.

Backers see long-term savings to the state, though. A high percentage of SNAP recipients are also on Medicaid, a taxpayer-funded health insurance program open to disabled and income-eligible people.

On Wednesday, Burbank Republican Sen. Sydney Davis noted the connection between excess soda consumption and health problems like obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. Medicaid dental costs alone add up $51 million a year, she said.

Mitchell Republican Sen. Paul Miskimins, a retired dentist, told the body he once counted 32 cavities and seven abscesses in the mouths of 2-year-old twin boys who were covered by Medicaid.

He attributed the tooth decay to sugary beverages.

“I don’t know if that first visit was more traumatic on the boys or on my dental staff and myself,” said Miskimins.

Tamara Grove, R-Lower Brule, was the lone senator to speak in opposition on the Senate floor. She argued that some stores might stop accepting SNAP payments due to the administrative burden of sorting barred products from the rest of their inventories, and pointed out that the bill wouldn’t do a thing to prevent SNAP recipients from loading up on sugary foods like ice cream or snack cakes.

“It gives this look as if there’s going to be this big, huge change in the way that people buy products, but it’s really not going to be,” Grove said.

Some surrounding states, including Nebraska, have moved to ask for a waiver to ban soda sales through SNAP. Such waivers are now an option, as President Donald Trump’s administration is willing to consider granting them. Former President Joe Biden’s administration was not.

Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, the South Dakota bill’s prime sponsor, got a letter last week from Trump administration officials expressing support for her proposal.

In response, Rhoden spokeswoman Josie Harms told South Dakota Searchlight that the governor “has always been supportive of the Trump Administration’s efforts to Make America Healthy Again,” using a reference to the policy agenda branding used by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“We have met directly with his Administration on this issue, and at no point has our opposition been directed at President Trump or his efforts to reform SNAP,” Harms said. “Our focus has always been on ensuring the implementation of SNAP reform works effectively for our state.”

Harms said Wednesday that Rhoden would answer questions about the bill at a Thursday press conference.

Source link