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.