New Amendment L campaign enables 'low-minded' changes to SD Constitution, lawmaker says
The Voter Defense Association of South Dakota is launching a campaign against a ballot measure that would make it more difficult for voters to pass a constitutional amendment in the state.
Matthew Schweich, president of VDASD, led a May 15 press conference announcing the opposition effort against Amendment L, which will appear before voters during the 2026 general election.
Currently, proposed amendments to the South Dakota Constitution need to meet a simple majority threshold (50 percent plus one vote). Amendment L would require future constitutional amendments to receive 60 percent of the vote to be implemented. Amendment L itself would be subject to the simple majority threshold and not the rule it proposes.
But the president of VDASD, a nonpartisan political group focused on ballot initiative rights of South Dakota voters, said raising the threshold to 60% would "weaken the ballot initiative process in South Dakota."
"The debate over Amendment L really boils down to one simple question: Should 40 percent of voters be able to control our state constitution in perpetuity?" Schweich said. "Amendment L is the latest in a series of attempts by the South Dakota Legislature to limit the power that South Dakota voters have over their government."
More: Should South Dakota constitutional amendments require a 60% majority to pass?
Amendment L was referred on March 13 to the 2026 ballot after the Legislature passed House Joint Resolution 5003, legislation that proposed to put the ballot question before voters next Election Day.
State Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, was the prime sponsor of the bill. Hughes' initial version of the bill would have asked voters to raise the threshold to a two-thirds majority, but lawmakers accepted a later amendment to reduce the necessary votes to 60 percent.
Hughes argued in January, prior to the bill's passage, that out-of-state interests had been "exploiting" the state's simple majority rule to pass constitutional amendments. Proponents of the increased requirement have said raising the number of votes needed to amend the state constitution would make it more difficult for out-of-state groups to influence elections in South Dakota.
South Dakota became a donor battleground of its own during the 2024 general election, with wealthy, non-South Dakotan liberal and conservative figures pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into ballot question committees in the state.
More: Pro-Amendment G fundraising gains outmatched by Leonard Leo-backed 'dark money' group
Schweich agreed, in part, saying the role of money in politics is what he called the "No. 1 problem."
But he said campaign finance reform is its own, separate issue — despite making out-of-state influences a key part of their argument against Amendment L — that the state Legislature needs to tackle.
"If the Legislature is concerned about the role of money in South Dakota politics, they should pass campaign finance laws, and they should support policies at the federal level that actually allow states to make their own decisions on campaign finance," Schweich said.
The Legislature introduced several bills during the 2025 session on the topic of campaign finance.
Senate Bill 12, signed by Gov. Larry Rhoden Feb. 18, closed a campaign loophole that allowed individual contributions to political action committees to exceed a $10,000 as long as the contribution was designated as a "loan," which could be forgiven at a later date under state law.
The Legislature also considered but later tabled an amended House Bill 1242, which would have placed a $10,000 limit on contributions to a political action committee by federal candidates.
Hughes told the Argus Leader in an interview following the May 15 press conference he believed VDASD and other groups opposed to more rigorous majority vote systems had ulterior motives for keeping South Dakota's simple majority threshold.
Proposed constitutional amendments that lean liberal, such as securing the right to abortion and legalizing recreational marijuana — issues that Hughes said were "low-minded pursuits" — in the state Constitution, could be passed in the future under the state's 50 percent plus one majority rule.
"Frankly, I'm trying to protect our state constitution and that was the motivation behind HJR 5003 was to protect our constitution against the whims of these changing attitudes," Hughes said. "The thing that I find so interesting, intriguing is that if Amendment L passes, it will be by 50% plus one … The people are gonna do it, and so I'm like … Why are you guys opposing this? Let the people decide what it should be. Isn't that how this all started?'
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 percent. That failed after only receiving 46 percent 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 during five years, to pass by at least 60 percent. This proposed change was also defeated after only receiving 33 percent of votes.
This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Voting rights group launches opposition effort against Amendment L
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Military News
2 hours ago
- American Military News
Trump escalates battle with Columbia University, threatens accreditation
The Trump administration has launched a process to try to strip Columbia University of its accreditation over a finding the school had failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students from harassment. On Wednesday, the U.S. Education Department notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Columbia's accreditor, that the school was in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws and accordingly does not meet the commission's standards. The government issued the finding May 22. 'Just as the Department of Education has an obligation to uphold federal anti-discrimination law, university accreditors have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. A rep for the accreditor confirmed it had received the letter that afternoon but declined to comment further. The threat to Columbia's accreditation is a serious one. Most federal funding, including financial aid, hinges on a school being accredited. While it appears that only accreditors could revoke Columbia's status, the accrediting entities themselves have to be recognized by the Education Department. 'Columbia is aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights today to our accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and we have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States,' said Columbia spokesperson Virginia Lam Abrams. 'Columbia is deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it.' The dramatic escalation of the Trump administration's assault on Columbia came as the New York City-based Ivy League school is negotiating with federal agencies over $400 million in canceled grants and contracts, mainly impacting medical research. The university has made various concessions to the government — including more oversight of Middle Eastern studies and ways of cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests — that have so far proved insufficient to restore the funding. McMahon's statement threatened the federal funding that Columbia receives through student financial aid. In a press release, the Education Department said accreditors must take 'appropriate action' against schools such as Columbia to come into compliance within a specified period. 'Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid. They determine which institutions are eligible for federal student loans and Pell Grants,' McMahon said. 'We look forward to the commission keeping the department fully informed of actions taken to ensure Columbia's compliance with accreditation standards.' Columbia goes through the accreditation process about every 10 years and was recently being evaluated by the president of Johns Hopkins University, according to Stand Columbia Society, a group of faculty and alumni — who as of last month said the undertaking was 'going very smoothly.' 'Accreditation was never designed to be political. In fact, one of the things that has made accreditation so successful was how the apolitical and obscure machinery of quality control hummed in the background,' Stand Columbia wrote in a newsletter last month. 'But now, for the first time in a hundred years, that backstage machinery is being pulled into the political spotlight. Where it goes from here is uncertain. What's clear is that accreditation is no longer something most people can afford to ignore.' Columbia became the epicenter of campus protests against Israel's military campaign in Gaza when students pitched an encampment last spring calling on their administrators to divest from the war. The demonstration came to a head when a smaller group of protesters occupied Hamilton Hall, prompting the university to call in the NYPD and make mass arrests. More recently, dozens of students took over Butler Library to protest the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate student, and what they see as Columbia's role in his arrest by federal immigration authorities in early March. Pro-Palestinian students and their allies have accused Columbia and the Trump administration of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. ___ © 2025 New York Daily News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Boston Globe
6 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Can the Ivy League band together to fight Trump's attacks on higher education?
Harvard University has suffered most of President Trump's blows, with the president stripping Advertisement At other schools, university presidents are giving interviews and campus speeches critical of the White House. Professors are unionizing to advocate for their research and students. And many alumni groups are spearheading public awareness campaigns to pressure their alma maters to fight back against Trump. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Because 'The fight is going to be won among the public,' said Jon Fansmith, vice president of the nonprofit American Council on Education. The Trump administration has arguied elite universities force-feed students leftist ideology and allowed antisemitism to run rampant since the Israel-Hamas war began in October 2023. The administration has announced investigations of colleges and universities allegedly discriminating against white people and cut off or threatened to cut federal funding to many schools. Advertisement At Columbia University, leaders in March said they would comply with the administration's demands after officials froze hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because the administration said the school failed to protect Jewish students from discrimination. But that didn't seem to appease the White House, which announced last week it was targeting the school's accreditation, which could ultimately result in Columbia losing federal financial aid for its students. In April, several Big Ten conference schools formally signed on to a 'The Trump administration has no intention of backing down, and the only thing that will work to oppose him is strong collective action where we have each other's backs,' said Lieberwitz, whose university had Students on the campus at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., on March 7. HANNAH BEIER/NYT University presidents speak out Ivy League university presidents have responded differently to allegations of antisemitism on campus and the Trump administration's attempts to control how they run their schools. A Eisgruber, a constitutional law scholar, has been particularly outspoken, slamming Advertisement 'It's really important for conservative views to be welcome on a campus, but that's different from insisting on ideological balance on a campus,' Eisgruber told the host of The Daily this spring. After Harvard lost billions in science funding in April, Eisgruber posted 'Princeton stands with Harvard,' on his LinkedIn profile. At Brown University, the school's highest governing body recently extended president Christina Paxson's term through June 2028 in a show of confidence. Eisgruber's and Paxson's long tenures put them in better positions to speak out, higher education advocates told the Globe this spring. Other Ivies have recently been plagued by turnover among leaders, including high-profile oustings over responses to pro-Palestinian protests and allegations of antisemitism. The presidents of Yale, Cornell, and the University of Pennsylvania were installed this spring. 'The other university presidents are not standing up for Harvard because they don't want to be the next one on Trump's list,' said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Presidents, a union. University presidents are also strategizing with lawmakers in Washington D.C., professors told the Globe. The largest public outcry from university presidents came on April 22, when hundreds signed a public statement with the American Association of Colleges & Universities against 'unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Dartmouth president Sian Beilock was the only Ivy president to not sign, despite being urged to by professors and alumni, said Derek Jennings, an active member of the Native American Alumni Association of Dartmouth. The school's director of media relations, Jana Barnello, said like other schools, Dartmouth has filed supporting declarations in lawsuits over the funding cuts. Advertisement Professors rally to organize against Trump While university presidents seem to be taking a more careful and calculated approach, many professors rapidly organized this spring, forming union chapters in an attempt to defend their research. 'The level of increased faculty activism at Dartmouth is demonstrating that those of us who value the ideals and values of higher education are not waiting for administrators to lead on this,' said Bethany Moreton, who helped launch Dartmouth's chapter of the American Association of University Presidents in May 2024. Membership has since ballooned to 150, she said. Across the Ivy League, researchers said they're best suited to publicly advocate for their work, describing their life-saving findings and discoveries at rallies and in letters to lawmakers, groups told the Globe. While some observers warn of a potential brain drain among professors to Canada or Europe in response to Trump's cuts to research funding, some said Trump's attacks are creating more unity among colleagues than they've seen in years. 'If the intention was to divide faculty and pit us against each other with all the threats, it's really not working,' said Princeton English professor Meredith Martin. 'We care so much about our students that, if anything, this is bringing us together and making us stronger.' During the recent school year, membership in AAUP surged to 50,000, from 42,000, with almost all of that after Trump's inauguration in January, according to the group, and is the largest spike since its founding a century ago. Alumni stand up for schools Alumni are also pushing administrators at their alma maters to do more to stand up for their schools' autonomy. Harvard's alumni campaign, Crimson Courage, met Friday in a packed auditorium on the Cambridge campus to discuss how it is 'reaching out beyond Harvard to build the campaign,' an event description said. Advertisement The group Stand Up for Princeton and Higher Education amassed more than 9,000 alumni supporters in the past five weeks. Some held signs and wore buttons while walking the P-rade route on May 24. The group's In Connecticut, the group Stand Up for Yale sent a Similar alumni groups are taking shape across the Ivy League, with several urging university presidents to sign on to group statements, alumni told the Globe. Schools must band together formally, experts say Many graduates said their support is for all of higher education, not just their alma maters. At the recent Princeton reunion after the P-rade, a Yale Divinity School student caught up with a University of Chicago Law School graduate over barbecue. Outside nearby Firestone Library, recent graduates of Yale's and Harvard's law schools enveloped in hugs. 'The education my peers and I received was life changing, and our schools know this and are not backing down on ensuring future students get the same opportunities,' said Joshua Faires, who has an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a master's degree in sociology from Columbia University. HoSang, from Yale's AAUP chapter, said Trump knows higher education institutions depend on each other and share one 'ecosystem,' and so a threat against one is a threat to all, he said. Advertisement 'There is no saving Yale, Harvard, or Princeton without standing up for all of higher education,' HoSang said. Still, faculty and alumni need more support from administrators, some warned —all the way from the presidents at the top, said Wolfson, the national AAUP president. 'I think they need to be bold,' Wolfson said. 'And this is hard to do but I'll say it anyway: They need to put their institution second, and then need to put higher education — as a critical sector in US society — first.' Claire Thornton can be reached at
Los Angeles Times
8 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
A U.S. territory's colonial history emerges in disputes over voting and citizenship
WHITTIER, Alaska — Squeezed between glacier-packed mountains and Alaska's Prince William Sound, the cruise-ship stop of Whittier is isolated enough that it's reachable by just a single road, through a long, one-lane tunnel that vehicles share with trains. It's so small that nearly all its 260 residents live in the same 14-story condo building. But Whittier also is the unlikely crossroads of two major currents in American politics: fighting over what it means to be born on U.S. soil and false claims by President Trump and others that noncitizen voter fraud is widespread. In what experts describe as an unprecedented case, Alaska prosecutors are pursuing felony charges against 11 residents of Whittier, most of them related to one another, saying they falsely claimed U.S. citizenship when registering or trying to vote. The defendants were all born in American Samoa, an island cluster in the South Pacific roughly halfway between Hawaii and New Zealand. It's the only U.S. territory where residents are not automatically granted citizenship by virtue of having been born on American soil, as the Constitution dictates. Instead, by a quirk of geopolitical history, they are considered 'U.S. nationals' — a distinction that gives them certain rights and obligations while denying them others. American Samoans are entitled to U.S. passports and can serve in the military. Men must register for the Selective Service. They can vote in local elections in American Samoa but cannot hold public office in the U.S. or participate in most U.S. elections. Those who wish to become citizens can do so, but the process costs hundreds of dollars and can be cumbersome. 'To me, I'm an American. I was born an American on U.S. soil,' said firefighter Michael Pese, one of those charged in Whittier. 'American Samoa has been U.S. soil, U.S. jurisdiction, for 125 years. According to the supreme law of the land, that's my birthright.' The status has created confusion in other states as well. In Oregon, officials inadvertently registered nearly 200 American Samoan residents to vote when they got their driver's licenses under the state's motor-voter law. Of those, 10 cast ballots in an election, according to the Oregon secretary of state's office. Officials there determined the residents had not intended to break the law and no crime was committed. In Hawaii, one resident who was born in American Samoa, Sai Timoteo, ran for the state Legislature in 2018 before learning she wasn't allowed to hold public office or vote. She had always considered it her civic duty to vote, and the form on the voting materials had one box to check: 'U.S. Citizen/U.S. National.' 'I checked that box my entire life,' she said. She also avoided charges, and Hawaii subsequently changed its form to make it more clear. Amid the storm of executive orders issued by Trump in the early days of his second term was one that sought to redefine birthright citizenship by barring it for children of parents who are in the U.S. unlawfully. Another would overhaul how federal elections are run, among other changes requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship. Courts so far have blocked both orders. The Constitution says that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' It also leaves the administration of elections to the states. The case in Whittier began with Pese's wife, Tupe Smith. After the couple moved to Whittier in 2018, Smith began volunteering at the Whittier Community School, where nearly half of the 55 students were American Samoan — many of them her nieces and nephews. She would help the kids with their English, tutor them in reading and cook them Samoan dishes. In 2023, a seat on the regional school board came open and she ran for it. She was the only candidate and won with about 95% of the vote. One morning a few weeks later, as she was making her two children breakfast, state troopers came knocking. They asked about her voting history. She explained that she knew she wasn't allowed to vote in U.S. presidential elections, but thought she could vote in local or state races. She said she checked a box affirming that she was a U.S. citizen at the instruction of elections workers because there was no option to identify herself as a U.S. national, court records say. The troopers arrested her and drove her to a women's prison near Anchorage. She was released that day after her husband paid bail. 'When they put me in cuffs, my son started crying,' Smith said. About 10 months later, troopers returned to Whittier and issued court summonses to Pese, eight other relatives and one man who was not related but came from the same American Samoa village as Pese. One of Smith's attorneys, Neil Weare, grew up in another U.S. territory, Guam, and is the co-founder of the Washington-based Right to Democracy Project, whose mission is 'confronting and dismantling the undemocratic colonial framework governing people in U.S. territories.' He suggested the prosecutions are aimed at 'low-hanging fruit' in the absence of evidence that illegal immigrants frequently cast ballots in U.S. elections. Even state-level investigations have found voting by noncitizens to be exceptionally rare. 'There is no question that Ms. Smith lacked an intent to mislead or deceive a public official in order to vote unlawfully when she checked 'U.S. citizen' on voter registration materials,' he wrote in a brief to the Alaska Court of Appeals, after a lower court judge declined to dismiss the charges. Prosecutors say her false claim of citizenship was intentional, and her claim to the contrary was undercut by the clear language on the voter application forms she filled out in 2020 and 2022. The forms said that if the applicant did not answer yes to being over 18 years old and a U.S. citizen, 'do not complete this form, as you are not eligible to vote.' The unique situation of American Samoans dates to the 19th century, when the U.S. and European powers were seeking to expand their colonial and economic interests in the South Pacific. The U.S. Navy secured the use of Pago Pago Harbor in eastern Samoa as a coal-refueling station for military and commercial vessels, while Germany sought to protect its coconut plantations in western Samoa. Eventually the archipelago was divided, with the western islands becoming the independent nation of Samoa and the eastern ones becoming American Samoa, overseen by the Navy. The leaders of American Samoa spent much of the late 19th and early 20th centuries arguing that its people should be U.S. citizens. Birthright citizenship was eventually afforded to residents of other U.S. territories — Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Congress considered it for American Samoa in the 1930s, but declined. Some lawmakers cited financial concerns during the Great Depression while others expressed patently racist objections, according to a 2020 article in the American Journal of Legal History. Supporters of automatic citizenship say it would particularly benefit the estimated 150,000 to 160,000 nationals who live in the states, many of them in California, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Alaska. 'We pay taxes, we do exactly the same as everybody else that are U.S. citizens,' Smith said. 'It would be nice for us to have the same rights as everybody here in the states.' But many in American Samoa eventually soured on the idea, fearing that extending birthright citizenship would jeopardize its customs — including the territory's communal land laws. Island residents could be dispossessed by land privatization, not unlike what happened in Hawaii, said Siniva Bennett, board chair of the Samoa Pacific Development Corporation, a Portland, Ore.-based nonprofit. 'We've been able to maintain our culture, and we haven't been divested from our land like a lot of other indigenous people in the U.S.,' Bennett said. In 2021, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to extend automatic citizenship to those born in American Samoa, saying it would be wrong to force citizenship on those who don't want it. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision. Several jurisdictions across the country, including San Francisco and the District of Columbia, allow people who are not citizens to vote in certain local elections. Tafilisaunoa Toleafoa, with the Pacific Community of Alaska, said the situation has been so confusing that her organization reached out to the Alaska Division of Elections in 2021 and 2022 to ask whether American Samoans could vote in state and local elections. Neither time did it receive a direct answer, she said. 'People were telling our community that they can vote as long as you have your voter registration card and it was issued by the state,' she said. Finally, last year, Carol Beecher, head of the state Division of Elections, sent Toleafoa's group a letter saying American Samoans are not eligible to vote in Alaska elections. But by then, the voting forms had been signed. 'It is my hope that this is a lesson learned, that the state of Alaska agrees that this could be something that we can administratively correct,' Toleafoa said. 'I would say that the state could have done that instead of prosecuting community members.' Thiessen, Bohrer and Johnson write for the Associated Press. Bohrer reported from Juneau, Alaska, and Johnson from Seattle. Claire Rush in Portland and Jennifer Sinco Kelleher in Honolulu contributed to this report.
