Latest news with #AmendmentL
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Voters show concern for Amendment L
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — Some South Dakotans are expressing concerns about Amendment L. Earlier this year, Lawmakers passed a resolution putting it on the 2026 ballot. If it passes, Amendment L would require future constitutional amendments to pass by a 60% majority instead of 50%. A group that calls itself the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota says the that proposed change would restrict voters' constitutional rights. 'It's really about this more fundamental question about how our democracy works. Should every South Dakotan's vote count equally? It's one person, one vote. Do we believe in the will of the people? If 50% support it, should that take effect?' said Matthrew Schweich, Chairman and President, VDA. This isn't the first time something like this has been on a South Dakota ballot. Passed attempts have failed Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Raising constitutional amendment vote threshold would backfire, says newly formed opposition group
Matthew Schweich, president of the Voter Defense Association, speaks at a "Vote No on L" campaign event in Sioux Falls on May 15, 2025. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) SIOUX FALLS — A constitutional amendment that South Dakota voters will consider in next year's general election will strengthen rather than weaken the influence of out-of-state organizations in state politics, opponents of the amendment said Thursday. Lawmakers approved a resolution this winter asking voters to increase the threshold for approving a constitutional amendment ballot measure from a simple majority to 60%. The question will be posed as Constitutional Amendment L. Opponents launched a 'No on L' campaign Thursday. Matthew Schweich, president of the Voter Defense Association, said the amendment would ensure the 'tyranny of the minority' in the state. Sioux Falls Republican Rep. John Hughes introduced the resolution. He told South Dakota Searchlight that the amendment would protect the state's constitution from being amended by outside interests and prevent policy from being inserted into a document that's intended only to stipulate the structure and powers of the government. 'Political issues shouldn't be injected into the constitution,' Hughes said, adding 'we've discovered it's problematic and should be made more difficult.' Hughes said an influx of constitutional amendments in recent years, including four last year (among seven total ballot questions), resulted in voter fatigue and groups bringing in 'out-of-state money by the truckloads to convince people to do things ultimately against their best interests.' He specifically mentioned a 2022 amendment to expand Medicaid in the state, which passed with 56% of the vote, and a 2024 amendment to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, which failed with 61% of votes against it. Amendment L wouldn't change campaign finance laws to directly address out-of-state influence, Schweich said Thursday. Instead, he said, the amendment would make it more difficult for grassroots movements to succeed. Schweich has worked on several ballot measure campaigns in recent years, most recently on a failed measure to legalize recreational marijuana in the state. 'If Amendment L takes effect and constitutional amendments require 60%, the only people who will be able to attempt them are big money, out-of-state groups, because they will have the resources to run all of the ads necessary to hit 60%,' Schweich said. Similar measures in 2018 and 2022 proposing to increase the voter threshold for constitutional amendments failed at the ballot box. Passing constitutional amendments is already difficult, Schweich said. South Dakotans have passed nearly half of the 100 constitutional amendments placed on the ballot since 1972, when South Dakotans gained the right to initiate them, according to a report from the No on L campaign. If Amendment L were to have taken effect in 1972, only 20% of amendments would have crossed the 60% threshold since then, according to the report. Lawmaker assertions about voter fatigue don't stop them from sending four measures to the ballot That includes several amendments related to gambling in the state and 2012's Amendment O, which requires a balanced state budget each legislative session. The law passed with a 57% vote. The 60% threshold would also have prevented Medicaid expansion, Hughes said, which currently has South Dakota on the hook for an 'unfunded mandate' to cover millions of dollars of costs if the federal government reduces its share of Medicaid expansion funding. 'It's a constitutional train wreck,' Hughes said. 'The people who are pushing this agenda are unhappy with the views of a majority of South Dakotans, so they're trying to manipulate people to change our culture and our core values.' Supporters of the resolution during the legislative session included representatives with the National Rifle Association, South Dakota Right to Life, Protecting South Dakota Kids, South Dakota Retailers Association and South Dakota Family Voice Action. Lawmakers endorsed three more constitutional amendments this winter that will be on next year's ballot, including a clarification that non-U.S. citizens can't vote in South Dakota elections, the creation of an unclaimed property trust fund, and a question to allow the Legislature to remove South Dakota from expanded Medicaid if the federal funding share declines. Another six potential ballot questions from the public are already listed on the Secretary of State's website. Two of those questions have been approved for petition circulation. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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
