Latest news with #DakotansforHealth
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
South Dakota ballot group loses attorney fees because of new U.S. Supreme Court precedent
Rick Weiland of Dakotans for Health speaks to the press on Feb. 7, 2024, at the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre about an initiated constitutional amendment to re-establish abortion rights in the state constitution. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) A South Dakota ballot question committee and its lawyer are among the first victims of a new U.S. Supreme Court precedent that lessens the likelihood of recovering attorney fees when suing the government for civil rights violations. The high court's decision in a separate case recently caused Dakotans for Health and its attorney, Jim Leach, to drop their effort to recover attorney fees in a lawsuit against Lawrence County. Leach and Dakotans for Health won a temporary restraining order last year against the county. The order blocked the county from restricting petition circulators to a designated area away from public sidewalks surrounding the courthouse complex in Deadwood. The circulators were gathering signatures for two measures — one that would have restored abortion rights, and one that sought to eliminate the state sales taxes on groceries. Both measures made it onto statewide ballots but were rejected by voters in November. Need to get in touch? Have a news tip? CONTACT US The county claimed its policy restricting circulators preserved public safety and protected the right of local citizens to conduct county business without disruption, but a federal judge ruled the policy 'burdened substantially more speech than necessary.' The judge also ordered the county to pay $19,238.90 in attorney fees and costs, but the county filed an appeal to resist paying the money. Meanwhile, in February, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Lackey v. Stinnie. The Supreme Court ruled that when civil rights plaintiffs win a preliminary injunction and the government relents without the need for a permanent injunction, the plaintiffs are not 'prevailing parties' and are not eligible for court-awarded attorney fees. In the Lawrence County case, the county relented and changed its policy, resulting in a voluntary dismissal of the case. Therefore, wrote Leach in a March motion to the appeals court, 'under Lackey v. Stinnie, Dakotans for Health loses this appeal. So there is no need for anyone to spend any more time on this case.' A judge finalized the matter by dismissing the attorney fees and costs last week. Rick Weiland, chairman of Dakotans for Health, said this week that the Lackey v. Stinnie ruling guts the incentive for lawyers to represent clients suing to protect their civil rights. 'The Supreme Court is attacking the people who go after the government for when it, basically, goes after its own citizens — things like First Amendment violations, which is what we showed the government did,' Weiland said. Dakotans for Health also settled with Minnehaha County in a similar lawsuit last year, and that county has paid $54,815.15 in attorney fees and costs. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawsuit filed against new petition deadline law
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) – A lawsuit has been filed against a new petition deadline passed by state lawmakers and signed into law last week by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden. Jury chosen in DSS embezzlement trial House Bill 1184 passed the House 59-9 and passed the Senate 19-15 before being signed into law by Rhoden on March 25. The bill amends the filing deadline for proposed ballot measures from six months ahead of a November election to nine months ahead of a November election. Attorney Jim Leach, Rick Weiland and Dakotans for Health filed a lawsuit against South Dakota Secretary of State Monae Johnson in federal court on Tuesday asking a judge to stop the nine month deadline from going into effect. A notice of the lawsuit has also been sent to Johnson's office. 'The rollback means that petition circulators must seek final signatures nine months before an election instead of six months before an election, when there is less interest in political matters because the election is farther away,' the lawsuit said. No deadlines or hearings have been set in this case. You can view the complaint in the document below. Johnson-lawsuitDownload 'We believe in the power of the people, and the people of South Dakota have consistently used the initiative process to bring about important reforms, from healthcare access to minimum wage increases,' Weiland said in a news release. 'This new law is just another effort to silence the voices of South Dakotans and deny them the right to make decisions that impact their lives.' The lawsuit cites a previous ruling in the case SD Voice v. Noem where South Dakota's 12-month deadline was struck down as a violation of the First Amendment. Weiland and Dakotans for Health have won in court against state lawmakers before with a state law requiring registration for paid petition circulators. In proponent testimony in favor of House Bill 1184, Republican Rep. Jon Hansen said courts struck down the 12-month deadline, but the state's six-month deadline, passed in 2023, wasn't long enough to complete petition signature verifications. 'We're not going outside of the bounds of what's currently being conducted in other states,' Hansen said in a House State Affairs Committee meeting on Feb. 7 in Pierre. Hansen helped South Dakota lawmakers pass a law allowing people to remove a signature from a petition. Zebadiah Johnson, a lobbyist with the Voter Defense Association, testified only the state of Florida would have an earlier filing deadline for direct initiative ballot measures. In a news release announcing HB 1184 was signed into law, Rhoden also announced his veto of another petition-related bill in HB 1169 and that he signed 20 other election-related bills. 'South Dakota continues to be an example of free and fair elections. Our election system has integrity, and these bills improve our already strong system,' Rhoden said in a news release. 'America is founded on the principle of freedom, and I am proud that we live in a nation and a state where we can choose our leaders.' Rhoden said a reason for issuing a veto on HB 1169 was because he was concerned the bill wouldn't 'withstand scrutiny in the courts.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Ballot group sues state over shorter petition circulation window
Rick Weiland, of Dakotans for Health, answers a question from moderators during an election town hall at Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell on Sept. 19, 2024. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight) A ballot question committee is suing South Dakota's top election official over a new law that shortens the window for petition circulation by three months. Dakotans for Health filed the lawsuit Tuesday in federal court against Secretary of State Monae Johnson. 'This new law is just another effort to silence the voices of South Dakotans and deny them the right to make decisions that impact their lives,' said Dakotans for Health Chairman Rick Weiland in a news release. Read more about election bills considered and adopted during the legislative session on South Dakota Searchlight's 2025 Election Legislation page. South Dakota's Republican-dominated Legislature approved the legislation earlier this month, and Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed it into law last week. The law moves the filing deadline up from May to February for petitions seeking to place citizen-initiated questions on the ballot during general election years. 'It also imposes additional challenges,' Dakotans for Health said, 'including harsher winter conditions and decreased voter interest due to the far-removed election date.' Dakotans for Health is seeking a court order blocking the enforcement of the law, and the payment of its attorney fees and costs. The law affects initiated measures, which need petition signatures from 17,508 registered South Dakota voters to make the ballot, and initiated constitutional amendments, which need 35,017 signatures. State law says no signatures may be collected more than 24 months preceding the general election. Dakotans for Health has been active in numerous petition drives, including two last year: a constitutional amendment that would have reinstated abortion rights and an initiated measure that would have repealed the state sales tax on groceries. Voters rejected both measures. The main sponsor of the new law, House Speaker Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, helped lead a legal challenge last year against the abortion amendment. The case was scheduled for trial after the election, but the lawsuit was dismissed after voters defeated the amendment. Hansen sent a statement in response to a message Tuesday from South Dakota Searchlight. 'Disputes over the validity of petition signatures should be decided before the election takes place — not after,' the statement said. 'Amending this deadline is a common sense way to give voters the certainty to know exactly what will be on their ballot before they go to vote while still allowing over a year to gather petition signatures.' Hansen's legislation was one of numerous bills legislators considered to restrict citizen lawmaking. Among those that passed was a resolution that will send a question to the 2026 ballot asking voters to raise the approval threshold for constitutional amendment ballot questions from a simple majority to 60%. Lawmakers also passed but failed to override Gov. Rhoden's veto of a bill that would have required constitutional amendment petitions to have signatures from every legislative Senate district in the state. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Amid complaints about big-money ballot measures, new reports show $12 million spent in 2024
A Sioux Falls resident votes in the general election on Nov. 5, 2024, at St. Lambert's Catholic Church. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) As some lawmakers complain about the amount of money influencing ballot measures in South Dakota, new numbers indicate that 2024's ballot question campaigns were among the most expensive in state history. Ballot question committees recently filed their year-end campaign finance reports. Those and earlier reports show the total amount spent to support and oppose the seven measures in last fall's election was about $12 million. There are no limits on contributions to ballot question committees. South Dakota's campaign finance system makes compiling and comparing campaign finance data difficult. Rather than entering information directly into a centralized system, candidates, committees and independent spenders submit scanned forms to the South Dakota Secretary of State's Office that essentially have to be viewed one-by-one, which is what South Dakota Searchlight did to compile its analysis. Only the state's 2006 and 2016 elections had more expensive ballot question campaigns, reaching nearly $13 million each of those years, according to historical data maintained by the national nonprofit Open Secrets. Republican legislators cited last year's spending as part of their motivation to file bills this year that would tighten restrictions on citizen-initiated ballot measures. One major bill that passed will move the deadline for submitting petition signatures from May to February, shortening the petition-gathering window by three months. Gov. Larry Rhoden vetoed a bill that would require constitutional amendment petitions to have signatures from registered voters in every state Senate district, and legislators will consider that veto on Monday. Legislators put a measure on the 2026 ballot that will ask voters to raise the approval threshold for constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60%. Governor vetoes effort to restrict constitutional amendment process with geographic rule Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, sponsor of the 60% proposal, said during the legislative session that last year's ballot measures resulted in 'millions of dollars in out-of-state money coming for deceptive, emotionally charged ads stating half-truths.' Open Secrets reports that about 70% of the money contributed to last year's South Dakota ballot measures came from South Dakota residents. Last year's most expensive ballot measure campaign in the state appears to have been Amendment G, an abortion-rights measure that voters rejected. It's difficult to determine exactly how much was spent in the Amendment G campaign, because the main group supporting the amendment, Dakotans for Health, also supported another unsuccessful ballot question that would have repealed sales taxes on groceries. Dakotans for Health spent a combined $1.32 million on those campaigns and did not separate expenses in its reports. Opponents spent $2.74 million against the abortion-rights measure. The grocery tax measure was Initiated Measure 28. Besides the amount spent to support it by Dakotans for Health, groups spent about $240,000 against it. Another big-dollar campaign was Referred Law 21, a set of carbon dioxide pipeline regulations that voters rejected. Spending totaled $3.15 million, with $2.87 million by supporters and $275,000 by opponents. The majority of funds in support of the measure came from ethanol producers hoping to build a multi-state pipeline to capture and sequester carbon emitted by their production plants. An unsuccessful effort to legalize recreational marijuana use, Initiated Measure 29, was nearly a $2 million campaign with $1.4 million in spending by supporters and about $468,000 by opponents. Constitutional Amendment F, which legislators sent to the ballot and voters approved, authorized the state to consider imposing work requirements on people eligible for expanded Medicaid benefits. All $587,000 of spending on the amendment was by the no side. Amendment H, which would have established open primary elections but was rejected by voters, was a $1.95 million campaign with most of that amount spent by supporters. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ballot measure battle could curtail South Dakota's direct democracy
Has South Dakota soured on direct democracy? The answer to that question will be partly answered during the 2025 legislative session, as Republican lawmakers continue a recent trend of trying to restrict the state's first-in-the-nation initiative and referendum process. In the spirit of such laws, the people will ultimately determine the fate of a South Dakota system that dates to 1898 and has led to progressive reforms such as increased minimum wage and Medicaid expansion in a deeply conservative state. The power of residents to amend the state constitution through the petition process was added in 1972. Michael Card, emeritus professor of political science at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, calls this power 'the gun behind the door,' allowing a given percentage of state residents to propose a law or amendment that must be approved at the polls by a majority vote. The guiding principle is that 'direct democracy' – which also allows existing laws to be challenged through referendum, as seen with the carbon pipeline debate in 2024 – provides a check on the 'representative democracy' power of state legislators. The Republican super majority in Pierre has frequently pushed back, passing laws to make it harder to get initiated measures and constitutional amendments on the ballot and raising the voting threshold for measures to pass. South Dakota House passes anti-sanctuary cities bill Most prominent among the 2025 proposals is House Joint Resolution 5003, which would raise the percentage of voters needed to pass constitutional amendments in a statewide election to 60%. That would match Florida and Illinois for the highest voting threshold among the 18 states that allow for constitutional amendments through the initiative process. The resolution passed the House by a 61-5 vote on Jan. 22 and appears headed to the 2026 ballot, where a simple majority of voters can pass or reject it. Similar attempts to raise the voting threshold failed at the polls in 2018 and 2022. Legislators have been more successful curtailing the process with statutory changes in Pierre. From 2018 to 2024, South Dakota passed 11 laws to make direct democracy more difficult, the most of any state, according to Ballotpedia. These restrictions include petition deadlines, circulation requirements and allowing for the revocation of signatures. Another joint resolution proposed this year would increase the number of signatures required to make the ballot, from 5% to 10% of the general electorate for initiated measures and from 10% to 15% for constitutional amendments. 'They're attempting to orchestrate the death of direct democracy by a thousand cuts,' said Rick Weiland, whose Dakotans for Health organization has been a frequent sponsor of ballot measures, including unsuccessful abortion rights and grocery tax repeal efforts in 2024. 'They keep trying and trying because when people organize and use their voice, they become a threat to the political establishment.' South Dakota education bills dominating legislative session Federal courts have rolled back some of the restrictions as First Amendment violations, recognizing petition circulation as core political speech. Rep. John Hughes of Sioux Falls, the Republican sponsor of House Joint Resolution 5003, said his proposal is meant to highlight the difference between initiated measures, which impact state statutes, and initiated amendments, which change the state constitution. 'I think all of us would agree that a constitution is different than a statute,' Hughes told House State Affairs committee members at a Jan. 17 hearing. 'It's intended to be much more permanent. It's meant to be a fundamental expression of the near universal agreement of the people of South Dakota as to the rights, duties and values that we hold to.' Republicans have criticized the use of initiated amendments for policy provisions such as Medicaid expansion, which passed in 2022, and legalization of recreational marijuana, which passed in 2020 but was overturned by the South Dakota Supreme Court for violating the state's single-subject rule. Nathan Sanderson, executive director of the South Dakota Retailers Association, said his group supports the joint resolution because policy programs that involve budget fluctuations are best handled within state statutes. South Dakota lawmakers could support national constitutional convention ″(Our association) has always believed that the constitution should be reserved for a philosophy of governance, not for specific policies and programs,' Sanderson said. 'Amending the constitution can only be done every two years and is not a very good way of handling nuanced policy.' Card, who has authored several studies on direct democracy, told News Watch that the arguments from Hughes and Sanderson don't fully explain the reasoning behind the latest attempt to restrict the process in South Dakota. 'I think it's being cast as something other than what it really is,' Card said of the joint resolution. 'What it's really about is that the Democrats with a small minority (23% of registered voters) are doing what is popular with the citizenry in terms of proposing initiatives. The real intent is to limit the ability to pass some of these laws.' But Hughes alluded to 'fatigue' among voters toward ballot measures, with an average of nearly six measures on the ballot every two years since 2000. The highest during that period were 11 in 2006 and 10 in 2016. Of the 122 measures that made the South Dakota ballot since 1985, 52 were successful, for a winning percentage of 43%. Three of the most liberal measures on the 2024 ballot – abortion rights, grocery tax repeal and recreational marijuana legalization – all failed with less than 45% of the vote. South Dakota lawmakers could support national constitutional convention The only successful measures were populist (property rights groups rallying to refer a bill they saw as pro-pipeline) and staunchly conservative (allowing work requirements for Medicaid expansion, stemming from the Legislature). But Card pointed out that even residents who don't agree with many of the issues being put forth 'aren't going to give up a right that they have.' Voters in 2022 strongly rejected Amendment C, which was placed on the primary ballot and would have required a 60% vote for ballot measures that raise taxes or spend $10 million in general funds in their first five years. That amendment, viewed as a preemptive strike against Medicaid expansion, managed only 33% of the vote. Four years earlier was Amendment X, which came out of a legislative task force and would have required a 55% vote to approve constitutional amendments. That effort failed with just 47% support. It's hard to assess the future of direct democracy in South Dakota without understanding the past, including the decision by voters in 1898 – nine years after statehood – to adopt the system of initiated ballot measures and referendums. Several days after that election, the Omaha (Nebraska) Bee newspaper noted that South Dakota rejected women's suffrage on the same ballot, observing that the state's voters 'were of the opinion that one experiment at a time was enough.' The newspaper also noted that South Dakota's system was partly based on the Switzerland model of allowing citizens to vote on how the country is run. South Dakota house panel passes school chaplain bill 'That it has been at least fairly successful in the little country where it originated is true,' wrote the Omaha Bee in an editorial. 'But (in America), the process has been looked upon by practical men as a pretty but impracticable theory. Other states will be satisfied to let South Dakota stand the cost of the experiment.' The Chicago Record newspaper was more supportive of the direct democracy principle, framing it as a way for rural voters to have more say in their state's legislative affairs, especially at a time when monied interests were gaining power as part of the rise of corporations and corruption in the Gilded Age. 'Of late there has been a growing tendency on the part of legislatures to submit to popular vote measures of importance relating especially to larger cities,' the editors wrote in an editorial. 'The people of South Dakota, however, have put into operation a plan whereby the popular will can be given expression in law regardless of the indifference of the legislative body.' This power of the people was elevated in 1972 with Amendment E, which expanded the resident petition process to include constitutional amendments in South Dakota. In the House State Affairs hearing, Hughes incorrectly stated that this occurred in 1988 and that it 'passed by a slim margin of our voters.' Actually, the change was approved by 67% of the vote when introduced in 1972. The amendment, which also included provisions for calling constitutional conventions, was initiated by the Legislature and a constitutional revision commission. It was approved 67-2 by the House and 34-0 by the Senate before going on the general ballot. SD Gov. Rhoden, US Rep Johnson invite Trump to fireworks at Mount Rushmore Hughes told News Watch that he was referring to Amendment A from 1988. But that was a procedural change that removed the requirement that the Legislature enact a measure proposed by voters before it could be placed on the ballot. Lawmakers had no choice but to 'vote' for the measure under this formality, which ruffled feathers politically. 'It eliminates a bit of red tape,' then-Legislative Research Director Terry Anderson told the Argus Leader at the time of that amendment. 'It also makes it abundantly clear that there can be no interference with the people's right to initiate laws.' The amendment passed with 52% of the vote. As the makeup of the South Dakota Legislature trended heavily Republican over the past 15 years (GOP legislators currently outnumber Democrats 95-9), direct democracy became a way to circumvent Pierre and take progressive issues to the polls. One successful campaign was Weiland's push to raise the state's minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $8.50 per hour in 2014, with future raises for inflation. Initiated Measure 18 passed with 55% of the vote. When the Legislature voted in 2015 to exempt workers under age 18 from the required wage, Democrats gathered petitions to refer the law and more than 7 of 10 voters supported the referral, upholding the minimum wage. 'The message from the people was simple: Hands off,' said Weiland, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senate in 2014. Turner County Courthouse being demolished South Dakota's minimum wage is currently $11.50 per hour, higher than neighboring Minnesota ($11.13). Two years later came Initiated Measure 21, a bipartisan effort that targeted payday loan outlets and other predatory lenders by establishing a maximum interest rate of 36% on their loans. The group faced aggressive opposition from the Atlanta-based owner of North American Title Loans and other payday and car title lenders, who were accused of luring low-income customers into high-interest loans. Veteran political strategist Steve Hildebrand, who served as former President Barack Obama's deputy campaign manager in 2008, was one of the key organizers behind IM 21, which passed with 76% of the vote. 'I've never been more proud of anything in my 30 years of political experience than trying to cap the interest on payday lending,' Hildebrand said during the campaign. 'It's time to stop treating our low-income families like dirt.' Those seeking to dial back direct democracy point to cautionary tales such as Marsy's Law, a 2016 victims' rights measure passed in South Dakota as a constitutional amendment as part of a nationally coordinated campaign. The law was marred by unintended consequences. In some cases, law enforcement was unable to share information with the public in order to assist in solving crimes. There were also instances of alleged offenders being held longer behind bars because victims weren't available to be notified of a bond hearing. A legislatively referred constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot two years later to fix some of the problems and passed with 80% of the vote. Jackley's internal control bill heads to the South Dakota Senate The original measure was funded by California tech billionaire Henry Nicholas, who took up the cause of victims' rights after his sister, Marsy, was shot to death by an ex-boyfriend in 1983. He spent $2 million to orchestrate the campaign in South Dakota, including ads featuring TV personality Kelsey Grammar, whose sister was murdered in 1975. 'They made some mistakes,' said former Republican state legislator Mark Mickelson, who helped spearhead the follow-up amendment. 'They didn't consult stakeholders and they had some language issues. No one on the ground was comfortable with what was being proposed or how it would be implemented.' Mickelson also helped orchestrate Amendment Z, a 2018 measure requiring that constitutional amendments involve only one subject 'and that multiple proposed amendments to the constitution be voted on separately.' That amendment passed with 62% of the vote and became the basis for the South Dakota Supreme Court overturning the passage of legalized recreational pot two years later. The ruling found that Amendment A, the 2020 marijuana measure, 'contains provisions embracing at least three separate subjects, each with distinct objects or purposes,' referring to recreational marijuana, medical marijuana and hemp. Hughes mentioned out-of-state influence as a key factor in his quest to make it harder to pass constitutional amendments. The state's simple majority provision and affordable advertising rates are cited as reasons that national advocacy groups view South Dakota as fertile ground for ballot efforts. 'My experience going door to door is that there is a weariness over (advertising) paid for by millions of out-of-state dollars to reshape and remold our state constitution,' Hughes testified at the Jan. 17 hearing. 'It's only because we have the 50-plus-one majority that we're a target for being used as a laboratory for the emergence of new values and new ideas that many South Dakotans do not share.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now He pointed to Amendment G, the abortion rights measure placed on the 2024 ballot by Dakotas for Health. The campaign received a late influx of donations totaling $750,000 from Think Big America, a progressive advocacy group funded by Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. Not mentioned at the hearing was the fact that the anti-abortion campaign, led by groups such as Life Defense Fund and No G for SD, received a $500,000 donation from The Concord Fund, a Virginia-based nonprofit connected to conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo, as part of its effort to defeat the amendment. Chase Jensen of Dakota Rural Action, which helped spur a grassroots petition effort that led to anti-pipeline forces rejecting Referred Law 21, said higher voting thresholds could lead to less involvement from everyday residents and more influence from wealthy political action groups, the opposite of Hughes' intent. 'With the unprecedented concentration of wealth in society and politics today, we believe that raising the threshold of votes wouldn't deter out-of-state money,' said Jensen. 'It would only open the tap even further.' Weiland, who served as an aide to former Democratic U.S. Senate Leader Tom Daschle, has become closely linked to direct democracy through his work with progressive organizations such as Dakotans for Health and Take it Back. He finds the argument against out-of-state money ironic given the story behind Initiated Measure 22, a successful 2016 ballot effort that revised lobbying and campaign finance laws while establishing a state ethics commission after several state scandals. Republican legislators, decrying sloppy and confusing language in the law, sought a preliminary injunction and later repealed the measure with an emergency clause that ensured it could not be sent back to voters. That experience spawned another reason for petitioners to prefer constitutional amendments over initiated measures – they're impossible for the Legislature to overturn without getting the permission of voters. Emergency crews rescue work from hole at Turner County Courthouse demo site As for the out-of-state money argument, Weiland called it hypocritical. 'You don't like ballot measures getting funded by out-of-state interests?' he said. 'Well, what about your politicians? All of our federal politicians have millions of dollars in their campaign accounts, and I can tell you that all of that money didn't come from South Dakota.' Weiland and Rapid City lawyer Jim Leach, who represents Dakotans for Health, have submitted wording for potential 2026 ballot measures to counteract what's happening in Pierre. One would prevent legislators from amending or repealing a resident-enacted ballot measure for seven years after it becomes effective, except by a three-fourths vote of both the House and Senate, followed by a vote in the general election. The other would require that changes to a law that impacts the state's initiative and referendum process would have to be approved by voters on a general election ballot. As the push-and-pull battle over direct democracy in South Dakota continues, Leach said 'we plan to keep fighting to preserve the rights of citizens to propose and vote on the laws they're going to be subject to.' ___ This story was originally published by South Dakota News Watch and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
