Latest news with #SouthDakotaHouseofRepresentatives
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
State senator who ran against Noem announces Sioux Falls mayoral campaign
Jamie Smith, the Democratic state senator and assistant minority leader who unsuccessfully ran against former Gov. Kristi Noem in her 2022 re-election campaign, will be making a bid for Sioux Falls' mayor, according to a news release. Smith will formally announce his candidacy at 11 a.m. May 31 at the Washington Pavilion, the release said. Smith has represented District 15 in both the South Dakota House of Representatives and South Dakota State Senate since 2017, spending time in leadership positions during both terms. More: People to Watch: Who could run for Sioux Falls' next mayor? While he has yet to file his paperwork to officially run with the city, Smith is the second person to make a firm statement about their plans to run for the mayoral seat, which is being vacated by Mayor Paul TenHaken because of term limits. The other is perennial candidate David Zokaites, though more candidates are sure to throw their hats into the ring before the 2026 municipal election, which is still awaiting a date to be set by the Sioux Falls City Council. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Democrat state senator announces Sioux Falls mayoral campaign
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Lawmaker assertions about voter fatigue don't stop them from sending four measures to the ballot
The South Dakota House of Representatives convenes on Feb. 5, 2024. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) After some South Dakota lawmakers complained about fatigue from the number of questions on the ballot, they're sending four of their own measures to voters. South Dakotans considered seven ballot questions during the 2024 election, including four state constitutional amendments. Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, said that resulted in 'millions of dollars in out-of-state money coming for deceptive, emotionally charged ads stating half-truths.' 'The voters are weary of that,' he said. 'They're fatigued.' Hughes was speaking on behalf of his own resolution that will go to voters as a ballot measure. It will ask voters to approve a 60% threshold to pass constitutional ballot questions, rather than a simple majority. Read more about election-related bills considered and adopted during the 2025 legislative session on South Dakota Searchlight's 2025 SD Election Legislation page. That's one of the four questions lawmakers sent to the 2026 general election ballot this legislative session, which has one day left on March 31 to consider the governor's vetoes. Seven other proposed ballot questions from legislators failed to cross the finish line. Lawmakers' eagerness to put their own measures on the ballot is 'a little ironic' said Samantha Chapman, advocacy manager with the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota. 'The Legislature is contradicting itself and contributing to said 'ballot fatigue,'' Chapman told South Dakota Searchlight. Another six potential ballot questions from the public are already listed on the Secretary of State's website. None of those questions have been approved for petition circulation yet. Following are the questions that South Dakota voters will see from legislators — if they don't approve more next session. South Dakota voters will decide next year whether to continue requiring Medicaid expansion if federal support for the program declines. Medicaid is government-funded health insurance for people with low incomes, and for adults and children with disabilities. In 2022, South Dakota voters expanded Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level, to capitalize on a 90% federal funding match included in the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. The expansion is part of the state constitution and can only be altered by voters. The ballot question will ask voters to authorize the termination of Medicaid expansion if federal support falls below 90%. Speculation about a reduction in federal Medicaid expansion funding has been swirling as the Trump administration and a Republican-controlled Congress look for spending cuts. Last fall, South Dakota voters authorized state officials to consider imposing work requirements on people covered by Medicaid expansion. The state has not yet applied for federal permission to impose those requirements. Four years after Constitutional Amendment C and eight years after Constitutional Amendment X failed at the ballot box, voters will once again consider if the threshold for approving certain types of ballot questions should be raised from a simple majority. Amendment C sought to require a three-fifths vote for the approval of ballot questions that would increase taxes or fees or require the state to appropriate $10 million or more in the first five fiscal years after a measure's passage. The measure was defeated by 67% of voters. South Dakota voters rejected Constitutional Amendment X in 2018, which would have raised the approval requirement for constitutional amendments to 55%. It was defeated with 54% voting against it. Hughes' new proposal would raise the constitutional amendment approval threshold to 60%. Supporters of the proposal argue that a higher threshold is necessary to protect the state constitution from frequent changes and to ensure that only amendments with broad public support are adopted. They also say the proposal could discourage out-of-state interest groups from trying to amend South Dakota's constitution, and keep the constitution reserved for language dealing with the structure of government rather than policy matters. Opponents argue that voters have spoken on the matter, and there's no need to ask them again. Voters will see a ballot question in 2026 asking permission for the state Investment Council to manage a trust fund for unclaimed property. Unclaimed property consists of an array of abandoned or forgotten private assets, including money from bank accounts, PayPal accounts, stocks, life insurance payouts, uncashed checks, unused refunds, and even the contents of safe deposit boxes. Holders of the money or items, such as banks, try to find the owners. The property reverts to the state after three years. Lawmakers aim to stabilize 'volatile' unclaimed property revenue with trust fund Unclaimed property revenue surged to record levels during the past few years as people left assets behind during pandemic-motivated relocations, and because of Bancorp's relocation of its national headquarters to Sioux Falls. The state typically spends much of the revenue, while setting aside only a portion of it for people who come forward to claim their property. Yet rightful owners can claim their assets from the state at any time. Much of the money is never claimed. Last year, as the state took in about $175 million of unclaimed property, it paid out $38 million in claims to 6,768 claimants. South Dakota has received $310 million worth of unclaimed property so far this year. The ballot question is part of a legislative package passed this session to bring more predictability to the volatile revenue source, and to protect the state if claims increase. Senate Bill 155, which was signed by Gov. Larry Rhoden on Wednesday, would limit the amount of unclaimed property funds that can be used in the state's general fund budget, and gradually transition all unclaimed property money into the trust fund. Interest from the fund would then be treated as revenue for the state's annual budget. Senate Joint Resolution 503 sends a constitutional amendment to South Dakota voters clarifying a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote in any elections in the state. South Dakota's voter registration form already requires voters to certify they're citizens of the United States. Sen. Taffy Howard, R-Rapid City, introduced the legislation. She said voters in several states have added similar clarifications in their state constitutions in recent elections. She added that the clarification ensures the 'process remains secure' and that the 'voices of American citizens aren't diluted.' Howard, who also introduced the unclaimed property ballot measure, told South Dakota Searchlight that ballot fatigue is 'a very real concern,' but she has 'confidence in our citizens.' 'They take time to research the issues and I do know no one here is in any way trying to take away or dilute the will of the voter,' Howard said. 'We want to listen to the voters. It's our intention, if anything, to maybe limit the influence of outside national organizations.' In 1898, South Dakota became the first state to allow citizen-backed initiatives and referendums. Petitions are filed with the Secretary of State's Office and reviewed by the attorney general and the Legislative Research Council before they are approved for circulation. Petition circulators must gain 17,508 signatures from South Dakota registered voters for an initiated measure or referred law, and 35,017 signatures for a constitutional amendment. The deadline to turn in signed petitions is May 3, 2026. Potential 2026 citizen-sponsored ballot questions include: An initiated measure requiring South Dakota public school teachers and students to recite a specific non-denominational prayer daily, with an exemption for students and teachers who object. A constitutional amendment requiring South Dakota voters approve legislative changes to initiative and referendum procedures. A constitutional amendment requiring that 'laws may not be enacted to restrict the power of initiative and referendum.' A constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds vote by the Legislature to change or repeal initiated measures. A constitutional amendment requiring a seven-year wait and a three-fourths vote by the Legislature and vote of the people to make changes to voter-approved initiated measures. An initiated measure rolling back nonagricultural property assessments to 2020 valuations and capping assessment increases to 2.25% annually until 2026.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SD House passes reducing ingestion penalties
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — On Thursday afternoon, the South Dakota House of Representatives debated SB83, a bill seeking to reduce the penalty for ingestion of certain controlled substances from a Class 6 felony to a Class 1 misdemeanor for a 1st and 2nd violation. Under the terms of the bill, a 3rd violation would be a Class 6 felony. Rhoden to form prison task force, call special session Arguments for the bill focused on the perception that a felony is too harsh a penalty for ingestion, while arguments against centered on a desire to be tough on crime. Republican Rep. Brian Mulder, the lead sponsor in the House, spoke to the chamber, urging support of the bill. Mulder emphasized a felony is a label which lasts a lifetime and comes with many limitations. Including limits to housing and employment, as well the the inability to purchase a firearm. Opposing the bill, Republican Rep. Mary Fitzgerald argued passing the bill would send a message to children that drugs are OK, calling it 'decriminalizing' drug use. Republican Rep. Tim Reisch pushed back on Fitzgerald's comments, saying this bill is not a decriminalization of drugs, and arguing time spent in the county jail for a misdemeanor would be more productive than time spend in the prison for a felony. Republican Rep. Leslie Heinemann also opposed the bill, telling the House he'd spoken to the Moody County Sheriff, who opposed it, arguing that ingestion needed to remain a felony for him to be able to enforce the law, and the state needs felony ingestion as a deterrent. Republican Rep. Keri Weems spoke of her personal experience working with recently released felons. She recounted seeing their living situations, staying in hotel rooms because they cannot get leases, and attempting to raise their children in these rooms with only a mini-fridge and a microwave. Weems said she's become more compassionate on ingestion through these experiences and urged passage of the bill. Mulder said the state should not seek to over-penalize those suffering from addiction, adding this bill would not lower penalties for those dosing others or selling drugs, but only those who have ingested drugs. Democrat Rep. Peri Pourier emphasized the importance of recognizing the existence of substance use disorder, and not simply looking at ingestion as 'people getting high.' Discussion on the bill featured comments from other legislators who spoke on subjects such as treatment, over-incarceration and the fiscal costs of incarcerating people for ingestion. Following discussion on the bill, a vote was held. SB83 passed narrowly with 37 in favor and 33 opposed. The Senate approved SB 83 on a vote of 18-17. The bill struggled to get out of the House committee, reaching the House floor with no recommendation. That required a decision by the House whether to put it on the debate calendar. The House agreed 49-21 to allow the debate. The next stop now is the desk of Governor Larry Rhoden. SB 83's prime sponsor, Republican Sen. Tamara Grove, watched the House debate from the back of the chamber. After the vote, Grove and Mulder hugged in celebration. When she returned to the Senate, she received a congratulatory hug from Republican Sen. David Wheeler, who had voted for it there. Grove spoke to reporters about whether the governor will sign SB 83 into law. 'I guess I would be surprised if he would say, 'I'm not going to sign this, I'm going to veto this,' or something along those lines,' she said. Final approval came on the same day that the governor announced the appointment of a new task force to take another look at whether South Dakota needs a new men's prison. Rhoden said he plans to call a special legislative session July 22 to act on whatever the task force recommends. One of the reporters, Lee Strubinger from South Dakota Public Broadcasting, asked Grove if this was the right moment for the ingestion bill to be approved. 'It really was the right moment, because you're talking about building a prison for 1,500 people, and you have our own secretary (of corrections) saying we need to change our sentencing practices, and so this is the time,' Grove said. 'Now we can really honestly say how many people, what's the forecasted number of people that are going to be in prison. 'And I mean, just between 2019 and 2024, there's 961 people according to Secretary Wasko that were in prison for just ingestion. And so that's a whole lotta' beds right there — that's nearly a thousand beds.' She continued, 'If I use the rate we have right now which is 77 percent success, you're talking about 740 less people that need a bed. And so this is a really good time.' Capitol Bureau reporter Bob Mercer contributed to this story. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Only ‘political magic' can save $825 million prison plan, lawmaker says
The South Dakota House of Representatives meets on Feb. 6, 2025, at the Capitol in Pierre. (Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight) Full-throated support from South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden may not be enough to change the minds of skeptical lawmakers on a controversial plan to build an $825 million, 1,500-bed men's prison south of Sioux Falls. Less than two weeks after Rhoden declared that 'failure is not an option' for the project, the state House of Representatives first knocked down an effort to launch its construction, then twice said no to an alternative plan that would've pumped $142 million more into a savings account they set up three years ago to pay for it. The second rejection came Monday, when an attempt to reconsider the legislation failed due to a lawmaker's mistake. Rep. Roger DeGroot, R-Brookings, said he voted against the reconsideration motion in error. The motion failed on a tie vote of 35-35. 'I'm for the prison,' DeGroot said later via text. House shoots down prison money, but new vote looms Had DeGroot voted his intentions, House floor talk could have resumed Monday on the legislation, House Bill 1025. Rep. Brian Mulder, R-Sioux Falls, voted against adding money to the prison fund on Friday, but voted for reopening debate on the idea Monday. Yet Mulder told Searchlight he hadn't changed his mind on the bill. Instead, he wrote in a text, he'd wanted Howard Republican Rep. Tim Reisch, a former Department of Corrections secretary and vocal backer of the new prison, to have an opportunity to cast a vote. Reisch missed Friday's vote for a funeral. 'If any representative would miss something that is in their area of expertise, I would offer that same opportunity to them that I was offering to Rep. Reisch,' Mulder wrote. 'But I was still a no on the bill as written, as I have several concerns about the plan that is being brought forward.' HB 1025 was originally written to provide the last $182 million needed to build the prison. It also would've let the DOC tap into the more than $600 million now held in an incarceration construction fund, built up over the past few years by previous votes to fill it and interest earned. Lawmakers can move money into the fund with a simple majority, but can't appropriate money to spend unless two-thirds of them agree to do so. On Friday, the House accepted an amendment from Sioux Falls Republican Jack Kolbeck that stripped the bill down to do one thing: Put $142 million into the prison fund, without approving construction, to keep saving money and keep the conversation going. The amended bill failed 34-35 Friday afternoon, while Reisch was missing. Monday's move to reconsider that vote with Reisch in attendance came after a weekend during which supporters sought to sway their fellow lawmakers on the merits of saving money for prisons – regardless of where they're located or how big they might be. Rep. Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre, told South Dakota Searchlight after the vote on Friday that he felt like his fellow lawmakers may have been voting against the $825 million prison plan, not necessarily the idea of saving money to deal with demonstrable overcrowding across the system. The hope, Mortenson said, was to work on changing minds. Showdown over $825 million prison looms for state House of Representatives Sioux Falls Republican Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt moved for reconsideration on the House floor Monday. 'The weekend should've given some people time to get some accurate information on what we are voting on,' Rehfeldt said. Reisch voted as expected, but DeGroot's erroneous no vote meant the reconsideration move still came up short. Rhoden's office sent a statement similar to the one offered after the Friday vote. 'We look forward to continuing the conversation and will address next steps at the appropriate time,' wrote Josie Harms, Rhoden's spokeswoman. There are legislative maneuvers that could revive HB 1025 again. Lawmakers could use an empty 'vehicle bill,' meaning a bill with a generic title and text frequently used for last-minute proposals, to bring it back. Assuming DeGroot's continued support and Mulder's commitment to his colleague's right to be heard, that would give the bill to bank more prison cash another shot. Even if that happens – and enough lawmakers change their minds to endorse the idea in both the House and Senate – the odds aren't great that the governor's preferred prison plan will earn the supermajority it needs, lawmakers said Monday. 'Unless they perform political magic to bring this back and get two-thirds support in both houses, this thing is dead,' said Sen. Kevin Jensen, R-Canton, who represents landowners near the farmland selected as a prison site, located about 15 miles south of Sioux Falls in Lincoln County. Jensen's comments came Monday morning, as a Senate panel advanced his bill to create an incarceration task force. The envisioned group's charge: to study overcrowding across South Dakota's aging prison properties, what the state should build to address it, and how a new prison or prisons might serve to reduce the state's rate of repeat offenses. The executive branch came out against Jensen's task force bill, Senate Bill 124, on Monday morning in the Senate State Affairs Committee. Brittni Skipper, finance director for the DOC, told the panel that the state had already done its homework. Skipper pointed to a commissioned facility report from Nebraska's DLR Group, which listed a 1,372-bed men's prison as a top recommendation. The 1881-built state penitentiary it would replace is overcrowded and inefficient, the consultants concluded. The Legislature already convened a task force in 2022, she said, and endorsed a new women's prison and the men's prison project. Construction of the women's prison is underway in Rapid City; preparatory legwork is done for the men's prison. 'The provisions outlined in Senate Bill 124 have already been thoroughly examined by the Legislature,' Skipper said. 'The design for the new facility is complete. All utilities are contracted, and site preparation has already begun. These efforts were all authorized by the Legislature.' She also reminded the committee that the $825 million price is only guaranteed until March 31. Jensen disputed the claim on the prior task force's certainty. The task force was 'mostly lawmakers,' Jensen said, not the more expansive stakeholder group his bill would create. SB 124 would have four lawmakers, two Governor's Office representatives, two current or former wardens and representatives from the state court system. 'The incarceration pipeline starts at the arrest, and then goes all the way through adjudication and incarceration,' Jensen said. 'There's so many more players that really need to be at the table.' He also rejected the idea that the 2022 task force endorsed an $825 million prison. The DLR report recommends 17 projects, including new facilities and upgrades to existing ones, he said. The same report also noted that, while not ideal, a smaller tract of land near Sioux Falls known as West Farm, which the DOC already owns and uses for juveniles, could serve as a site for a men's prison. Resistance to final budget request for new prison 'a real possibility' in Pierre The report put the price tag for a new men's prison at less than $400 million. The task force, Jensen said, endorsed the two prisons because lawmakers 'didn't want to spend' what it would take to do everything. Sen. Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre, pointed out that the lower price tag for the men's prison wasn't solid, but an 'engineer's estimate,' calling Skipper back up to confirm as much. Sen. Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, had a different question for her: What's the state's position on its options now that it's clear the project doesn't have two-thirds support? 'We would keep pushing for the prison as it's designed,' Skipper replied. Karr said he appreciated the honesty, but he has doubts about that approach. 'So we're just going to wait, then come back to this same group of people, have this same discussion, and expect a different outcome?' Karr said. He moved to pass the task force bill. It passed 5-4. Jensen didn't succeed on a companion bill, Senate Bill 204, which was also up for debate in the committee Monday morning. It sought to stop the DOC from using any more of the $62 million lawmakers gave the agency during previous sessions to spend on prep work for the prison. Ryan Brunner, a policy adviser with Rhoden's office, said there are bills to pay for contracts signed on the assumption the prison would be built as planned. The money used to sign them did earn a two-thirds vote. A blanket stop work order from the Legislature would keep the state from writing checks for its part in a substation and water main to serve the facility, Brunner said. The state invested in those projects with a utility provider and rural water system, which Brunner said had each planned the upgrades to serve both the area's residents and the new prison. Jensen said he was willing to amend the bill to make sure the state doesn't 'stiff anybody,' but argued that lawmakers need reassurance that the DOC isn't moving farther than it should on a project they didn't agree to. The funding shutoff bill failed 4-5. The decisive vote came from Sen. Liz Larson, D-Sioux Falls, who voted against it after voting for the task force bill. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
23-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republican SD lawmakers pursue a multifaceted crackdown on citizen-backed ballot measures
Members of the South Dakota House of Representatives meet on Feb. 4, 2025, at the Capitol in Pierre. (Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight) Some Republicans, many of them aligned with anti-abortion groups, are tired of South Dakotans petitioning their ideas onto the ballot. 'There are things being put on the ballot that they can't get through the Legislature,' said Brian Gosch, a Republican former state lawmaker who lobbies for clients including South Dakota Family Voice Action, which opposes abortion rights. 'They're trying to bypass that process to go around it and then get their way through some other means.' Gosch was testifying recently on behalf of legislation that would limit how often similar ballot questions can be proposed to voters. The bill is one of many that Republican lawmakers have proposed during the current legislative session at the Capitol in Pierre to crack down on citizen-backed ballot measures. The bills include efforts to reduce the time for signature gathering, to require signatures from every legislative district in the state, to raise the threshold to pass a constitutional amendment to 60%, and more. Rep. Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls, said citizens putting issues on the ballot that their lawmakers will not entertain is a good thing. 'They're trying to let the people decide; they're trying to participate in democracy,' Healy said. 'And Republicans here in this building continue to try to completely just squash their voice, and that's wrong, and that's undemocratic, and I'm tired of it.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Nancy Turbak Berry is a Democratic former legislator who is co-chairing an effort to bring an abortion-rights measure to the ballot in 2026. 'The Legislature knows they are out of touch with what most South Dakotans want,' she said. 'So, they want to limit our ability to put stuff into law. Plain and simple.' The 'Protect Our Initiatives Coalition' was recently launched in response to the wave of ballot measure legislation. 'The sponsors of these bills attacking our initiative process say they are trying to stop out-of-state money from flooding our elections, but we don't buy that the solution should be a systemic attack on the initiated process itself,' said Chase Jensen of Dakota Rural Action, one of 10 coalition members. The state has three types of statewide ballot measures: constitutional amendments, initiated measures and referendums. To be placed on the ballot, citizen-backed constitutional amendments need petition signatures from registered voters equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last election for governor. The current signature requirement is 35,017. State lawmakers can also send constitutional amendments to the ballot. Initiated measures propose an ordinary law, and referendums put a law passed by legislators on the ballot, with each requiring signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last governor's race. That threshold is 17,508 signatures. This year's legislation includes: A bill that would move the deadline for filing ballot measure petition signatures from May up to February, shortening the time available for signature collection. A bill that would require signatures for constitutional amendments to be gathered from every legislative district in the state. A resolution that would ask voters to raise the approval threshold for constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60% of votes cast. A resolution that would ask voters to require defeated questions to wait for one general election before being submitted again. A bill that would prohibit paying people to gather signatures for ballot measures and make violations a felony. All of the bills are pending in various parts of the legislative process. Rep. Rebecca Reimer, R-Chamberlain, is sponsoring the bill to require petition signatures from all legislative districts in the state. She said the bill addresses concerns that ballot measures advance with signatures concentrated in Minnehaha and Pennington counties, the two most populous in the state. 'This ensures amendments have real statewide support before they go to the voters,' Reimer said. The bill was supported by the state's most prominent anti-abortion group, South Dakota Right to Life, which played a leading role in defeating a ballot measure in November that would have restored abortions rights in the state. 'We believe that we will continue to see – unless there's a change – those who do not share our pro-life values using the current signature requirement mechanism to try and skew the process,' said Dale Bartscher, South Dakota Right to Life's executive director. The bill's opponents said South Dakotans from across the state already have their voices heard on ballot measures when they vote. They said the bill would make it harder for citizens to put a question on the ballot. Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the effort to raise the vote threshold for constitutional amendments to 60%. He said the bill would make it harder for nonresidents of the state to change the state's constitution. 'This ensures only amendments with overwhelming public backing are adopted,' Hughes said. Hughes pointed to the 2024 abortion-rights ballot measure receiving large donations from Think Big America, an issue-advocacy nonprofit launched by Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker with a focus on supporting abortion rights. Pritzker's wife was raised in South Dakota. The measure was rejected by 59% of voters. Another bill proposes amending the deadline for filing petitions to initiate a law or constitutional amendment in South Dakota. Rep. Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, introduced it. He serves on South Dakota Right to Life's board of directors. Hansen's bill would move the deadline from May to February of a general election year, shortening the period petition sponsors could collect signatures by three months. Hansen said the purpose of the change is to ensure sufficient time for legal challenges and verification of signatures. Hansen helped lead an effort to challenge the signatures for the 2024 abortion-rights measure. 'Six months is just not long enough to litigate these disputes,' Hansen told fellow representatives in the House. During the bill's committee hearing, opponents argued the changes would limit South Dakotans' ability to bring forward ballot measures, making the process more difficult. A proposed constitutional amendment introduced by Republicans would require any new but similar ballot measures rejected by voters in the prior election to wait until at least one general election has passed before the question could appear on the ballot again. Zebediah Johnson is with the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota and testified against the measure. He said the bill would unduly restrict the initiative process while not imposing similar restrictions on the Legislature. CONTACT US 'A defeated initiative is not without merit,' he said. 'If the people of South Dakota decide to petition their government for change, they should be allowed to do so.' Former state Sen. Reynold Nesiba, a Sioux Falls Democrat, returned to Pierre during a committee hearing on the legislation. He mentioned South Dakota's status as the first state to allow initiatives and referendums in 1898, and he called citizen-backed ballot measures a safeguard against big money and power influencing the Legislature. 'Under God, the people rule,' Nesiba said. 'This is a fundamental part of who South Dakota is.' Bartscher, with South Dakota Right to Life, spoke in favor of the bill. He said abortion-rights groups continue to push for ballot measures. 'People are telling us across the state, they want a break,' Bartscher said. 'South Dakotans are tired. They're fatigued of all the campaigning, of all the commercials, and the postcards.' State lawmakers don't appear to be heeding that alleged fatigue. They have introduced 11 bills of their own this legislative session that would appear as questions on the 2026 ballot. Other bills that would impact the ballot measure process include legislation that would require petition signers to list the address and county where they are registered to vote, rather than merely the address where they reside, and prevent the Secretary of State's Office from counting signatures without the information; change how petitions for ballot initiatives are formatted; allow fiscal estimates for ballot measures to be updated closer to elections; and require the secretary of state to review ballot initiatives for compliance with the state's single-subject rule. That review is already required for constitutional amendments. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
