15-05-2025
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
