Ballot reformers say changing South Dakota Constitution too easy; change criticized as giving too much power to minority of state voters
PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Larry Rhoden isn’t yet saying whether he’ll sign off on an overhaul of South Dakota’s ballot initiative rules that is prompting threats of referendums and lawsuits.
The South Dakota governor faces growing pressure from citizens, special interest groups and stakeholders on both sides of the debate around House Bill 1169 a measure that seeks to raise the bar for putting proposed amendments to the state constitution to a public vote.
“The governor has about 60 bills left to sign, and he will announce his decision on that specific bill in the coming days,” Rhoden spokeswoman Josie Harms told The Dakota Scout Thursday when asked if he intends to sign or veto the legislation. If adopted, the bill would require organizers of ballot initiatives attempting to change the state constitution to collect signatures from registered voters in every corner of the state.
South Dakota law says petition circulators must gather signatures from about 35,000 registered voters to put a constitutional amendment proposal on the ballot — 10 percent of the total votes cast in the state’s most recent gubernatorial election. Those signatures can belong to registered voters from anywhere in South Dakota.
However, should the governor give HB 1169 his endorsement, signatures of registered voters from the state’s 35 legislative districts would also be a requirement for petition circulators behind constitutional amendments.
The legislation comes after South Dakota voters have been presented with a slew of citizen-led constitutional amendments in recent elections, including amendments seeking to legalize abortion, marijuana and Medicaid expansion work requirements, as well as a failed attempt to overhaul the state’s primary election system.
Proponents of HB 1169 say that’s indicative of a liberal ballot initiative process in South Dakota — the first state to allow citizens to alter laws and state constitutions at the polls — that’s ripe for abuse.
And because changes to the constitution cannot be undone without another public vote, putting proposed amendments on the ballot should come with a higher hurdle, Sen. Tom Pischke said.
The Dell Rapids Republican, who co-authored the measure, said HB 1169 also ensures that any attempt to change the state constitution has buy-in from citizens all over the state.
“If they change the constitution, the legislature can’t fix anything if it needs tweaked later,” said Pischke, whose measure has the backing of South Dakota Right to Life, South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation and the National Rifle Association. “And there should be buy-in from all across the state — instead of just signature gatherers standing out in front of the courthouse in Rapid City and Sioux Falls.”
Pischke said about 600 registered voters from each “senatorial district” — 5 percent — would have to sign a petition under HB 1169, noting that the total number of signatures necessary would not change.
The distinction of senatorial districts, Pischke said, is necessitated by some legislative districts in South Dakota having one House seat instead of two due to a system called “single-member districts,” which applies to certain areas with significant Native American populations. The system is designed to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act by ensuring fair representation for minority communities.
But HB 1169’s requirement that signatures be collected from 5 percent of registered voters in senatorial districts is fueling some of the criticism it’s facing from voter advocacy groups and legislators alike.
That’s because the Secretary of State — South Dakota’s head election supervisor — does not traditionally report gubernatorial election results based on senatorial districts, according to the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota. And that makes the measure unworkable for citizens, who would be forced to determine the number of signatures they’d need to collect in single-member districts by calculating precinct or county election results, the group says.
“This would create a severe and unfair hardship for South Dakotans seeking to exercise their rights under Article 23 of the state constitution,” the organization said in a statement provided to The Dakota Scout. “Furthermore, it is unclear how the South Dakota Secretary of State’s office would evaluate petitions submitted for proposed 2026 initiated amendments given that the 2022 gubernatorial results were never officially reported by legislative districts.”
Sen. Mike Rohl, among 14 senators to oppose the bill before it was sent to Rhoden’s desk, said his primary concerns are creating too high of a hurdle for signature collectors and allowing one district of the state to block a proposal from being placed on the ballot.
“It makes it virtually impossible to do a constitutional amendment as a citizen,” said the Aberdeen Republican, who this week urged Rhoden to veto HB 1169 during a stop by the governor in Brown County. “And it gives one district veto power over the entire process.”
Initiated measures seeking to change state law — not the Constitution — would not be affected by HB 1169.
