For several years, the South Dakota legislature has been trying to curtail an important constitutional right. But courts and the voters have repeatedly struck down their restrictions. Sadly, our legislature is still not getting the message.
South Dakota has a proud history of direct democracy where citizens get to vote on ballot issues. The state’s constitution authorizes citizens to propose changes to state statutes and the constitution through an initiative process. Citizens can put an issue on the ballot by getting tens of thousands of signatures on petitions, leading to a public vote. In fact, South Dakota was the first state to adopt initiative and referendum (putting an existing law or bill up for voter review) on a statewide level in 1898.
South Dakota Constitution
Voter Initiatives are a Crucial Component of Democracy
Voter initiatives are a crucial component of our state’s heritage, allowing citizens to take an active role in the democratic process. After all, South Dakota’s state motto is, “Under God the people rule.”
Initiatives can be especially important when the legislature seems to be out of sync with the people. They also provide an opportunity for citizens to address significant issues that the legislature may want to avoid, such as marijuana legalization, Medicaid expansion, abortion limits, establishing the minimum wage, expanding crime victims’ rights and election reform.
South Dakota voters have seen a steady flow of ballot questions over the past century. The most active period was in the 1910s when there were 54. There were 30 ballot issues in the 2010s, down a bit from 35 in the 2000s and 32 in the 1990s. The state’s voters like voting on ballot questions.
Legislative Efforts to Impede Initiatives
Regrettably, in the last couple decades the South Dakota Legislature has repeatedly attempted to create new rules that make it harder to put issues on the ballot. Their proposals include increasing the number of signatures required to place an issue on the ballot, shortening the time for gathering signatures, regulating who can gather signatures, increasing the percentage of voters required to pass an amendment and restricting out-of-state funding for ballot measures.
The legislature has also considered imposing geographic restrictions on signature gathering and repealing the initiative process altogether. However, the courts or the people eventually put a stop to each of these hurdles.
The People and Courts Say “No” to Initiative Restrictions
The people spoke loud and clear in 2022. The legislature proposed that some constitutional amendments must have a favorable vote of 60% of voters, instead of 50%. They put their restriction on the June primary ballot thinking it would pass, but the voters overwhelmingly declined (over 67% voted “no”) to reduce their own authority to pass initiatives.
8th Circuit Court of Appeals
In February 2023, a federal appeals court handed the state another big loss. It ruled that the twelve months in advance filing deadline for proposed constitutional amendments is unjustified and unconstitutional.
But the Legislative Attacks Continue
Despite these recent setbacks, the legislature has continued to pursue more ideas for restricting initiatives. This session, the House passed an apparently unconstitutional bill imposing geographic distribution of signatures that would have effectively killed the initiative process. Luckily, the Senate tabled it for now.
The legislature does not appear to trust South Dakota voters. Some legislatores resent being overruled by the people or the courts. They exhibit a “we know what’s best for you” attitude that conflicts with traditional South Dakota values and beliefs. Perhaps our broken partisan primary system is at fault; it sometimes produces ‘representatives’ who don’t truly represent the interests of all citizens.
The Initiative Process is Already Very Difficult
Legislators promoting new ballot issue hurdles often suggest that changes to the constitution should be more difficult. But passing a constitutional amendment is already very expensive and challenging.
Getting a constitutional initiative on the ballot requires valid signatures from 35,000 registered South Dakota voters. Circulators must therefore obtain at least 50,000 signatures, as many signatures cannot be proven to be valid. Perhaps because of the difficulty, the number of ballot measures in the state has been relatively stable for decades.
Even the most well-organized volunteer group does not have the time or resources to put together a successful signature drive, necessitating the use of paid signature gatherers. Paid petition carriers know how to get numerous signatures per day.
Quit Trying to Fix What Isn’t Broken
The people have spoken. South Dakota’s initiative system gives them the voice they want and that the constitution guarantees them. The legislature should stop trying to fix a problem that does not exist.
The initiative process is the essence of democracy.
To be clear, only Republican legislators vote to take away our rights. Referring to “the legislature” is misleading. The problem is GOP lawmakers. The anti-drag show, anti-petition, anti-trans Republican party does not represent Sioux Falls. We should be sending many more Democratic legislators to represent us in Pierre.
Joe, it is frustrating to watch Republican Legislators consistently sponsor and vote for bills taking away our freedom to participate.
The problem is not one party or the other. It’s human nature and a persons natural instinct to want to rule and not be questioned. The book Money Sex and Power by Vince Foster explains this thoroughly and precisely. The narcissistic personality put in power will never listen to the voices of the people. This person does not look what legislation will do for the people, but what it will do for his/her Ego! The problem to solve is replacement of existing politicians on all levels. Ask the hard questions of candidate and hold them accountable by cutting of their funds if they go down the wrong prairie dog hole!
I was involved with several local and statewide initiatives and referendums in the 1980s-1990s. I would say the system IS broken. It was broken by the Legislature in the 2000s and has been ongoing because special interests wanted a way to make the initiative more difficult to use. Little of the pre-petitioning bureaucratic monkeywrenching is necessary. It’s there to slow down and inhibit citizens and results in added costs which means MORE out-of-state money is needed to put something on the ballot.
I’m not a fan of out-of-state money swinging state races, but that’s the world the US Supreme Court gave us through multiple decisions, including Citizens United. Money talks and it bought the Supreme Court and that allowed all those bad decisions. Until those decisions are restructured, we are stuck with it.
What’s particularly galling to me is the amount of time the AG needs to concoct an unconstitutional explanation of the proposed initiative that then must be tossed at a petition signer. What that thing amounts to is government-sponsored forced speech. Someone needs to take that to Judge Kornmann for clarification. Beside being forced speech, the AG’s intrusion in a legislative branch function may violate separation of powers.
I would suggest repeal of many of those new millennium changes to the initiative procedures. Some, however, made improvements. People should go through the Legislative Research Council drafting procedure to get a proposed initiative in proper order, but that process should be streamlined and deadlines shortened.
A counter point, to supplement the case for initiative and referendum, it that the state constitution simultaneously provides for the elected legislature. Thus a measure of energy comparable to that generated by the interests supporting initiative and/or referendum should be directed to the elected legislators. It is not productive to challenge our system of governance by positing the legislature as an threatening force. If the system is broken as suggested, then it is incumbent upon the clear-thinking advocates of initiative and referendum to elect policymakers and administrators who will abide.
As a Precinct Committee Person, I was elected to represent a small # of people in Precinct 5-22.
I do not have to represent anyone outside that area, and it is my job to host town halls to listen to, inform, and to educate my neighbors on what the legislature is doing, and what we are discussing in Committee Meetings.
We got 689 Precincts across 66 Counties, as we are seeing, the Precincts are waking up to the fraud, the scam, and the manipulation done in the legislature.
There is this riff within the party itself between Established Members, The Executive Board, let alone the Precincts themselves.
The Precinct Persons are the closest to the people, and most likely most representative of the what the people want.
In Sioux Falls, we have nearly 10 precincts per each City District, let alone a greater majority of all precincts in the “State”.
Sioux Falls is a progressive town, led by Republican Party Members who have managed Sioux Falls in a conservative, small town manner of balancing our budgets.
This is why we must maintain, and keep the “Statewide At-Large Reps” controlled, and chosen by the Convention of Legislative Delegates (35), County Committee Persons (66), and Precinct Committee Persons (689) of them, cause those persons are most closest to the people, and know what each group of people want the most.
IF these 689 Precincts are organized well, and there are at least 33 Counties meeting to bring forth resolutions, initiatives in the future, it will be much easier to conduct state-wide Petition Drives.
This is why the Legislature, led by “Progressive” members of the the State Senate and House, are trying to steal our power away from us, they do not want you and me to make such decisions, let alone meet in monthly meetings, to discuss statewide affairs, making it easy to over turn legislative agenda.
Lets be clear folks, the PEOPLE when organized can actually operate the State very well, outside of the Legislature itself. The Legislature is NOT above the people, it is equal to the people, as ‘we’ the people elect legislators to meet in Pierre, while we elect Delegates and Committee Persons to meet in Committees, while voting in Conventions to choose our “At-Large Reps” let alone vote to adopt Statewide Resolutions and Initiatives, while petitioning the people in each Precinct to place agenda on the Public Ballots, very easily.
Most closest, huh. You just demonstrated why SD politics has a problem.