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.
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.
Allowing the Legislature to remove South Dakota from expanded Medicaid
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.
Requiring a 60% vote to amend the state constitution
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.
Creating an unclaimed property trust fund
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.
Clarifying that non-U.S. citizens cannot vote in South Dakota elections
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.”
What else might appear on the ballot?
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.
This post was originally published on here
