Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Amendment Threshold topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves measure to require 60% vote for future constitutional amendments
Summary
The South Dakota House passed House Joint Resolution 5003, proposing a constitutional change that would raise the vote threshold for citizen-initiated and legislatively referred constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60%. The measure passed 61-5 with three excused and will be submitted to voters.
The South Dakota House of Representatives on Jan. 8 passed House Joint Resolution 5,003, a proposal that would require 60% of votes cast to adopt future amendments to the state constitution. The measure passed the chamber by a recorded vote of 61 yeas, 5 nays and 3 members excused.
Supporters said the higher threshold would protect the state constitution from high-dollar outside influence and prevent policy matters that require spending from being written into the constitution. Representative John Hughes, the bill's prime sponsor, said: "All we are asking in House Joint Resolution 5,003 is that a constitutional initiated amendment or one proposed by the legislature be supported in order to take effect by 60% of the votes cast." Hughes described the change as a safeguard for the constitution.
The resolution would not remove initiative and referendum powers; instead supporters framed it as a higher bar for altering the constitution itself. Hughes repeatedly cited recent high-profile constitutional amendments and said heavy out-of-state spending had skewed campaigns: "If we have another amendment G on the ballot, I predict there'll be expenses raised of 10 to $15,000,000," he said.
Opponents countered that raising the threshold would undercut the will of voters and make citizen-led constitutional change significantly harder. Representative Healy said the measure "limits the power of the voters and it's blatantly ... contradictory to our state model," arguing the existing initiative and referendum process already includes significant procedural and signature requirements. Representative Goodwin criticized paid signature gathering and out-of-state money, saying paid circulators can be used to place constitutional changes on the ballot.
Other members representing both rural and urban districts argued about the appropriate role of the constitution versus statutes. Representative Van Heisen said the constitution should focus on government structure and fundamental rights, not policy details, while Representative Jorgensen and others urged members to let voters decide whether to change the threshold.
The House debate included references to past amendments and to Article 12, Section 7 on the state budget, with supporters saying some constitutional amendments can create unfunded spending obligations. Following debate the clerk announced the result: "There were aye 61, nays 5, excused 3." The House declared HJR 5,003 passed; as a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment it will be placed on the ballot for voter consideration according to the process described by the resolution.
The proposal now proceeds to the next step required under state law for measures that amend the constitution: if enacted by the legislature in its required form it will be submitted to voters at a future election for ratification.
