Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Constitutional Amendment Petitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
South Dakota Senate sustains governor—s veto of bill changing petition signature rules
Summary
The South Dakota Senate voted 16-16 with three excused members to sustain the governor—s veto of House Bill 1169, which would have required petition signatures for constitutional amendments to be distributed across senatorial districts rather than drawn only from population centers.
Pierre, S.D. — The South Dakota Senate on the floor on March 28 failed to override Governor Larry Rhoden—s veto of House Bill 1169, a measure that would have required petition signatures to come from multiple senatorial districts to qualify a proposed constitutional amendment for the ballot.
Senator Pischke, the bill—s floor sponsor, asked senators to overturn the veto and argued the bill would ensure "support comes from all across South Dakota, not just in our largest cities." He told the chamber the measure was intended to protect rural participation and to guard against well-funded, concentrated campaigns placing constitutional amendments on the ballot without broad statewide backing.
The bill would not have changed the constitution—s stated 10% threshold for initiating a constitutional amendment, Pischke said, but would have added a distribution requirement across senatorial districts. Pischke described practical effects he anticipated: a requirement of roughly 600 signatures (depending on the district) over a roughly 15-month period and contrasted that with the smaller signature requirements candidates collect to run for office.
Opponents on the floor, including Senator Wheeler, said the legislature does not have authority to impose geographic distribution requirements that effectively alter the substantive threshold in the constitution. "If you want to change the process for initiating amendments to our constitution, you have to do it through an amendment," Wheeler said, arguing House Bill 1169 "attempts to add on more requirements, substantive requirements, about what it takes to get a ballot measure for a constitutional amendment onto our ballot. We don't have that authority. We can't do that."
Other opponents emphasized that the proposal could give individual districts veto power over an otherwise statewide petition. Senator Rolle warned the bill would "give every district veto power," saying that a small community could block a measure unless voters in more populous areas agreed. Senator Kolbeck argued the measure was unfair because it would cap or limit signatures from more-populated areas, disadvantaging voters in those places.
Supporters countered that the change aligned with past court interpretations and equitable representation across districts; Pischke cited the 1969 Ogleby v. Moore case in discussing fairness and equal representation principles. Some supporters also argued that district-based distribution is more consistent with the principle "one person, one vote" applied in other contexts.
After debate, the Senate recorded a roll-call vote. The presiding officer announced the final count as 16 yeas, 16 nays, and 3 excused, and declared the bill lost, sustaining the governor—s veto.
The measure and its debate reflect a split on the chamber over how to balance statewide direct democracy tools with concerns about geographic representation and the role of the legislature in shaping petition procedures. No further action on House Bill 1169 was taken during the session.
Votes at a glance: House Bill 1169 — Shall House Bill 1169 pass, the veto of the governor notwithstanding? Final: failed; veto sustained. Roll-call tally announced as 16 yeas, 16 nays, 3 excused.
