On Tuesday, March 25th, Governor Rhoden vetoed House Bill 1169, a deeply flawed bill that would have implemented a geographic distribution requirement of signatures on proposed amendments to the South Dakota Constitution. Read Governor Rhoden’s statement on the veto here.

Press Release: Governor Rhoden Vetoes House Bill 1169

The decision in Reclaim Idaho v. Denney (2021) is the closest precedent that would apply if South Dakota’s HB 1169 were challenged in court, and we feel that South Dakota is likely to lose that litigation. South Dakota taxpayers should not pay the costs for their legislators’ power grab.

Local news outlets covered the Voter Defense Association’s request of Governor Rhoden to veto legislation that would implement a geographic distribution requirement of signatures on proposed amendments to the South Dakota Constitution (House Bill 1169).

Press Release: Voter Defense Association of South Dakota Urges Governor Rhoden to Veto House Bill 1169 Due to “Fatal Flaw”

SB 91 was introduced to strengthen South Dakota’s ballot initiative process by increasing uniformity across petitions for initiated amendments to the Constitution and initiated measures. However, SB 91D, as amended by Speaker Hansen, adds a new policy change to the legislation. It shifts the deadline for submitting initiative petition signatures from May to February – this is the same change made by House Bill 1184 (sponsored by Hansen), which the VDA opposes for a number of reasons…

“Our system gives every South Dakota voter an equal voice when deciding important policy questions, or whether we should vote on a question at all – and this geographic distribution requirement would give voters in a single district the power to deny a statewide vote on a citizen-initiated amendment.”

“Moving the filing deadline farther from the election makes initiative efforts less relevant to the voters. Circulating closer to the election presents voters with policies closer to when they could potentially decide them.”

“South Dakota’s signature validation process should set out clear and unambiguous requirements. Respectfully, we do not think that HB 1256 meets that standard.”

“HJR 5003 is an attack on the viability of citizen-initiated constitutional amendments in South Dakota and an unjustified attempt to enable minority rule in our state. Therefore, we urge you to oppose this resolution.”

“It's a sound policy for South Dakota’s initiative process. The bill increases consistency within types of petitions and aligns petition content with what voters see when casting their ballot on an issue after it has qualified.”

“This bill would clear up any remaining ambiguities after that determination by the attorney general and protect our initiative process from out-of-state actors attempting to use our process as a vehicle for federal litigation. And this, I believe, was the case last year that the attorney general addressed.”

“We consider this a technical fix, hoping to bring more consistency to our initiative process. Since 2018, when the single subject rule was created for initiated amendments and initiated state statutes, the legislature has gradually worked at implementing the statutory framework for that single-subject rule to ensure compliance. At the moment, this includes a pre-circulation single-subject review for initiated amendments to the Constitution but does not include single-subject review for initiated measures.”

South Dakota Searchlight covered the Voter Defense Association’s support of prohibiting the use of a deepfake to influence an election (Senate Bill 164).

“As the prime sponsor noted, our system of electoral democracy depends on having a shared reality, in which voters make informed decisions with which they cast their votes. Deepfakes pose a real and substantial threat to that shared reality, especially as that technology advances and becomes more convincing, it will become increasingly difficult for citizens to discern reality from fiction when it comes to politics.”

“My testimony will be relatively short for you today. It will be this main point: if adopted, HB 1267 WILL lead to litigation against the state. If the state ends up losing [that lawsuit], even at the Supreme Court, taxpayers will be on the hook for those costs.

“…we believe voters deserve accurate, up-to-date information when deciding ballot questions, and that is not currently the case in some situations, as previously stated. “

“We feel that [SB 188] introduces needless hurdles into our absentee voting system. I’d like to note that of our neighboring states, only Minnesota requires an excuse to vote absentee.”

KOTA covered the coalition of South Dakota organizations fighting to defend the ballot initiative process from political attacks.

Press Release: “Protect Our Initiatives Coalition” Unites to Defend South Dakota’s Initiative Process Against Legislative Overreach