On May 15, the Voter Defense Association held a press conference to launch their campaign against Amendment L.

On April 29, the Voter Defense Association released it’s 2025 Legislative Scorecard and accompanying report.

The Voter Defense Association of South Dakota evaluated 51 separate votes on 12 pieces of legislation and assigned each state legislator a grade based on their voting record

The American Prospect covered the South Dakota Legislature’s recent attacks on the ballot initiative process.

On Veto Day, March 31, the House voted 50 to 18 in support of overriding the veto while the Senate voted 16 to 16. Overriding the veto would have required two-thirds support in each chamber. Due to the outcome of the vote in the Senate, Governor Rhoden’s veto has been sustained.

HB 1169, which would have established a stringent local signature requirement for constitutional ballot initiatives in South Dakota, will not become law

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.

HB 1169 would have established a stringent local signature requirement for constitutional ballot initiatives in South Dakota

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).

HB 1169, passed by legislators in Pierre earlier this month, would create “serious legal ambiguity” by establishing local signature requirements for proposed 2026 constitutional ballot initiatives based on election figures that have not been reported by South Dakota election officials

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).