VDA Testimony to SD Senate State Affairs Committee Hearing on March 5 in Opposition to HJR 5003

On March 5, I testified before the SD Senate State Affairs Committee in Pierre and delivered the following statement in opposition to House Joint Resolution 5003:

“Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

My name is Zebadiah Johnson from Sioux Falls, SD. I’m here on behalf of the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota, and I am testifying in opposition to HJR 5003. 

The VDA opposes HJR 5003 for several reasons. 

First, this policy would effectively fossilize our state Constitution. Since 2002, the vast majority of proposed amendments have failed. Specifically, there have been 37 proposed amendments and only 15 of them have passed a simple majority vote – a success rate of 40.5%. If we applied the proposed supermajority requirement, only 4 proposed amendments since 2002 would have passed. Despite the rhetoric surrounding this resolution, South Dakotans are not amending our constitution every election cycle and do not take these proposed amendments lightly. We need to trust our voters to make the correct decisions for our state.

Second, requiring a 60% supermajority to amend the Constitution would radically restrict the constitutional ballot initiative rights of South Dakota voters. This resolution would establish the joint highest threshold for passage of an initiated amendment in the entire country. Of the 24 states with a ballot initiative process, nearly all of them require a simple majority of 50% for passage. There is no need for South Dakota, which created the American ballot initiative, to deviate from the norm in such an extreme manner.

Third, any supermajority requirement would severely restrict the ability of this legislature to successfully propose amendments to the South Dakota Constitution. This resolution applies to both legislatively-referred and citizen-initiated amendments. 

For example, the 2018 single subject amendment, proposed by the legislature and ultimately approved by voters, would have failed to reach a 60% supermajority. Additional amendments that failed to meet this proposed threshold include: work requirements for medicaid; all forms of gambling in deadwood; and the forty day legislative session. This resolution does not give our state the flexibility we need to solve problems that may arise in the future.

Finally, it is clear that South Dakotans do not support increasing the threshold for passing constitutional amendments. In 2018, Amendment X, which proposed a 55% supermajority requirement, failed with only 46% of the vote. In 2022, Amendment C, which proposed a 60% supermajority requirement for any ballot question creating a tax or fee or requiring the state to appropriate $10 million or more in any of the first five fiscal years after enactment, failed with only 33% of the vote. The people of South Dakota have repeatedly expressed their support for simple majority rule on constitutional amendments, not minority rule. 

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. Thank you for hearing my testimony today.”

[END]