VDA Testimony to SD House State Affairs Committee Hearing on Feb 12 in Opposition to HJR 5006

On February 12, I testified (in person) before the SD House State Affairs Committee in Pierre and delivered the following statement in opposition to HJR 5006:

“Good afternoon, 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 5006.

We oppose HJR 5006 for the following reasons:

First, this resolution places undue restrictions on initiated amendments compared to legislatively referred amendments. This resolution seeks to limit the people’s power to submit amendments while not placing that same restriction on the Legislature. If an issue this resolution aims to solve is too many questions on the ballot, I’d like to note that, since 2018, over half of the initiated amendments in South Dakota have been legislatively referred.

Second, this resolution would create more opportunities for litigation to be used as a weapon against the initiative process. Whenever possible, ballot initiative questions should be decided by voters and not judges.

Third, I’d like to note that placing an initiative on the ballot is much the same as proposing a bill. Instead of the legislative process that culminates in a vote of the legislature, a proposed initiative undergoes the petition process culminating in a vote by the South Dakota electorate.

In your body, there is no restriction on bringing the same legislation year after year, even if that legislation is continually deferred to the 41st day. In the same way as a defeated bill, a defeated initiative is not without merit. If the people of South Dakota decide to petition their government for change, they should be allowed to do so. Even in defeat, initiatives engage the voting public on important issues for our state, and the right to political speech via ballot question should not be limited in this manner.

We have a process that rarely repeats initiatives. Going back to the year 2000, 12 full election cycles, we have only had a single topic that repeated after a failed attempt – cannabis legalization initiatives in 2022 and 2024. This resolution attempts to solve a nonexistent problem in the state and only serves to restrict South Dakota voters' constitutional right to initiate legislation.

For all of these reasons, we ask that you oppose this resolution. Thank you.”

[END]