Has South Dakota lost its enthusiasm for direct democracy?
This question will begin to find clarity during the 2025 legislative session, as Republican legislators strive to limit the state’s pioneering initiative and referendum process. Established in 1898, this democratic tool in South Dakota has facilitated numerous progressive reforms, including increases in minimum wage and Medicaid expansion in a predominantly conservative state.
The ability for citizens to modify the state constitution via the petition process was introduced in 1972. Michael Card, a retired political science professor at the University of South Dakota, refers to this power as “the gun behind the door,” enabling a certain percentage of the population to propose laws or amendments that are validated by majority vote at the polls.
Direct democracy, which allows voters to challenge existing laws through referendums—evident in the 2024 carbon pipeline debate—serves as a counterbalance to legislative power held by elected representatives. However, the Republican supermajority in Pierre has frequently sought to undermine this power by enacting laws that make it increasingly challenging to place initiated measures and constitutional amendments on the ballot, in addition to raising the voting requirements for such measures to succeed.
Among the proposals poised for the 2025 session is House Joint Resolution 5003, aimed at elevating the percentage of voters required to approve constitutional amendments during statewide elections to 60%. This threshold would match the highest requirements in states like Florida and Illinois among the 18 states permitting constitutional amendments through citizen initiatives. The resolution received overwhelming support in the House, passing with a 61-5 vote on January 22, and is likely to appear on the 2026 ballot, where a simple majority of voters could either endorse or reject it. Previous attempts to raise the voting threshold encountered defeat at the polls in 2018 and 2022.
The South Dakota legislature has been particularly successful in diminishing the direct democracy process through statutory measures. Between 2018 and 2024, the state implemented 11 laws designed to make the initiative process more cumbersome, marking the highest number in any U.S. state according to Ballotpedia. These laws comprise stricter petition deadlines, circulation rules, and provisions for the invalidation of signatures. An additional joint resolution this year proposes to boost the required number of signatures needed for ballot access from 5% to 10% for initiated measures and from 10% to 15% for constitutional amendments.
Rick Weiland, who leads the Dakotans for Health organization, argues that the ongoing constraints reflect an effort to systematically dismantle direct democracy, likening it to being “orchestrated to death by a thousand cuts.” Weiland has supported numerous ballot measures, including unsuccessful campaigns for abortion rights and grocery tax repeal in 2024, observing that organized citizen efforts pose a threat to the political elite.
Some restrictions have been deemed unconstitutional by federal courts, citing First Amendment violations and affirming that petition circulation constitutes a fundamental form of political expression.
Rep. John Hughes of Sioux Falls, who sponsors House Joint Resolution 5003, asserts that the proposal is intended to distinguish between initiated measures that affect state statutes and those that alter the constitution. He stated, “I think all of us would agree that a constitution is different than a statute… It’s meant to express a fundamental reflection of the rights and values we share.” Their contention highlights criticism from Republicans regarding the recent use of initiated amendments for policy-related issues, such as the successful Medicaid expansion in 2022.
Nathan Sanderson, the executive director of the South Dakota Retailers Association, supports the resolution, commenting that fiscal policy matters are best managed through statutes rather than through constitutional amendments. “Our association believes that a constitution should enshrine governance philosophy, rather than specific policies,” Sanderson noted.
However, Card contends that the justifications presented by Hughes and Sanderson do not encapsulate the motivations behind the latest efforts to restrict the initiative process in South Dakota. “This is really about limiting the ability to pass certain laws that are endorsed by citizens,” he stated, emphasizing that the Democrats hold only a minor share of registered voters yet successfully propose popular initiatives.
Hughes also suggested that voters may be experiencing “fatigue” related to ballot measures, referencing an average of nearly six measures appearing on ballots every two years since 2000, with peaks of 11 in 2006 and 10 in 2016. Of the 122 measures placed on South Dakota ballots since 1985, 52 were approved, indicating a success rate of 43%. However, significant liberal issues proposed in 2024, including abortion rights and grocery tax repeal, fell short, garnering less than 45% support, while successful measures were largely conservative or populist in nature.
Card noted that despite any disagreements, residents are unlikely to relinquish their rights. In 2022, voters decisively rejected Amendment C, which aimed to impose a 60% voting requirement for measures that either raised taxes or allocated $10 million within the first five years. It received only 33% approval. A similar attempt four years earlier, Amendment X, which sought a 55% requirement for constitutional amendments, also failed with 47% support.
To grasp the trajectory of direct democracy in South Dakota, one must consider its historical roots, including the introduction of the system for initiated ballot measures and referendums in 1898—just nine years after the state attained statehood. The Omaha Bee observed the rejection of women’s suffrage during that same election, hinting at a cautiousness among voters regarding simultaneous reforms.
The foundation for the direct democracy model in South Dakota was partly inspired by the Swiss approach, which enabled citizen participation in governance. While some Washington papers reported skepticism about its viability in the U.S., others, like the Chicago Record, viewed it as a means for rural voices to influence legislative matters during a period when corporate interests were gaining prominence.
The introduction of Amendment E in 1972 further intensified citizens’ powers, allowing them to submit constitutional amendments through the resident petition process. Contrary to Hughes’ claims that this occurred in 1988 with a narrow victory, Amendment E was established with 67% voter approval in 1972.
As the legislative landscape shifted toward a Republican majority over the last 15 years, the initiative process evolved into a tool for progressive movements to bypass traditional legislative routes. Weiland’s successful campaign to elevate the state’s minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 in 2014 exemplifies this shift, passing with a 55% vote. Subsequent actions by the legislature seeking to undercut wage increases resulted in a successful referendum with over 70% support from voters.
In 2016, the successful bipartisan Initiative Measure 21 established a cap on payday loan interest rates at 36%, responding to aggressive opposition from lending entities exploiting low-income borrowers, demonstrating how direct democracy was leveraged for economic reform.
Nevertheless, critics of direct democracy cite examples like Marsy’s Law, a 2016 victims’ rights amendment that resulted in problematic enforcement, revealing the complexities introduced by such measures. Concerns prompted a follow-up amendment two years later to address these issues, which passed with 80% support. The initial campaign was led by an out-of-state financier, emphasizing concerns over external influences shaping South Dakota’s policies.
Hughes raises the point that out-of-state money dramatically impacts electoral outcomes, arguing that the state’s majority requirement makes it a target for external groups aiming to influence local governance. With the recent influx of funding from outside organizations for local measures, Hughes believes citizens have legitimate concerns about the integrity of their voting system.
Weiland contests this perspective, juxtaposing concerns over out-of-state financial intervention with the reality that local politicians also command significant fundraising capabilities. He points out that voters are not merely reacting to external campaign interests; they are adamantly defending their rights to engage in the legislative process.
To counter the legislative push for restrictions, Weiland, alongside attorney Jim Leach, is drafting measures for potential inclusion on the 2026 ballot aimed at preserving the citizens’ rights involved in direct democracy. One proposal seeks to restrict legislative alterations to citizen-enacted measures for a period of seven years unless a supermajority in both houses agrees, followed by a public vote. Another would demand voter approval for any changes to laws affecting initiative and referendum processes.
As the ongoing struggle over direct democracy continues to unfold in South Dakota, Leach emphasizes the commitment to upholding citizen engagement in proposing and voting on laws. “We will keep fighting to ensure the citizens maintain their rights,” he affirmed.