Amendment I: The Medicaid Expansion 'Kill Switch'
In 2022, South Dakota voters approved an amendment to expand Medicaid eligibility. Constitutional Amendment I proposes adding a condition to that expansion. A 'yes' vote on Amendment I would automatically repeal the state's Medicaid expansion if the federal government's share of the cost ever drops below 90 percent. Supporters, primarily the lawmakers who referred this to the ballot, frame this as a fiscal safeguard. They argue it protects the state budget from future changes in federal policy, preventing a situation where South Dakota is left with a massive, unfunded mandate. Opponents of the measure argue it creates instability for the thousands of South Dakotans who gained health coverage and that it undermines the will of the voters who passed
the original expansion. They believe it's a solution in search of a problem, as the 90% federal match is a core component of the Affordable Care Act's expansion program.
Amendment J: Clarifying Voter Citizenship
Constitutional Amendment J seeks to add language to the state constitution explicitly stating that only United States citizens are eligible to vote in South Dakota elections. A 'yes' vote supports adding this clause. A 'no' vote leaves the constitution as is. The context here is key: it is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in South Dakota and all other U.S. states in federal and state elections. Proponents argue this amendment is a necessary 'safeguard' to formally codify a foundational principle of the state's elections, adding a layer of constitutional protection. Opponents, however, contend the measure is redundant and could create unintended administrative hurdles or confusion without enhancing election security, as the citizenship requirement is already firmly established in law.
Amendment K: A Trust for Unclaimed Property
This measure addresses what happens to forgotten money and assets, like old bank accounts or uncashed checks, that the state holds. A 'yes' vote on Constitutional Amendment K would create a permanent trust fund for this unclaimed property. Currently, these funds are managed by the state, but this amendment would invest them, using the interest and income to supplement the state's general fund while ensuring the principal amount remains available for citizens to claim in the future. Supporters say this is a responsible financial move that puts dormant money to work for the state while guaranteeing that rightful owners can always get their property back. There has been no formal opposition statement submitted against this measure, suggesting it is a relatively uncontroversial proposal aimed at fiscal management.
Amendment L: Raising the Bar for Future Amendments
Perhaps the most consequential measure for the future of direct democracy in the state, Constitutional Amendment L would change the rules for changing the constitution itself. A 'yes' vote would require all future constitutional amendments to be approved by a 60 percent supermajority of voters, rather than the current simple majority (50% plus one). Proponents argue this change protects the state constitution from being easily altered by out-of-state money and special interests with deceptive ad campaigns. They believe a higher threshold ensures that amendments have broad consensus and are carefully considered. Opponents see this as an attack on the power of voters, making it significantly harder for citizen-led initiatives to pass and cementing the existing constitutional framework. They argue it gives a minority of voters veto power over what the majority wants.
