SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE APPROVES SEVERAL NEW RESTRICTIONS ON CITIZEN BALLOT MEASURES

PIERRE, S.D. (Joshua Haiar / South Dakota Searchlight) – Proposals to restrict citizen-initiated ballot measures have cleared the South Dakota Legislature, and some are awaiting the governor’s consideration.

The measures — carried by Republican lawmakers — would shorten petition signature collection periods, require signatures from specific geographic areas and increase the voter approval threshold for constitutional amendments. Opponents argue the changes would hinder South Dakotans’ ability to bring issues to the ballot.

The state has three types of statewide ballot measures: constitutional amendments, initiated measures and referendums.

To be placed on the ballot, citizen-backed constitutional amendments need petition signatures from registered voters equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last election for governor. The current signature requirement is 35,017. The Legislature can also send its own constitutional amendments to the ballot.

Initiated measures propose a law, and referendums send a law passed by legislators to the ballot, with each requiring signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last governor’s race. That threshold is 17,508 signatures.

South Dakota was the first state in the U.S. to allow an initiative and referendum process in 1898. In 1972, the state constitution was amended to allow constitutional changes by initiative. In 1988, the state’s voters changed the constitution to eliminate a requirement that an amendment be submitted to the Legislature for approval before placement on the ballot.

Shortening the signature window

One bill would move the deadline for submitting petition signatures from May to February in the year of a general election. Supporters said the change is necessary to ensure adequate time for signature verification and legal challenges before the election.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, helped lead a legal challenge against last November’s constitutional amendment that would have placed abortion rights in the state constitution.

The bill’s opponents, including voting-rights advocates and some Democrats, argued that reducing the signature collection window by three months will make it harder for grassroots campaigns to qualify for the ballot. They contended that South Dakota already has a restrictive petitioning process, and the change would disproportionately favor well-funded groups that can afford to hire professional signature collectors.

Signatures from every district

Another bill would require petition signatures for constitutional amendments to be gathered from each of the 35 state senatorial districts in the state.

The bill requires that a petition gain signatures from a number of registered voters in each district equal to 5% of the total votes cast for governor in that district during the last general election. The bill also retains the requirement that the total number of signatures on the petition must equal at least 10% of the votes cast statewide for governor in the last general election.

Supporters said the bill would ensure amendments have broad, statewide support before they reach the ballot. They said the current system encourages petitioners to focus on Minnehaha and Pennington counties, where most registered voters live.

Opponents said voters across the state already have a say when they cast their ballots, making an additional hurdle unnecessary.

Joe Kirby, of Sioux Falls, helped lead an effort during the last election that would have instituted an open primary election system in the state. He called the bill “effectively the death of constitutional initiatives.”

“This gives any one county veto power over whether an initiative gets on the ballot, no matter how many people want it on the ballot,” Kirby said.

Raising the threshold for constitutional changes

The bills addressing the signature window and geographic requirements are on the governor’s desk, for his decision to sign them into law or veto them.

A resolution passed by the Legislature that does not require the governor’s signature will ask voters to increase the approval threshold for constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60%. The measure will appear on the general election ballot in November 2026. Ironically, the measure will need only a simple majority for approval.

Supporters said the change is necessary to protect the state’s constitution from being amended by outside interests and prevent policy from being inserted into a document that’s intended only to stipulate the structure and powers of the government.

Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, sponsored the resolution.

“Our constitution is more than a statute,” Hughes said in a statement. “It is a contract between the state itself and the people that assures us that if we live here, raise our families here, worship here, and conduct our vacations here, we can count on certain core values remaining constant.”

Opponents said initiated constitutional amendments are necessary because lawmakers sometimes refuse to adopt a popular policy, and because lawmakers can repeal or amend a regular initiative on their own but can’t change the constitution without public approval. They said raising the threshold would make it significantly harder for South Dakotans to amend their constitution.

Opponents also alleged that the measure is an attempt to stifle citizen-driven initiatives and would ensure that only proposals with backing from powerful political and financial groups can succeed.

Other legislation

Other bills approved by the Legislature that would impact the ballot measure process include legislation that would require petition signers to list the address and county where they are registered to vote, rather than merely the address where they reside, and prevent the Secretary of State’s Office from counting signatures without the information; change how petitions for ballot initiatives must be formatted, including stipulations about minimum font sizes; allow fiscal estimates for ballot measures to be updated closer to elections (that bill has been signed by the governor); and require the secretary of state to review ballot initiatives for compliance with the state’s single-subject rule, which is already required for constitutional amendments.

Some other bills addressing ballot measures failed.

One failed resolution would have required ballot measures rejected by voters to wait a full election cycle before being resubmitted. Another failed bill would have banned paid petition circulators and imposed felony penalties.

 

GOVERNOR RHODEN SAYS NEW REVENUE MUST BE FOUND TO ACHIEVE REAL PROPERTY TAX REFORM

PIERRE, S.D. – New revenue streams for South Dakota governments that lean almost entirely on property taxes to pay their bills will be a key initiative coming out of the governor’s office this spring.

Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to make a recommendation to a task force convened by the state Legislature charged with coming up with further property tax relief initiatives in the coming days. And though the still-new governor isn’t yet sharing the details, he’s said it’s likely to entail creating a new source of funding for cash-strapped governments blamed for the recent escalation on homeowners’ tax bills. Chief among them — counties.

“There are a lot of different things we’re considering right now, but we want to present a bill that gives individual counties options,” Rhoden told members of the media during a recent news conference at the state Capitol.

Those remarks came amid ongoing gripes among South Dakota property owners and lawmakers alike about the level of taxation being placed upon property owners. And though the lone piece of legislation aimed at property tax relief to survive the recently finished legislative session had his name on it — Senate Bill 216 — Rhoden has acknowledged it doesn’t reduce property taxes. Rather, it slows the rate at which local governments can grow the amount of property taxes they can collect.

But the longtime legislator is quick to point out that of all the property taxes paid across the state, state government gets none of it. Rather, 56 percent funds schools, 27 percent goes to counties, and 13 percent goes to municipalities. The rest is split among townships and special taxing districts.

That means, Rhoden said, property tax cuts are only feasible with spending cuts at the local levels, retooling the state’s property tax formula to shift tax burdens onto agriculture or commercial property, or finding new revenue sources.

“If you want to cut those property taxes, you have to cut schools’ budgets, and there’s never been much desire to do that in the Capitol. You could cut budgets, which means cuts to county roads and public safety and the like—also not much appetite for doing anything like that. Or you could shift the burden to another class of property,” he said, adding that he’ll propose a policy that’s optional for counties and not a mandate.

Rhoden said more specifics will be shared in a matter of “days, not weeks,” and hinted in his weekly op-ed sent to South Dakota newspapers Friday that his proposal will allow “each county (to) decide for themselves, either through their county commission or by a vote of the people.”

But garnering support for new revenue sources — particularly for local governments — has proved difficult in the past, too. Although it’s unclear what Rhoden’s county funding initiative will look like, it’s speculated a county sales tax will be considered by the Property Tax Relief Task Force.

Lawmakers in recent years have considered legislation to allow county commissions to either create a sales tax or put the question of a county sales tax to county voters.

Those proposals, though, have failed to earn passage. And lawmakers say any new taxing authority proposed for local governments would again face stiff opposition unless it came with conditions aimed at property tax relief.

“With the current structure and body we have, there would have to be some guardrails in place …. otherwise I wouldn’t support that,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Chris Karr, who carried the legislation behind the creation of the Property Tax Relief Task Force.

New revenues need to be part of the conversation as much as potential caps on local government spending growth and classification adjustments, the Sioux Falls Republican added.

“Everyone is going to have to decide if they really want property tax relief or not,” Karr said. “Everything has got to be on the table — counties, schools, funding — all of it.”

Rhoden has hinted his proposal will be more than granting taxing authority for counties, saying it would also bring “direct property tax relief” to counties that choose to implement it, if approved by lawmakers at the state Capitol and the task force alike.

“My plan is to offer a proposal to them as an option on how to reduce property taxes in a meaningful way and a targeted way,” he said, referring to the panel that will be composed of eight state senators and eight members of the state House. An appointee of the governor as well as the commissioner of the South Dakota Bureau of Finance and Management will also serve on the task force as non-voting members.

“We’ll continue to have our conversations and … we want to give that task force as early a start as we can to start looking it over.”

 

SOUTH DAKOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL TALKS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE ‘RULE OF LAW’

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Parker Brown / Dakota News Now) – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is weighing in on the rule of law after the Trump administration was accused of bending the principle to implement its agenda.

The rule of law is defined by the Federal Government as a principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced, independently adjudicated and consistent with international human rights principles.

Jackley said he believes in the separation of powers and defines the rule of law as something legislators pass, judges interpret and Attorneys General and the Executive Branch enforce.

“Without a Rule of Law, we have chaos. We have prosecutors going one direction, we have state government going a different direction. It’s important that the Rule of Law is enforced and the people that enforce the Rule of Law are the Executive Branch, which is the various Attorneys General,” Jackley said.

Jackley is worried about the effectiveness of the legislature, which he believes is the reason for the number of executive actions issued by President Trump.

“When you have a component, a legislative component that’s not keeping up its end of the bargain, it’s too much reliance on these executive orders, which does concern us,” Jackley said.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed accusations of the Trump administration defying the rule of law by accusing judges of “acting erroneously.”

“We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench,” Leavitt claimed. “They are trying to dictate policy from the President of the United States. They are trying to clearly slow walk this administration’s agenda, and it’s unacceptable.”

Jackley said that he and other Attorneys General have been concerned about the rule of law in the White House before the new administration took over.

“The last several years, the state Attorney Generals have felt concerned. We’ve tried to address some of these issues through various lawsuits. We’ve been very vocal,” said Jackley.

“We have felt that the Rule of Law is, there’s immigration laws in place, they need to be followed and not ignored. Washington has not really followed their own rules,” said Jackley.

 

IOWA HOUSE PASSES BILL SEEKING TO SIDESTEP FEDERAL NUTRITION STANDARDS FOR SCHOOL MEALS

DES MOINES, IA (Gray Media Iowa Capitol Bureau) – The foods schools are required to serve Iowa students could soon be changing.

Republicans in the Iowa House passed a bill Wednesday that requires the state to request a waiver with the USDA to sidestep federal nutrition standards for school meals. It seeks exemptions from sodium limits, whole grain requirements, and fruit and vegetable requirements.

Republican State Representative Jeff Shipley says it would give school nutrition staff more flexibility.

“One of their biggest frustrations is having to jump through the USDA guidelines and conform every single thing on their school menu to the whims of the bureaucracy. They’re very frustrated by that, especially when there is a recommendation change and all of a sudden they have to go back and formulate everything all over again. It’s a big pain in the butt,” he said.

But Democratic State Representative Sami Scheetz says the USDA can’t grant waivers that change the nutritional content of school meals. If the waiver request is denied, and the state sets out to make its own standards, Scheetz says Iowa could lose federal funding.

“If we vote to pass this legislation, we could potentially be jeopardizing $160 million in school funding for the children of our state,” he said.

The bill prioritizes ‘meat’ as the most important food group, followed by dairy then fruits and vegetables. Democratic State Representative Austin Baeth says this is the direct opposite of the guidance on the food pyramid.

“These are guidelines based on science, folks, that have been demonstrated to create the healthiest chance to give our kids. And instead, this bill appears to say, ‘No, I think we here in Iowa know better’,” he said.

Iowans do is the argument made by Republican Representative Derek Wulf.

“Nobody knows nutrition and food better than us here. We’re the breadbasket of America. The experts live here, they work here, and we have a long history of understanding food sources,” he said.

The Legislative Services Agency says this bill could increase the cost of school meals for students who do not receive free or reduced price meals or districts could absorb the cost.