Heres a brief explanation of the Amendments and Measures on the ballot:
Constitutional Amendment E. A yes vote would remove generic male pronouns (he, his, him) in the State Constitution to reference certain officeholders or individuals. A no vote would keep the State Constitution status quo.
Constitutional Amendment F. A yes vote here would impose a work requirement on anyone eligible for expanded Medicaid Benefits, unless they are physically or mentally disabled. That work requirement however, is yet to be defined by the State and must be approved by the federal government prior to implementation. A no vote would keep the benefit eligibility, purely defined by age and income level, status quo.
Constitutional Amendment G. A yes vote would establish a womans constitutional right to an abortion and provide a legal framework for the regulation of abortion. There would be no regulation on a womans right to an abortion during the first trimester. Any regulation during the second trimester must be reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman. In the third trimester, the amendment allows for the regulation or prohibition of abortion except in cases where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman, to be determined by the pregnant womans physician and their medical judgment. A no vote would preserve current state law, which prohibits abortion in South Dakota, unless it is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female. Any physician or other person performing an abortion under current state law could be charged with a felony.
Constitutional Amendment H. A yes vote would allow for all voters to vote for any candidate in a primary election and allow for the two candidates receiving the most votes to advance to the general election versus the current system of partisan primary elections where only members of the candidates party can vote for that candidate. A no vote would continue the policy of only members of the candidates party may vote for that candidate unless that party has opened the primary to voters not affiliated with the party.
Initiated Measure 28. A yes vote would eliminate a sales tax on anything sold for human consumption, which includes more than food and drinks but has yet to be fully defined. While it specifically lists eliminating these sources of revenue for the State, it is largely believed that it would have a significant impact on local municipalities budgets and lead to the creation of a state income tax. Flandreau, Colman, and Moody County have all signed onto a broader statewide coalition opposing the measure. A no vote would keep the sales tax intact as it is.
Initiated Measure 29. A yes vote would legalize the recreational use, possession, and distribution of marijuana for those 21 years of age or older. Allowed would be the possession of up to two ounces of marijuana in a form other than marijuana concentrate or other marijuana products, and up to six marijuana plants with no more than twelve plants per household. There would be limits placed on other forms of marijuana and marijuana products, locations where it could be consumed, driving under the influence of marijuana, and allows for employers to restrict an employees use. Property owners would be allowed as well to regulate the use of marijuana on their property. A no vote would keep state law open to medicinal use only.
Referred Law 21. A yes vote would provide new statutory requirements for regulating linear transmission facilities, allow counties to impose a surcharge on certain pipeline companies, and establish a landowner Bill of Rights. It would establish monetary commitments to counties, a depth any pipeline would need to be installed, written agreements with property owners, clarify the companys responsibilities to landowners, along with additional terms of any agreements. In essence, it would pave the way for carbon capture pipeline companies to operate in South Dakota, and do so through the use of eminent domain, perhaps overriding local regulations on setbacks and other locally established laws. This bill passed the State Legislature earlier this year and was dubbed the Landowner Bill of Rights. Opponents believe the bill strips any rights landowners have to protect their properties from potentially harmful or hazardous materials that might be carried in privately versus publicly owned transmission lines for private gain. A yes vote would allow SB201 to become law. A no would reject the Act of the Legislature and likely have lawmakers taking the issue up again in 2025. Many states facing similar project proposals along with industry insiders are closely watching how voters respond this November. See story on page 1
Leave a Reply