Several amendments on November ballot

As South Dakota voters cast their ballots in this year’s general election, they will be tasked with understanding several ballot questions on topics ranging from abortion rights to landowner rights and from marijuana to Medicaid. Here’s the rundown on all the amendments set to appear on the ballot.
Amendment E to update references to certain officeholders and persons
Although South Dakota has a woman governor, she is still referred to by using “he,” “him” and “his” pronouns in the State Constitution. Amendment E, if passsed by voters, would simply change the male-specific language to instead refer to such positions more generally.
In South Dakota attorney general Marty Jackley’s offical explanation, he said: “For example, when referencing the Governor, instead of saying, “he shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state,” the text will be changed to read “the Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state.” The amendment makes similar changes to other references to the Governor, as well as to references to other officeholders including Lieutenant Governor, Supreme Court Justices, and Circuit Court Judges. The amendment also makes similar changes to references in the Constitution to general classes of people such as persons, electors, and public officers.”
Proponents of the amendment say “South Dakota has a long history of strong female representation in all three branches of government, and the Constitution should accurately reflect these esteemed members of our government,” said Erin Tobin, state senator, District 21, in an official pro-statement for the amendment.
The South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office is directed by state law to publish pro and con statements from a proponent and opponent of each ballot question.
Critics argue that historic use of male pronouns is proper style and form and that it does not hinder or exclude women from holding public office. They say the amendment would not accomplish anything substantive, but rather cost taxpayers to replace materials that are already effective currently.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment. Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.
Amendment F to impose work requirements on certain individuals who are eligible for
expanded Medicaid
In 2022, South Dakota voters approved a Constitutional provision that expanded Medicaid eligibility for people over age 18 and under 65 whose income is at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty level, plus 5 percent of the federal poverty level for the applicable family size. For an individual in 2024, that comes out to an annual income of $20,783.
Jackley’s explanation reads, “This constitutional amendment authorizes the state to impose work requirements on any person eligible to receive benefits under the expanded Medicaid program, except for those persons who are physically or mentally disabled. The amendment does not identify any specific work requirement that may be imposed on those receiving expanded Medicaid benefits. Any work requirement proposed by the State must be approved by the federal government prior to implementation.”
Supporters of the amendment argue that “welfare programs should care for those who can’t care for themselves — the elderly, the young, and the disabled. Amendment F allows the state to require able-bodied, working-aged people who enroll in Medicaid to work or go to school, to support themselves and their families,” said Tony Venihuizen, SD state representative, District 13.
Proponents say the amendment will still make reasonable exceptions, like for parents of young children, students, those with serious health issues or those looking for work.
Critics argue that if the amendment passes, South Dakotans who are employed and doing all they can to support themselves and their families will lose healthcare coverage. They also say it puts government bureaucrats between patients and their doctors.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment. Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.
Amendment G to
establish a right to
abortion in the state
constitution
Amendment G would establish a constitutional right to an abortion in the state constitution as well as provide a legal framework for their regulation. It would override any existing laws and regulations regarding abortion in the state.
Current South Dakota law bans abortions except when necessary to “preserve the life of the pregnant female.”
“The amendment establishes that during the first trimester a pregnant woman’s decision to obtain an abortion may not be regulated nor may regulations be imposed on the carrying out of an abortion.
“In the second trimester, the amendment allows the regulation of a pregnant woman’s abortion decision, and the regulation of carrying out an abortion. Any regulation of a pregnant woman’s abortion decision, or of an abortion, during the second trimester must be reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.
“In the third trimester, the amendment allows the regulation or prohibition of abortion except in those cases where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman. Whether an abortion is necessary during the third trimester must be determined by the pregnant woman’s physician according to the physician’s medical judgment, reads the Attorney General’s explanation.
Proponents say that, “freedoms of women across America were lost when the right to abortion health care that had existed for 50 years was suddenly taken away by the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Nancy Turbak Berry, chair, South Dakotans for the Freedom Amendment.
“Amendment G simply writes into our state Constitution the limited reproductive freedoms for women that until 2022 were recognized in the U.S. Constitution. Wording of Amendment G intentionally mirrors the wording of Roe v. Wade, the decision that had guaranteed women those freedoms,” said Turbak Berry.
Critics of Amendment G say it is too extreme, with unclear and vague wording.
They say a “yes” vote on the amendment approves late-term abortions after a baby is viable, takes away parents’ right to know when their daugher undergoes an abortion procedure and benefits a for-profit abortion industry, say Leslie Unruh and Jon Hansen, co-chairs of the Life Defense Fund.  
Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment. Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.
Amendment H
to establish top-two
primary elections
Amendment H, if passed, would open up primary elections to all voters regardless of party affiliation, with the top two candidates moving on to the general election ballot.
Currently, the Governor, State Legislature, U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and elected county offices are elected in partisan primaries with only members of the candidates party casting votes in the election, unless opened by the party.
“This amendment requires one primary election wherein all candidates run against each other in their respective races, including major and minor party and unaffiliated candidates. A candidate may list any party next to their name on the ballot regardless of party affiliation or registration. All voters may vote for any candidate. The two candidates receiving the most votes advance to the general election. If there is more than one candidate to be elected to an office, the number of candidates advancing to the general election is twice the number to be elected,” reads the attorney general’s explanation.
Supporters of the amendment say that its passage would make sure every South Dakota voter has a voice and would return power to voters from party leaders. Currently 150,000 independent and unafilliated voters are excluded from tax-payer funded elections. They also say it would lead to greater voter turnout and make for more competive elections.
“Amendment H would shift power from party bosses back to the voters. It would fix an unfair system that silences the voices of 150,000 South Dakota independent voters. It would increase voter participation in elections and make our system fairer. And it would rationalize our politics and ensure elected officials focus on what’s best for all South Dakotans,” said Joe Kirby, Republican and chair of South Dakota Open Primaries.
Critics of the ammendment include both the South Dakota Republican Party and the South Dakota Democratic Party.
“Parties choosing platforms, followed by primaries where candidates for the ballot are chosen by members who support those ideals, is a founding principle of modern political debate and of self-government. Open primaries might well destroy the effectiveness of our system of government by allowing outsiders to participate in selecting candidates to run for office. This idea may well substantially weaken the ability of voters to choose office holders who truly represent their values and ideals,” said John Wiik, chair of the South Dakota Republican Party.
Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment. Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.
Next week’s issue will have explanations of initiated measures and referred laws.