Groups differ on ballot question in South Dakota

(The Center Square) – South Dakota voters will consider a proposed constitutional amendment in June that would require 60% of voter approval on future ballot questions that require a tax increase or more than $10 million in spending over five years.

The move protects taxpayers, proponents said.

“Higher taxes put a strain on hardworking families, seniors on fixed incomes, and small businesses,” Americans for Prosperity said on its website. “Amendment C would ensure that a ballot measure that takes more of your hard-earned money can only pass if it is broadly supported and a strong majority of South Dakotans agree.”

But some believe placing it on the primary ballot would quell opposing voices. A legal challenge to keep it off the June primary ballot was unsuccessful, according to KELO.

“They are no Democratic primaries so Democrats are even less likely to turn out because they don’t have a reason to in the primary,” said Adam Weiland, founder of Dakotans 4 Health, in an interview with The Center Square. “And it’s just a statistical fact that fewer people are voting in the primary than in the general election.”

Another group, South Dakotans for Free and Fair Elections, launched a campaign against Amendment C earlier this year.

“Unfortunately, Amendment C is a political ploy that would empower special interests, lobbyists and politicians, at the expense of South Dakota voters,” said Ashley Kingdon, a small business owner from Huron who chairs the campaign, in a statement on the group’s website.

The effort is an attack on another ballot measure appearing on the November ballot, Weiland said. Voters are set to decide if they want to expand Medicaid in South Dakota to adults between 18 and 65 years old with incomes below 133% of the federal poverty level, which is currently about $18,000 for an individual or $37,000 for a family of four.

Lawmakers defeated a bill that would have expanded Medicaid in February.

Sen. Wayne Steinhauer, R-Hartford, sponsored the bill. He said approval by the Legislature was a better alternative than voter approval.

“If it gets into our constitution, it’s not just here for just a few years,” Steinhauer said during debate before the Senate voted, 23-12, against the bill. “It’s here for decades.”

Sen. Lee Schoenbeck, R-Watertown, said the bill would have hurt the state’s budget, particularly in K-12 education.

“I don’t think more welfare is going to make our state a better state,” Schoenbeck said during the debate. “If the voters chose to do it at the ballot box, then they are going to have to live with the results and the budget consequences of it.”

Disclaimer: This content is distributed by The Center Square