Modify the signature requirement for a petition to initiate a constitutional amendment.
HB 1169 changes South Dakota’s initiative petition rules for proposed constitutional amendments. The bill keeps the existing statewide signature threshold at 10% of the votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election, but it also requires signatures to be gathered from each senatorial district in an amount equal to at least 5% of that district’s gubernatorial vote total. In effect, a constitutional amendment petition must now meet both a statewide total and a geographic distribution requirement across all senatorial districts.
The bill also adds several procedural requirements for petition sponsors and circulators. Sponsors must file the petition in both physical and electronic form with the secretary of state at least one year before the targeted general election, and circulation may not begin more than 24 months before that election. The petition must include the full text of the amendment, the election date, the attorney general’s title and explanation, sponsor affidavits, and a statement of organization. Circulators must give signers a handout with the title, explanation, any fiscal note, sponsor contact information, and whether the circulator is paid or volunteer. The secretary of state must approve that handout before circulation begins, and the State Board of Elections is directed to adopt rules to fill in remaining details.
In terms of state law, HB 1169 amends §§ 2-1-1 and 2-1-1.1 governing initiated constitutional amendments. It does not change the basic right to use the initiative process, but it makes that process more structured and more difficult to complete by adding district-based signature collection, earlier filing deadlines, and additional disclosure requirements. The bill therefore affects petition sponsors, circulators, the secretary of state, the attorney general, and voters who seek to place constitutional amendments on the ballot.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears generally favorable but not unanimous. The bill advanced through committee and floor votes with substantial support, including strong majorities on several votes and final veto-override votes that succeeded in one chamber and fell short in the other. That pattern suggests broad legislative support for tightening petition procedures, while still indicating meaningful opposition.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between election integrity or petition quality controls and access to the ballot initiative process. Supporters appear to favor the added verification, disclosure, and geographic distribution requirements, while opponents likely view the changes as making it harder for citizen-led constitutional amendments to qualify for the ballot. The district-by-district signature requirement and the expanded circulation rules are the most significant changes and are the most likely sources of debate.
HB 1169 amends South Dakota’s initiative and constitutional amendment petition statutes, specifically §§ 2-1-1 and 2-1-1.1. It adds a senatorial-district distribution requirement to constitutional amendment petitions, imposes earlier filing and circulation deadlines, requires additional sponsor and circulator disclosures, and authorizes the State Board of Elections to promulgate implementing rules. These changes directly affect the petition qualification process for initiated constitutional amendments and the duties of petition sponsors, circulators, and election officials.
The bill appears to have received generally strong legislative support, with multiple do-pass votes by wide margins and final veto-override votes showing substantial backing in at least one chamber. At the same time, the presence of notable nays on several votes and an unsuccessful override in one chamber indicate that the measure was not universally supported. Overall, the sentiment suggests a legislative majority favored tightening the petition process, while a significant minority opposed the added restrictions.
The central controversy is whether the bill improves the integrity and transparency of the initiative process or instead makes it more burdensome for citizens to place constitutional amendments on the ballot. Supporters likely emphasized the need for district-based signature collection, earlier filing, and clearer disclosure of who is sponsoring and circulating petitions. Opponents likely objected that these requirements could reduce ballot access and make grassroots amendment campaigns more difficult, especially the requirement that signatures be gathered from each senatorial district and the added administrative hurdles for sponsors and circulators.