Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election amendments to the Constitution to the State of South Dakota, increasing the number of required signatures on a petition to initiate an amendment or measure.
Summary
House Joint Resolution 5004 proposes a constitutional amendment to increase the signature thresholds for citizen-initiated ballot measures in South Dakota. Under the resolution, an initiative measure would require signatures equal to at least 10% of the votes cast for governor in the last gubernatorial election, while a petition to refer a legislatively enacted law to the voters would require signatures equal to at least 5% of that gubernatorial vote total. The resolution also changes the initiative process for constitutional amendments, raising the required signature threshold from 10% to 15% of the gubernatorial vote total.
The measure also adds procedural requirements for initiative petitions, including that a petition for a constitutional amendment contain the text of the proposal and the sponsor’s name and address, and that it be filed with the secretary of state at least one year before the next general election. It preserves the Legislature’s ability to propose measures and maintains the rule that amendments must be limited to one subject and may be voted on separately if more than one is submitted at the same election. If approved by voters, the resolution would amend Article III, section 1, and Article XXIII, section 1 of the South Dakota Constitution.
Impact
If adopted, HJR5004 would make it harder for citizens to qualify initiated measures and initiated constitutional amendments for the ballot by increasing the number of required petition signatures and adding filing and sponsorship requirements. It would directly amend the South Dakota Constitution, changing the state’s initiative and referendum rules and affecting petition circulators, sponsors, election officials, and voters who use the direct-democracy process. The resolution would also apply to municipalities under the existing constitutional framework.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill did not advance in committee, as it was tabled on a 13-0 vote. With no committee transcript available, there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show support or opposition arguments in detail. The unanimous tabling vote indicates the proposal was not moved forward at that stage, but the vote record alone does not reveal the broader sentiment among legislators or the public.
Contention
The central point of contention is the higher barrier to citizen-led lawmaking and constitutional change. Supporters of such changes typically argue that stricter signature requirements and earlier filing deadlines help prevent ballot clutter, reduce fraud or rushed campaigns, and ensure broader support before proposals reach voters. Opponents generally view these changes as limiting direct democracy and making it more difficult for grassroots groups, smaller organizations, and ordinary voters to place measures on the ballot. Because the resolution would raise thresholds for both initiated statutes and constitutional amendments, it affects both ordinary policy proposals and more fundamental constitutional changes.