Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election amendments to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, requiring an intervening general election before consideration of an initiated constitutional amendment or initiated measure having the same subject as a previously rejected initiated amendment or measure.
Summary
HJR5006 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change South Dakota’s initiative and constitutional amendment process. It would require an intervening general election before voters could consider an initiated measure or initiated constitutional amendment that addresses the same subject and has the same purpose, or a substantially similar purpose, as a previously rejected initiative or amendment. The resolution applies this restriction both to initiated measures and initiated amendments, and it also extends the rule to municipalities.
The resolution would add this new timing restriction to multiple parts of the state constitution, including the provisions governing the people’s initiative power and the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction. Under the proposal, the South Dakota Supreme Court would have authority to determine whether a proposed initiative is barred because it is substantially similar to a measure rejected at the previous general election, and if so, the measure could not be certified for the ballot. The amendment would also revise the constitutional language on initiated amendments to make clear that a proposal cannot be submitted until at least one general election has passed after rejection of a similar proposal.
If approved by voters, the measure would not change ordinary statutes directly; instead, it would alter the state constitution and thereby constrain future ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments. The practical effect would be to slow repeat attempts on the same policy issue, giving voters at least one general election cycle before a similar proposal could return to the ballot. It would also increase the Supreme Court’s gatekeeping role in reviewing proposed initiatives for similarity to previously rejected measures.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears favorable overall, with strong do-pass votes in committee and on the House floor, followed by a later tabling vote in a subsequent committee setting. That pattern suggests the proposal had meaningful support but also encountered some hesitation or strategic resistance later in the process. No committee transcript is available here, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the bill’s subject matter indicates a broader interest in limiting repeated ballot measures.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between voter control and ballot access. Supporters would view the proposal as preventing repeated campaigns on the same issue and reducing voter fatigue, while opponents would likely argue that it restricts the people’s initiative power and makes it harder to bring popular measures back after a narrow defeat. The Supreme Court’s new role in deciding whether a proposal is sufficiently similar to a prior rejected measure could also be controversial because it gives judges significant influence over what reaches the ballot.
Impact
HJR5006 would amend the South Dakota Constitution, not the state code, by adding a one-general-election waiting period for initiated measures and initiated constitutional amendments that are substantially similar to a proposal previously rejected by voters. It would also authorize the Supreme Court to block certification of barred initiatives and would apply the same rule to municipalities, affecting future ballot access for citizen-led measures and amendments.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests generally positive support for the resolution, with strong do-pass margins in earlier stages. At the same time, a later tabling vote indicates some reservations or procedural resistance, likely tied to concerns about limiting the initiative process. Because there are no transcript excerpts, the record shows support overall but not the detailed arguments behind it.
Contention
The central controversy is whether the resolution protects the integrity of the ballot process or improperly limits direct democracy. Supporters are likely to argue that repeated versions of the same defeated measure waste resources and confuse voters, while opponents are likely to object that it raises the barrier for citizen initiatives and constitutional amendments. Another likely point of contention is the Supreme Court’s role in deciding whether a proposal is “substantially similar” to a previously rejected measure, which could be seen as subjective and potentially restrictive.