Applying to the United States Congress under Article V of the United States Constitution to call for a convention proposing an amendment to the constitution fixing the number of justices of the United States Supreme Court at one chief justice and eight associate justices.
Summary
SJR502 is a South Dakota joint resolution that would apply to Congress under Article V of the U.S. Constitution for a convention limited to proposing a constitutional amendment that fixes the size of the U.S. Supreme Court at nine justices: one chief justice and eight associate justices. The resolution states that the Constitution does not specify the Court’s size and argues that Congress has historically changed the number of justices for political reasons or to respond to workload changes.
The resolution recites historical examples of court-size changes in 1789, 1801, 1802, 1807, 1837, 1863, 1866, and 1869, and cites Franklin Roosevelt’s 1937 court-packing effort as a modern example of why a fixed number is needed. It also directs the secretary of state to send copies of the application to federal leaders and to state legislative leaders, and declares the application to be continuing until two-thirds of the states make similar applications. The measure further provides that it should be aggregated only with applications seeking the same specific purpose and not with applications on other issues.
Impact
If adopted, SJR502 would not directly change South Dakota statutory law, but it would formally commit the state to seeking an Article V convention focused solely on Supreme Court size. Its practical effect would be to add South Dakota to any interstate effort to trigger a constitutional amendment process and to instruct state officials to transmit the application to Congress and other states. The resolution would affect the state’s position in federal constitutional politics rather than alter state-regulated conduct or existing state code provisions.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the proposal has drawn some support but also meaningful opposition. It received a favorable vote in one committee or chamber stage, but later a 4-8 vote against a do-pass motion indicates resistance at a subsequent step, followed by a 12-0 motion to defer the bill to the 41st legislative day. With no committee transcript provided, the overall sentiment appears mixed: supportive among sponsors and some legislators who favor a fixed Court size, but not yet broadly settled or fully advanced.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether South Dakota should use the Article V convention process to seek a constitutional amendment fixing the Supreme Court at nine justices. Supporters frame the measure as a safeguard against court-packing and politically motivated changes to the judiciary, while opponents likely object to the use of a convention mechanism, the federalism implications, or the wisdom of locking in the Court’s size by constitutional amendment. A secondary issue is the resolution’s narrow scope and its instruction not to aggregate with applications on other topics, reflecting concern about limiting the convention to a single subject.
Applying to the United States Congress under Article V of the United States Constitution to call for a convention for proposing an amendment to the constitution establishing congressional term limits.
Applying to the United States Congress for a convention of the states to propose amendments to the United States Constitution regarding the imposition of fiscal restraints on the federal government, further limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office for members of Congress and other federal officials.
Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, clarifying that an individual must be a citizen of the United States to be eligible to vote.
Urging the United States Congress and the President of the United States to remove the requirement of a project labor agreement for federal construction projects.
Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, requiring a number of signatures on a petition to initiate a constitutional amendment be obtained from each county.
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.
Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, requiring that a constitutional amendment receive an affirmative vote of sixty percent of the votes cast before the measure is enacted.
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.
Inaction Has Consequences Act This bill withholds the salaries of Members of a chamber of Congress that has not passed each of the annual appropriations bills before the beginning of the fiscal year, beginning with FY2024. Salaries are released on the earlier of (1) the date on which the chamber of Congress passes the bills, or (2) the last day of the Congress.
Citizen Legislature Anti-Corruption Reform of Congress Act or the CLEAN Congress Act This bill (1) requires bills, orders, resolutions, or votes submitted by Congress to the President to include only one subject that is clearly and descriptively expressed in the measure's title; and (2) makes ineffective any provision of law that excludes its application to a Member of Congress or to an employee in a Member's office.
Citizen Legislature Anti-Corruption Reform of Congress Act or the CLEAN Congress Act This bill (1) requires bills, orders, resolutions, or votes submitted by Congress to the President to include only one subject that is clearly and descriptively expressed in the measure's title; and (2) makes ineffective any provision of law that excludes its application to a Member of Congress or to an employee in a Member's office.