Public Comment

Amendment L would require a constitutional amendment in South Dakota to receive at least 60% of votes cast before taking effect. It is a legislative referral for the November 2026 election. Raising the threshold would make the Constitution harder to change through both citizen-backed and legislatively referred amendments. Supporters of supermajority rules generally view a constitution as a durable framework that should require broad consensus; opponents argue that a minority should not be able to defeat a proposal supported by a clear majority of voters. Constitutions should be more stable than ordinary statutes, but the amendment process is also a tool voters use when ordinary government will not act. The threshold should reflect how much stability is worth giving a losing minority extra blocking power.

What level of voter agreement should be required to amend South Dakota’s Constitution?

Overall results

1
58% support
8

A higher statewide threshold can require measures to attract support beyond a few heavily populated communities or partisan blocs.

7

High-impact fiscal or institutional amendments should not become permanent because of a temporary one-point electoral advantage.

2
54% support · excluded by 16%
8

A 55% rule filters out razor-thin victories while preserving a realistic path for citizen-led reforms.

7

A modest supermajority asks for broader support without making constitutional change nearly impossible in closely divided elections.

3
44% support · excluded by 9%
7

The Constitution should change rarely enough that only proposals with unmistakably broad support succeed.

4
42% support · excluded by 12%
7

When every voter has an equal ballot, fifty percent plus one is the clearest democratic rule for deciding a statewide question.

About the author