Public Comment

South Dakota Amendment I would condition the state Constitution’s requirement for expanded Medicaid on the level of federal medical assistance. It was placed on the 2026 ballot by the Legislature. Medicaid is jointly financed by federal and state governments, so changes in the federal contribution can materially alter the state cost of maintaining eligibility. The constitutional question is whether expansion should remain a fixed voter mandate even if Washington reduces its contribution, automatically loosen when federal support falls, or leave lawmakers more discretion to adjust coverage and spending. Coverage should not disappear casually when Washington changes a budget formula, but a constitutional mandate can expose the state to costs voters never anticipated. A sensible rule needs both continuity for patients and a fiscal escape valve.

When should South Dakota’s constitutional Medicaid-expansion requirement stop binding the state?

Overall results

1
54% support · excluded by 7%
7

Clear threshold language is preferable to leaving courts to decide whether a changed federal bargain excuses the original constitutional command.

7

Linking the mandate to the financing assumption under which expansion was adopted keeps the Constitution from creating an unlimited state obligation.

2
48% support
7

A funding change should trigger public legislative responsibility rather than automatic coverage loss or an inflexible constitutional obligation.

7

Lawmakers should publish the new state cost and vote on whether taxpayers can sustain it.

3
48% support · excluded by 7%
7

Low-income residents should not lose healthcare because federal and state governments disagree over financing.

3
48% support · excluded by 7%
7

Detailed benefit and financing choices change too often to be locked into a state constitution.

About the author