(South Dakota News Watch – Emily DeCock and Molly Wetsch) Voter support is higher for ballot measures on non-citizen voting and unclaimed property and lower for issues that would change Medicaid and the threshold to amend the constitution, according to the latest South Dakota Poll sponsored by News Watch and the Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota.
The Oct. 12-14 survey of 500 likely voters by Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy, ranked as one of the least-biased and most-factual pollsters, also found a high number of undecided voters, up to a third on two of the issues.
Voters in the Nov. 3 general election will decide by simple majority on the four ballot measures that would amend the state constitution.
The results are generally closer than other poll results, such as for governor and congressional offices.
Julia Hellwege, associate professor of political science at USD in Vermillion, said that could be because of the more complex nature of the four proposed amendments than in years past.
“The thing that could potentially drive down turnout (for amendment voting) is that they’re highly technical this time,” Hellwege said. “They are not abortion. They are not marijuana. They are fairly complicated, technical kinds of issues. I’m not sure it’s going to drive down turnout as much as it’s just not going to drum up any excitement.”
Here are poll results for each measure, what it would do, who supports and opposes it and some takeaways.
Constitutional Amendment I: Repeals expanded Medicaid coverage if funding goes away
Medicaid is a program, funded by the state and the federal government, to provide medical coverage for low-income children, pregnant women, disabled individuals and the elderly.
What it would do
In 2022, voters approved Constitutional Amendment D, which expanded Medicaid coverage to individuals or households that make less than or equal to 133% of the federal poverty level, plus 5% of the federal poverty level for the applicable family size, according to the attorney general.
The federal government is responsible and required under law to pay 90% of the cost to provide the expanded coverage, while South Dakota pays 10%. The state is required to provide the expanded Medicaid coverage.
If Amendment I passes, the state would not be required to fund the expanded Medicaid coverage if the federal government does not pay the full 90%. If the federal government continues to fund at 90%, coverage will not change, according to the attorney general’s opinion.
If it fails, the state will be required to cover the cost of providing Medicaid even if the federal government goes back on funding 90% of the program. If that happens, the cost will fall on the state, the opinion said.
Who’s for it
Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen, Sen. Casey Crabtree and Rep. Will Mortenson urged voters to vote yes in a pamphlet released by the Secretary of State’s office that overviews the ballot measures.
They said if the federal government stops paying its promised share, “Medicaid expansion for able-bodied, working-age adults” should not be a priority funded above things like schools, law enforcement and nursing homes.
Proponents of Amendment I say that for every 10% of Medicaid expansion costs that shift from the federal government to South Dakota, the state would have to fund about $36 million more each year.
Who’s against it
Some statewide health care organizations created a coalition to voice their opposition to Amendment I. Among them:
- AARP South Dakota
- American Heart Association
- American Lung Association
- South Dakota Emergency Medical Association (SDEMSA)
- Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation
“The amendment creates an all-or-nothing approach: even a small reduction in the federal match could cause South Dakota to end Medicaid expansion entirely, putting coverage for more than 30,000 people at risk,” said Deb Fischer-Clemens, chair of the coalition.
The group also said the coverage helps keep rural hospital doors open.
Constitutional Amendment J: Clarifies voter eligibility
This amendment would formally state that non-U.S. citizens are not eligible to vote in South Dakota elections.
What it would do
Passage of Amendment J would add non-citizens to the list of those disqualified from voting in the state constitution. Currently, that list includes those with felony convictions or “mental incompetence.”
Non-citizens are already not legally eligible to vote in South Dakota.
Amendment J saw the highest margin for passage or failure among the four measures. Hellwege said that was likely due to the fact that the amendment would confirm existing election law rather than change it.
Who’s for it
Proponents say Amendment J will help secure South Dakota elections. State Sen. Taffy Howard from Rapid City was the prime sponsor of the bill that put the issue on the ballot.
“Opponents are like, ‘We don’t need it because it already prohibited by law,'” Howard told South Dakota Searchlight. “Yes, but it only takes 54 legislators, majority of the House, majority of the Senate, to change the law. Versus to change the constitution, the people have to weigh in.”
Who’s against it
Rep. Erik Muckey, a Democrat from Sioux Falls, told Searchlight that the amendment creates unhealthy discourse surrounding U.S. citizenship processes.
He said the amendment does not solve any problems but does give other citizens a pathway to deny people’s right to vote by challenging another’s citizenship.
“Only citizens can vote in South Dakota,” Muckey said in the resource from the secretary of state. “Amendment J does not change that, but it gives bad actors a tool to deny your vote through an unclear citizenship challenge process.”
Constitutional Amendment K: Unclaimed property fund
This amendment would establish a trust fund for unclaimed property held by the state treasurer.
Unclaimed intangible property is considered “abandoned” if it remains unclaimed for three years. That includes “traveler’s checks, money orders, bank deposits, refunds, stocks, funds owed under a life insurance policy, and property held in a safe deposit box,” according to the attorney general’s explanation of the amendment.
If passed, part of the interest and income from the trust fund would be distributed into the state’s general fund “for the benefit of the state.”
State Treasurer Josh Haeder told South Dakota Searchlight the measure is uncontroversial.
“We want to treat this trust fund like how we treat every other trust fund, and every other one is in our constitution,” he said.
Constitutional Amendment L: Require 60% to amend constitution
This amendment would require that any proposed amendment to the South Dakota Constitution receive at least 60% of the vote to pass.
The current law says that constitutional amendments – like the four on the Nov. 3 ballot – need to receive only a majority vote to become part of the constitution. This amendment would mean ballot measures in the future would have to pass a higher threshold of 60% to be enacted.
Two similar measures have been turned down by voters since 2018 – Amendment X in 2018 and Amendment C in 2022.
No ballot measures passed in the past five years have hit the 60% threshold proposed amendment would require.
Amendment L is the only constitutional amendment on this year’s ballot to have a formal pro and con group associated with it.
Who’s for it
The pro Amendment L group, Save Our South Dakota Constitution, said that in comparison, the U.S. House and U.S. Senate must approve constitutional amendments by a two-thirds vote. Three quarters of the states then have to approve the amendment.
The Catholic dioceses also put out a statement in support of the measure, saying passage would protect “fundamental human rights,” minority rights and make it harder for out of state entities to influence South Dakota elections.
Save Our South Dakota Constitution received over $93,000, according to campaign finance reporting. Nearly $45,000 of that came from individual contributions.
Heartland Values PAC contributed $40,000, which was reported in a supplemental report. Heartland Values is an in-state PAC, which is U.S. Sen. Majority Leader John Thune’s leadership PAC.
The group spent $10,648 on advertising.
Who’s against it
The No on L group recorded nearly $2.2 million in contributions from out-of-state entities. The National Education Association gave $500,000 and the Fairness Project contributed almost $1.7 million.
The Fairness Project is a nonpartisan, nonprofit group based in Washington, according to its website. It wants to protect direct democracy and has supported ballot measures in other states that raise wages, expand health care access, protect reproductive rights and secure more paid time off, its website said.
The South Dakota Education Association gave $10,000. In-state PAC Change Agents of SD contributed $1,500.
The committee spent over $1.5 million on advertising. One advertisement said that Amendment L is being pushed by out of state billionaires “to try and change the South Dakota constitution again.”
Ad controversy
Supporters of Amendment L sent cease-and-desist letters to television and radio stations after the ad aired. T.J. Nelson of the Redstone Law Firm, which sent the release, told News Watch last month that the ad was false.
“(The ad’s) just a blatant lie. The proponents of Amendment L are a completely grassroots coalition,” Nelson said.
Amendment L has seen generally higher levels of advertisements and discussion than the other three amendments. Hellwege said that both parties’ allegations of out-of-state involvement could complicate the issue and cause confusion among voters.
“A lot of people just don’t quite understand how constitutions ought to operate generally. The difference between constitutional amendments, initiated measures and referenda, and so on. That’s not to demean people; it’s to point out that direct democracy is challenging,” Hellwege said.
“In this particular case, especially when both parties are linking it to outside interest groups, which many people, particularly in any rural area of our state, are opposed to, I’m not sure they can quite connect the dots as to why that’s happening.”
