Has South Dakota Turned Against Direct Democracy? South Dakota’s legacy in direct democracy is facing scrutiny as state legislators propose measures to increase restrictions on citizen-initiated processes. The pivotal question, “Has South Dakota soured on direct democracy?” underscores the debate surrounding the state’s initiative and referendum framework. This system, implemented in 1898, has historically served as a vehicle for progressive reforms including increased minimum wage and Medicaid expansion in a state predominantly conservative in its political leanings.
The ongoing legislative session in 2025 will further illuminate this trend, as Republican lawmakers have been actively pursuing measures to constrain the state’s first-in-the-nation initiative and referendum process. In a state where residents acquired the power to amend the state constitution via petition in 1972, this right is considered by many as a critical tool for “the gun behind the door,” as described by Michael Card, an emeritus political science professor at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion.
This “direct democracy” allows existing laws to be challenged through referendum, as demonstrated by the contentious carbon pipeline debate in 2024. It serves as a counterbalance to the “representative democracy” practiced by state legislators in Pierre. Within this context, House Joint Resolution 5003 is among the most significant proposals in 2025, suggesting a 60% voter threshold for passing constitutional amendments, aligning South Dakota with Florida and Illinois, which already hold this standard.
From 2018 to 2024, South Dakota enacted 11 laws making it more challenging to participate in direct democracy, the highest number in the United States during this period, according to Ballotpedia. These legislative changes included adjustments to petition deadlines, circulation requirements, and the ability to revoke signatures.
The 2024 election cycle demonstrated how South Dakotans can influence substantial issues such as abortion rights, recreational marijuana legalization, and grocery tax repeal through ballot initiatives. Unfortunately for proponents, each of these initiatives failed to garner sufficient support. This emerging pattern raises questions about voter fatigue and the role of out-of-state influences in shaping South Dakota’s policy landscape, as evidenced by the heavy financial backing from entities outside state borders.
Rick Weiland, the co-founder of Dakotans for Health, describes these legislative measures as “attempting to orchestrate the death of direct democracy by a thousand cuts.” Weiland, whose organization frequently sponsors ballot measures, argues that these restrictions undermine the people’s voice, transforming political engagement into a threat to the political establishment.
The court system has occasionally intervened, recognizing certain restrictions as First Amendment violations and upholding petition circulation as a form of core political speech. This judicial oversight underscores the ongoing tension between legislative attempts to tighten controls over direct democracy and constitutional rights.
Supporters of these legislative efforts, like Rep. John Hughes of Sioux Falls, justify higher thresholds by distinguishing between initiated measures, which impact statutes, and amendments that alter the constitution. Hughes argues, “A constitution is different than a statute; it’s intended to be much more permanent, a fundamental expression of near-universal agreement among the people.”
Critics point to historical precedents illustrating the power of citizens’ initiatives to enact change, such as the successful campaign to raise the state’s minimum wage approved in 2014. Direct democracy has also facilitated legislation capping payday loan interest rates, challenging corporate interests, and empowering grassroots movements to affect change despite a heavily Republican legislature.
The South Dakota Retailers Association’s executive director, Nathan Sanderson, supports the push for higher voting thresholds, contending that the constitution should reserve governance philosophy rather than specific policy implementations. This viewpoint suggests that nuanced policy should remain within legislative boundaries rather than be subjected to the rigidity of constitutional amendments.
Voter responses to such proposals have varied, with broad rejections of threshold increases in 2018 and 2022. As South Dakota continues to serve as a testing ground for direct democracy amid these challenges, the balance between empowering citizens and maintaining effective governance will likely remain a central theme in the state’s political discourse.
The complexities of South Dakota’s direct democracy system reflect its origin inspired by Switzerland’s governance model, which prioritizes citizen input in legislative affairs, a pioneering effort since 1898. As political dynamics evolve, South Dakota stands as a testament to the enduring, albeit challenged, principles of grassroots governance reflecting both its citizens’ aspirations and their frustrations.
For additional insights and to connect with political analysts involved in this domain, reach Stu Whitney at [email protected].