SIOUX FALLS, S.D.–A ballot initiative that South Dakotans will see on their ballot on June 7 will amend the state’s constitution and is described as “rare,” as it is appearing on the primary ballot instead of the general election ballot in November.
The South Dakota constitution currently says that a “measure must obtain a majority of the votes cast” to be approved. Prior to appearing on the ballot, initiatives must also receive two-thirds of the vote from the members in each legislative branch. The initiative on Tuesday’s ballot would alter the simple majority rule to require three-fifths public support to approve measures which raise taxes, alter the constitution, or involve more than $10 million in spending over five years.
State Rep. Jon Hansen said during the debate over the bill in February that it “should be harder for the government to tax and spend your money, as the Legislature already operates under a higher threshold.”
Taffy Howard, a Republican hoping to unseat incumbent Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) in the June 7 primary, said that she hopes the people of South Dakota will not listen to the naysayers of the amendment.
“I hope people will see through (it)—that it’s just smoke and mirrors,” Howard told The Epoch Times in a telephone interview. “They’re trying to confuse people.”
Howard explained that the state legislature currently must have two-thirds of members elect to pass tax increases.
For instance, she said that without the amendment, if 40 percent of registered voters show up to vote, the bill would pass with only 20 percent support, with the 40 percent voting effectively making decisions for the remaining 80 percent of South Dakota residents. But with the proposed 60 percent as the majority, that requirement would increase, although not by a lot.
“If we increase the threshold to 60 percent—using the same example—you have 40 percent of the voters turn up to vote,” she explained. “That’s just 24 percent of registered voters making decisions for everyone. I think it’s still too low, but I think it’s a step in the right direction.”
Not everyone is in support of the amendment.
“It was hastily thrown on the primary ballot,” Nistler told The Epoch Times in a telephone interview. “Normally this is something that they prepare for come, you know, closer to a general election.”
Nistler urged voters to “do their research” and make up their own minds, and hoped they would “vote no” because the passage of Amendment C would “forever change the state’s political legacy of citizen-backed ballot initiatives.” But more importantly, he said that if something “ain’t broke,” “then don’t fix it.”
Four ladies having breakfast at a Sioux Falls diner who did not want to be identified told The Epoch Times that they had “no idea” what Amendment C was about and they would most likely vote against it.
“I can’t vote for something I know nothing about,” one diner said.
Another lady agreed.
“A vote is important, and you don’t want to make the wrong decision,” she said. “I’d rather vote ‘no’ on something that I’m not sure about just to err on the side of caution.”
Another patron, Sioux Falls resident Mike Haugen, said he’s “not ashamed” to say he will be voting for the amendment.
“I think the amendment is a good one because it will take more of the people to vote ‘yes’ to raising taxes,” he said. “But the amendment is full of legalese and takes a little more research to understand it.”
