THE DAKOTA SCOUT

VIEWPOINT | Amendment L limits power of South Dakotans to effect change

Guest column by David Owen

Sep 29, 2026

Here we go again. The political elites are trying for the third time to get us to change the Constitution so that future amendments need 60 percent of the votes to win. Not 55 percent, not even 59 percent, 60 percent.

They tried this before in 2018. Voters rejected Amendment X, which would have required 55 percent approval for constitutional amendments. In 2022, voters rejected Amendment C, which would have required 60 percent approval for certain ballot measures.

FAA brings air traffic control’s digital future to Sioux Falls

Joe Foss Field among three airports where Tower Simulation Systems installed in latest round of federal government's 'Modern Skies' initiative

Subscribe to The Dakota Scout to read the rest of the story.

Become a paying subscriber of The Dakota Scout to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content.

A subscription gets you:

Daily news in your inbox
Viewpoints, concert reviews, obituaries
Weekly digital copy of print version

Reply

or to participate

Lepanto 19641 month ago

We are a Republic not a Democracy our founders were against it calling it mob rule. A 60% threshold ensures any change to the constitution is truly the will of the people.

Beth Morey1 month ago

Well said, David Owen. I completely agree with you and hope most voters will also.

Dean Nasser1 month ago

While I do not doubt the sincerity of those opposing amendment L, the issue is more complex than that presented by the author. This is not just about giving power to the people. It is about keeping the power and the rights we have insulated from transient politics. Most South Dakotans do not want to be subject to someone who has achieved political power over them exercising that power over them by a change of the basic framework-rules-contract-agreements under which we have already chosen to live (i.e., our “Constitution”). We expect that “statutes” are rightly subject to majority rule by the party that the majority of voters has selected in the last election. That’s politics. A constitution sets not just mere rules, but the basic relationship between the State as a whole and its citizens as a whole. To properly evaluate Amendment L, one must appreciate the difference between Constitutional provisions and all other laws the latter of which are “political”.

Reynold1 month ago

David Owen, I like it when we were both on the same side of these things! The Fast at the good Representative from Pennington county is against us gives me even more confidence that we are on the right side of history, the American way apple pie and antifascist America. Best wishes to you and Deborah.

Under God, the people rule and they use majority rule! The good people of the Mount Rushmore State can do better than “40% plus Taffy Howard” to run the state.

L NO!!

Reynold1 month ago

The fact that the good …

Debra.

Voice to text is only so good.

In haste.

Dean Nasser1 month ago

Sorry, majority rule is NOT the main rule when it comes to Amending a Constitution. In fact, The US Constitution insulates the Foundations of our American Citizenship as expressed in the US Constitution from the whims, ebbs, and flows of politics by requiring that if Congress enacts an Amendment to the US Constitution, not only do 2/3 of the quorums of both houses have to pass it, but it does become amended until three fourths (38) of the states have ratified the change.

Amendment L attempts to provide that protective "insulation" against improvident deprivation of basic rights. It acts for the greater good in that regards. If you don't want that insulation then what you are saying is you want to make it easier to make your "special interest" aconstitutional right or prohibition.

Reynold1 month ago

The SD constitution has Deadwood bet limits in it. It is not like the US Constitution. But of course the biggest problem with the US constitution is that the founders set up a system to propose and adapt amendments and that has been almost entirely shut down. In SD we already require twice as many signatures to put a constitutional amendment in the ballot. The vast majority of those taking out a petition to put one on the ballot fails. Even those that make the ballot usually fail. The people have twice rejected l this abomination of an idea. Hopefully it again gets crushed. In SD, under God the people rule. Again I hope the people say L NO!

Dean Nasser1 month ago

Mr. Owen, the author, posits: "Political majorities fluctuate, issues evolve and elected officials change. However, the rules established in our Constitution remain constant.” ---It is for precisely his reason that Amendment L should receive a “YES” vote. A Constitution must be insulated from the whims of any party which achieves a political majority in the legislature. Requiring 60% of the citizens to agree to any surrender of basic rights those politicians attempt to deprive us of reflects the wisdom of the United States' Founding Fathers. --- "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding, intended to endure for ages to come.... To reduce it to the level of a mere statute is to strip it of its protective armor.” Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Taffy Howard1 month ago

This is misleading. With just 30–40% voter turnout, our Constitution can currently be amended with the support of only about 15–20% of registered voters. Amendment L would simply raise the threshold from 50% to 60% of those voting on the question.

Our Constitution is our foundational document. Requiring broader agreement before changing it doesn’t take power away from voters—it requires a proposed change to earn support from more of them.

South Dakota’s Constitution shouldn’t be easy to change, especially when well-funded interests can pour money into ballot campaigns. Amendment L asks for broader consensus before making permanent constitutional changes.

Kevin K1 month ago

What an asinine argument! So if we think the voter turnout is only going to be 15 to 20%, should we increase the threshold to 70%? How about 80%. Let’s be clear: the Republican dominated state legislature puts this crappy measure on the ballot — for the 3rd time now — because they think voters can’t be trusted to manage our own democracy. Just remember, the same voters put Taffy Howard in office, but now they must be too stupid.

Taffy Howard1 month ago

Kevin, calling an argument “asinine” and a measure “crappy” doesn’t add much civility to the discussion. And no one said voters are stupid or can’t be trusted.

We live under a constitutional republic with democratic elections—not a system where simple majority rule governs every decision. Amendment L simply asks voters whether changing our foundational document should require broader consensus—60% rather than 50% plus one.

You’re free to disagree, but please disagree with what I actually said rather than assigning false motives to myself or other legislators.

Kevin K1 month ago

But it adds some clarity.... And when you try a third time when we've already said NO twice, it really does look like you think we're stupid.

Dean Nasser1 month ago(edited)

No Kevin, it doesn't. People including the author have short-sighted focused on only the need for 60% when the people "initiate" a proposed constitutional Amendment. Amendment L will provide additional protection against politically charged Constitutional Amendments limiting the rights of the citizenry since state law requires that any such Constitutional Amendment be "ratified" by the people. If you want to protect your constitutional rights you want a higher bar than to have (effectively) 1/3 of registered voters rubber-stamp some politically motivated deprivation of Constitutional rights. Under Amendment L Legislated Constitutional Amendments which now require only 50% of those voting (i.e., about 1/3 of the registered voters) to change the basic contract between South Dakota and its citizens.

Dean Nasser1 month ago

You are wrong Kevin and Ms Howard is correct. (although I believe as a practical matter that since we have about 625,000 registered voters, but only about 2/3 of those (not all the same ones) vote in any given election, those 2/3 of the voters need only 50% or about 1/3 of the total registered voters to change the very framework of our constitutional guarantees.

Michael Brooke1 month ago

Thank you David. Your opinion carries weight in our business community due to your long service with the SD Chamber of Commerce and Industry. So nice for a business community representative to speak up for the power of the majority rather than the power of the minority. Bravo!