More Constitutional Law news More news in South Dakota Find Constitutional Law lawyers in South Dakota
On October 26, 2025, a proposed amendment to the South Dakota constitution has ignited a firestorm of controversy among lawmakers and residents alike. The amendment, known as Amendment 89, seeks to change the process by which constitutional amendments are approved in the state.Currently, in South Dakota, constitutional amendments must be approved by a simple majority of voters in a general election. However, Amendment 89 proposes to require a two-thirds majority vote in order for a constitutional amendment to be passed. Proponents of the amendment argue that this higher threshold is necessary to ensure that only widely-supported changes to the state constitution are enacted.Opponents of the amendment, on the other hand, argue that it would make it nearly impossible to amend the state constitution, effectively limiting the ability of the people to enact change through the ballot box. They also point out that South Dakota already has one of the most stringent processes for amending its constitution in the country.The debate over Amendment 89 has sparked intense discussions in the state legislature, with lawmakers divided along party lines. Republicans generally support the amendment, citing the need for a higher bar for constitutional changes, while Democrats have raised concerns about the potential restrictions it could place on the democratic process.Governor Sarah Johnson has remained neutral on the issue, stating that she will carefully consider all arguments before making a decision on whether to support the amendment. However, she has indicated that she believes the people of South Dakota should have a say in any changes to the state constitution.As the debate over Amendment 89 continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether the proposed amendment will ultimately be adopted or rejected by voters. In the meantime, South Dakota residents can expect heated discussions and passionate arguments on both sides of the issue as the state grapples with the implications of changing its constitutional amendment process.