South Dakota Amendment L: Understanding the Proposed 60% Threshold

On November 3, 2026, South Dakota voters will consider Amendment L, a proposal about how future changes to the state Constitution are approved. Today, a proposed constitutional amendment or revision passes when it receives more than half of the votes cast on that question. Amendment L would replace that simple-majority threshold with a requirement of at least 60%. The measure asks a fundamental question: how much agreement should be necessary to change the rules that govern government itself?

This is a procedural choice, not a vote on the merits of any particular future policy. Its consequences would extend beyond one election or controversy. Understanding the proposal requires separating what the amendment legally changes from the arguments about whether those changes would improve governance. This explainer presents both perspectives without recommending a vote.

What Amendment L Would Change

The Legislature placed Amendment L on the ballot through House Joint Resolution 5003, approved in 2025. The attorney general’s final explanation identifies the proposed change as an increase in the approval requirement for state constitutional amendments or revisions. Under the proposal, receiving a majority would no longer be enough unless affirmative votes also reached 60% of votes cast on the measure.

The new threshold would apply whether a future constitutional amendment reached the ballot through a citizen initiative or a legislative referral. It would not change the U.S. Constitution’s amendment process. Amendment L itself is being considered under South Dakota’s existing majority-vote rule; its proposed higher threshold concerns future constitutional changes. The relevant denominator is votes cast on the question, not every registered voter or the state’s entire population.

Ordinary Statutory Laws Would Remain Separate

The proposed 60% requirement applies exclusively to South Dakota constitutional amendments and revisions—not ordinary statutory ballot measures. Initiated laws and referred statutory laws would retain their existing simple-majority approval rule. In everyday language, this is often called “50% plus one vote”: more than half of the votes cast on the question, rather than exactly half.

Ordinary legislation enacted by lawmakers would also remain under its existing procedures. Those procedures generally require a majority of all elected members in each legislative chamber, alongside the applicable executive process. However, some actions already require larger votes, such as emergency legislation or overriding a veto. It would therefore be inaccurate to say every legislative action currently passes by a simple majority. Amendment L would neither create a blanket 60% requirement for statutes nor eliminate existing legislative exceptions.

Why Constitutional Rules Are Different

A constitution establishes the structure, powers, and limits of government. South Dakota’s Constitution includes provisions governing the Legislature, executive branch, courts, and individual rights. Statutes operate within that framework. A law cannot validly override an applicable constitutional restriction merely because it enjoys majority support. State constitutional provisions, in turn, remain subject to the U.S. Constitution and controlling federal law.

This distinction explains why supporters of higher amendment thresholds view constitutional change differently from routine policymaking. Ordinary laws can respond to changing priorities, while foundational rules are meant to provide continuity. Yet constitutional text can also contain detailed policy choices, and voters may disagree about which subjects belong there. The importance of constitutional rules does not, by itself, settle whether 60% is the best approval threshold.

A Shared-Resources Example—and Its Limits

Imagine five people pooling resources for a shared project. Under an unrestricted majority-vote arrangement, four could approve reallocating those resources even if the fifth objected. Numerical support decides the result. But suppose the group first adopts a charter specifying ownership rights, permitted uses, and procedures for changing its rules. A routine vote would then have to comply with that charter; popularity alone would not authorize ignoring it.

The analogy helps distinguish decisions made under established rules from decisions to rewrite those rules. Supporters of supermajorities argue that changing a group’s foundational agreement should require broader consent. Opponents caution that an elevated threshold can also preserve an unfair or outdated agreement against the wishes of most participants. Both concerns become relevant when choosing how a charter may be amended.

The numbers reveal a limitation: four of five is 80%, satisfying both a simple-majority rule and a 60% rule. Even three of five is exactly 60%. The five-person example therefore illustrates constitutional limits, but not the practical difference between these two thresholds. A larger example is needed. Also, a constitutional republic can use democratic voting procedures; “republic” and “democracy” are not mutually exclusive descriptions.

How the Numbers Would Work

Suppose exactly 100,000 valid votes are cast on a future constitutional amendment. Under the current rule, 50,001 affirmative votes would constitute a majority. Under Amendment L’s proposed rule, at least 60,000 affirmative votes would be required. A proposal receiving 59,000 yes votes and 41,000 no votes would pass under the current threshold but fail under the proposed one. Exactly 60,000 yes votes would meet the higher threshold.

Thus, more than 40% voting no could prevent adoption under a 60% requirement. That is the same feature described differently by the two sides: supporters see a demand for broader agreement; opponents see a blocking power for a minority. Neither description changes the arithmetic. Importantly, the hypothetical 59% result on an ordinary statutory ballot measure would remain sufficient for passage under the unchanged majority rule.

The Case for a Higher Threshold

The principal argument for Amendment L is that foundational rules should require stronger agreement than ordinary policy decisions. A higher threshold can make constitutional change less dependent on a narrow electoral margin. Supporters view this as a way to encourage proposals that appeal across disagreements and to preserve a more stable governing framework.

Another argument concerns the distinction between constitutions and statutes. Supporters contend that detailed policies should generally be debated as ordinary laws rather than embedded in the constitution. Requiring 60% could discourage using constitutional amendments for matters better handled through the statutory process. This is a rationale for the proposal, not an assurance about how future campaigns or voters would behave.

This is the stance that I support. I believe that our state constitution desrves the same level of requirements for change as the federal constitution!

The Case for Keeping Majority Approval

The principal argument against Amendment L is that a majority should retain the ability to approve constitutional changes. Under a higher threshold, a proposal could win substantially more yes votes than no votes and still fail. Opponents consider that a significant restriction on popular decision-making, especially when citizens use constitutional initiatives to pursue changes lawmakers have not adopted.

A higher threshold also protects existing provisions regardless of whether they remain appropriate. Correcting an outdated rule would require the same 60% support as introducing a new one. Opponents therefore distinguish constitutional stability from constitutional improvement: a rule that slows change can slow desirable reforms as well. The neutral assessment is that Amendment L raises the adoption barrier without deciding which future proposals deserve approval.

Rights Protection Is Not Just a Percentage

Constitutional safeguards can protect individuals and minorities against unlawful government action. But a voting threshold is only one procedural safeguard. A measure supported by 60% is not automatically fair, and a measure supported by 51% is not automatically unjust. Rights protections also depend on constitutional language, judicial enforcement, and limits imposed by federal law.

The federal amendment process demonstrates a different approach: Article V ordinarily requires proposal by two-thirds of both congressional chambers and ratification by three-fourths of the states, with an alternative convention route. Those requirements apply to institutions and states, not a nationwide popular vote. They illustrate heightened consent for constitutional change without establishing that every state must use the same system or percentage.

What a Yes or No Vote Means

A yes vote supports adopting the proposed 60% threshold for future South Dakota constitutional amendments and revisions. A no vote supports retaining the current majority threshold. Neither choice changes the simple-majority rule for ordinary statutory ballot measures. The central trade-off is between requiring broader agreement before changing foundational rules and preserving majority-supported access to constitutional reform. Reading the official explanation alongside clearly identified arguments from both sides helps keep that procedural decision distinct from predictions, slogans, or unrelated policy preferences.

Vote YES on Amendment L!

Sources and Further Reading

·         South Dakota Secretary of State: 2026 ballot questions — official designation and legislative origin of Amendment L.

·         Attorney general’s final Amendment L explanation — current majority rule and proposed 60% requirement.

·         Official 2026 ballot question pamphlet — official explanations and separately attributed proponent and opponent statements.

·         South Dakota Constitution, Article III and official state Constitution — legislative procedures and constitutional framework.

·         South Dakota initiative and referendum statutes — statutory ballot-measure procedures.

·         Ballotpedia: Amendment L overview — coverage of initiated and referred constitutional amendments.

·         South Dakota Searchlight: Amendment L explained — competing perspectives on constitutional stability and voters’ access to reform.

·         National Archives: Article V — federal constitutional amendment requirements.

·         State announcement of the proposal — November 3, 2026 election date.

His Plan is Bigger Than Ours...

Hi folks - apologies - it's been a long time since my last post.  A lot has happened in the last couple of years.  2021 was extremely busy for us as we finally completed our move from Colorado back home to South Dakota.  I "retired" from my job in Colorado, albeit a bit earlier than I had planned.  I could tell you of horror stories of a toxic workplace.  Let's just say that I, along with many of my colleagues, made a mass exodus and headed for the door.  Myself and one of my teammates simply got up and retired.  A few found other jobs.  My boss had even left by the time I retired.  When all was said and done, there were something like 35 vacancies in our department alone.  Some folks who I had known to be long-time veterans and staunchly loyal to that organization had just had enough and moved on.

 

The main motivation to retire early, however, came from the fact that I felt like God had been putting on my heart for months that He had other plans for MJ and I, and that it was time to turn the page and move into a new chapter.  The level of urgency that I felt in doing all of this was so overwhelming that I just couldn't ignore it.  Then in early 2020, the C0V1D epidemic hit, and our entire country turned upside down.  I do believe that God gives us messages in all sorts of ways.  It might be a sudden thought, or it might be in a vivid and startling dream.  And this was one of those times.  So, at the end of 2020, I said goodbye to my former profession as a Cyber Security Analyst, and our journey into the next chapter had begun.

Truth be told, I think there was more to this retirement and move than simply doing something on a whim and "hoping" it worked out ok.  Shortly after retiring, I got a part time "hobby" job as a Range Safety Officer at a local shooting range.  I had long joked with one of my buddies at work that when I retired, I was going to just be a shooting range bum, and maybe get a job as a Range Safety Officer or firearms instructor.  The thought of hanging out all day and watching people shoot, watching out for their safety, perhaps give some shooting tips, or just swapping stories about building guns or whatever really appealed to me.  I found it to be an incredibly fun and easy job.  But by this time, the cost of gas had risen significantly, however, and this job was about 15 miles from where I lived.

  

Very shortly after starting work there, and aside from the cost of getting to work getting awfully expensive, I woke up one morning in a cold sweat, having had a very startling dream in which I was told that we had to leave Colorado and move closer to MJ's family. I immediately told MJ that "we had to move back to South Dakota immediately."  Her only remark was "Well.. it's about damn time!" Colorado had turned extremely blue and progressive by that time, and we just had the feeling that things were about to get worse for liberty and gun rights than Colorado had already become.  I was as active as could be in trying to help Colorado elect good conservative candidates, but I had just found it to be a lost cause, and pretty much just gave up.  Conservatives in Colorado are now severely outnumbered.  Besides, we had family back in South Dakota, so we thought that the move back was the right thing to do.

Now mid-way through 2021, the C0V!D epidemic was in full swing, and the state of Colorado was getting even more draconian than it already was.  The lockdowns were ridiculous, and many people lost their jobs and businesses.  Definitely not the Colorado in which I grew up.  The liberal transplants from California were coming in by the thousands, presumably to escape the mess that they had created there, only to vote for the people who would give them the same failed policies which made them escape California.  Taxes went up; the cost of living went up; housing costs went up; crime went up; and more frustrating of all was that gun control was getting incredibly out of hand.  Another shooting brought in ever more knee-jerk reactions and dictates of "We gotta do SOMETHING!"  By the time we left, Colorado was successful in passing useless magazine restrictions, a poorly executed red flag law that deprived an accused of any due process whatsoever, gun storage restrictions that only hurt someone's ability to protect themselves in a home invasion scenario, and the repeal of the state's firearms preemption law.  After that, local towns and municipalities started passing any and all gun control measures that happened to catch their mood at the time.  Our own city of Fort Collins elected a mayor and city council that was full-on a clone of the city of Boulder with their progressive and anti-liberty policies. That's when he had just had enough and knew it was time to get out.

So we began planning.  Every now and then, I would sometimes just sit and contemplate what it would take to get our house in shape to sell if we ever thought we would move, and the thought of the amount of work that would have to be done was actually quite frightening.  I had even considered one day having to contact one of those "We Buy UGLY Houses" outfits because our house really needed some work. Plus, we had so much "stuff!"  We still had unopened boxes from our move back to the states from Japan decades ago, the move from California to South Dakota the first time we moved here, and from our move from South Dakota to Colorado for my job.  Some of this crap was decades old!  When all was said and done, we had to sell, give away, or simply throw away what amounted to about a third of our household clutter.  We had to do what seemed like some large-scale repairs, lots of painting, and a ton of yard work just to get the place presentable for sale.  When I counted up all the trips we had to make to the land-fill just to throw away all the trash, I had loaded up our SUV and our son's pickup truck something like twelve times!

But we had help.  It was never clearer to me that we have Someone bigger than us, with a plan that is much bigger than ours who can make the seemingly impossible and overwhelming happen.  As we started to have yard sales, we thought that this attempt to sell our no-longer-needed items would turn out a total bust like all the others we had done before.  But the people came and bought our stuff!  We put a lot of furniture up for sale, and people swooped in and took it off our hands immediately after posting the ads.  One by one, things just started falling into place.  Day-by-day, we were getting more done and making excellent progress.  Then in the summer of 2021, we both caught C0V!D.  We thought this would severely delay our plans, but we both had pretty mild cases, though, and we were back at it within a few weeks.  When it came time to finally put the house on the market, we had a sudden plumbing issue, but it was fixed in no time, and we got our house to market.  One of our neighbors across the street is a real estate agent, and she got our house sold in about a week after listing it.  Everything happened as if it was truly meant to be.

Then it came time to buy a house in South Dakota.  Right after our house in Colorado went under contract, we made a quick trip to South Dakota to meet with our real estate agent and start earnestly looking for a place to live.  To say the least, it was a challenge.  The real estate market was extremely wild, and it was really a seller's market.  What benefited us in one end (the sale) was now our biggest challenge on the buying end.  House after house on which we put an offer was swooped up by a cash offer investor.  But I am convinced again that God's plan is much bigger than ours.  During this entire time of having several offers turned down, we put an offer on a house in a small town, which also had several offers (one being a cash offer from an investor).  We had to cut our house-hunting trip short and quickly return to Colorado to avoid an approaching storm.  So we put an offer on the house we ended up buying, and even had to pull over at a rest area to sign the agreements and send them back to our real estate agent.  

Back in Colorado to continue packing and trying to look for houses online; the next thing we know, the real estate agent in South Dakota was calling us to tell us that our offer was accepted!  We weren't going to be homeless after all!  The majority of the houses that we were trying to buy were in very remote areas, but they had acreage, which is what we thought we wanted.  But in retrospect, I am glad we ended up where we did.  This house ended up being exactly where we needed to be for a multitude of reasons that I will write about later.  It's an older house, and a fixer upper.  But we love it and are extremely comfortable here.

At the end of November 2021, our house that we sold in Colorado finally closed, the movers had come to take all of our stuff, and MJ and I hit the road to make our final trip to South Dakota.  Since we had two vehicles, MJ's car, and me towing a U-Haul trailer with our immediate need items, we used walkie-talkies to communicate during the almost 700 miles drive to our final destination.  We departed very early in the morning, and I joked to MJ over the radio that "...it feels like we're sneaking out in the the middle of the night to escape a communist country..." A little exaggeration, perhaps.  But Colorado had gotten so bad that we feel like we just had to leave.  We felt like we were indeed "escaping" something.

Here it is the end of 2022, and we have been here exactly one year.  We love it here.  South Dakota has a wonderful Governor, and we absolutely love our new neighbors.  South Dakota is deep red, and very much in line with our own political ideas.  We live in an older neighborhood in a small town with a large veteran population.  The VFW and American Legion are mainstays in this community, as is avid support for the local schools and students.  We no longer live under draconian gun laws, and we live with people who clearly support our values of pro God, pro-life, pro-family, and pro liberty.  We feel like we are truly home again.

You will be hearing a lot more from me now.  Even though we are living in a deep red state (and I intend to help keep it that way), the rest of our country is still going to hell in a hand basket!  Must be bad, even the traditional Democrats are losing their own members!  The progressives have taken hold of our country and are doing unspeakable things to the values we once held dear.  I am bound and determined to speak out against these atrocities and try to help get our country back to the principles on which we were founded.

In Liberty - "The Gonz"

Epilogue:  In 2022, the U.S. economy went to crap.  Inflation rose to historical levels.  Interest rates were at a high not seen in decades.  The real estate market became a nightmare for both buyers and sellers, as it became more difficult to sell a home, and the amount of home that the average person could afford had shrunk significantly due to the higher interest rates.  I honestly believe that if God had not put the thought in my mind to retire early, we would not have decided to move back to South Dakota much earlier than we had originally planned.  Had He not planted these thoughts with us, I firmly believe we would not have been able to sell our house in Colorado or afford a mortgage even in South Dakota on my small retirement pay.  Within mere weeks of us obtaining a mortgage interest rate on our new house that was extremely affordable, the interest rates shot up and are now more than twice what they were when we made our move. But God is good all the time.  And all the time, God is good.  He had a plan for us which was much bigger than our own plan, and I passionately believe with all my heart that he put us where we needed to be.