South Dakota Voters to Decide on Amendment L

The proposed measure seeks to require a two-thirds majority vote to amend the state constitution this November.

Updated on Oct. 21, 2026 in Legislative Policy

South Dakota Voters to Decide on Amendment L

Live Poll

Should your state require a two-thirds majority vote to approve changes to the constitution?

South Dakota voters will decide on Amendment L during the November 2026 general election. The proposal mandates a two-thirds majority vote to approve future amendments to the state constitution.

Why it matters

Proponents aim to shield the constitution from shifting political tides and outside spending, while opponents argue that legislative interference with voter-approved measures necessitates the current constitutional process.

Amendment L establishes a two-thirds majority requirement to pass state constitutional changes, aiming to mirror the threshold required for amending the US Constitution.

The players

Catholic Diocese of Rapid City and Sioux Falls

This religious organization oversees Catholic congregations across the state and has publicly endorsed the constitutional amendment.

Fairness Project

Based in Washington D.C., this political action committee focuses on state-level advocacy and is opposing the passage of Amendment L.

The details

The amendment is supported by the Catholic Diocese of Rapid City and Sioux Falls, while the Washington D.C.-based Fairness Project has organized in opposition to the measure.

October 16, 2026: Catholic church leaders issued a statement endorsing the measure.
November 2026: South Dakota general election voters decide on Amendment L.

Political Context

Amendment L draws a direct comparison to the US Constitution's amendment process, using that federal standard to justify raising the bar for state-level changes. Opponents argue that such restrictions stifle citizen-led initiatives which currently serve as a check against legislative actions.

If passed, this amendment will significantly increase the difficulty of changing the state constitution for future generations. Residents should consider how this change impacts their ability to influence state law through direct ballot initiatives.

The takeaway

Voters must weigh the goal of constitutional stability against the potential for reduced access to the democratic initiative process. Understanding the historical context of legislative friction is key to evaluating the necessity of this new voting threshold.