Rapid City, SD – On November 3, South Dakota voters decided the fate of four constitutional amendments that would reshape health policy, voting eligibility, unclaimed‑property management, and the process for future constitutional changes.

Amendment I – Medicaid Expansion Protection

Amendment I sought to let the state end its constitutional obligation to provide expanded Medicaid if the federal government reduced its cost share below 90 percent. Voters rejected the measure, keeping the 2022 Medicaid expansion that covers adults earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Supporters argued the amendment would shield taxpayers from potential cost overruns, while opponents warned it could jeopardize health coverage for roughly 30,000 South Dakotans and strain rural hospitals that rely on Medicaid reimbursements.

Amendment J – Citizenship Requirement for Voting

Amendment J added language to the state constitution stating that only U.S. citizens may vote in state and local elections. The amendment passed, reinforcing an existing statutory prohibition on non‑citizen voting. Proponents said the change fortifies election integrity by embedding the requirement in the constitution, whereas critics called it unnecessary because the law already bars non‑citizens from the ballot.

Amendment K – Unclaimed Property Trust Fund

Amendment K created a permanent constitutional trust fund to hold money from unclaimed property after claims are paid and authorized expenses are covered. The fund’s principal would be protected, with interest earnings available for the state’s general fund. State Treasurer Josh Haeder championed the amendment as a prudent way to manage dormant assets and generate ongoing revenue for government services. Voters approved the measure.

Amendment L – 60 % Supermajority Requirement

Amendment L would have raised the threshold for future constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60 percent of voters. Supporters, including legislative sponsors and leaders of South Dakota’s Catholic dioceses, argued a higher bar would safeguard the state’s foundational document from fleeting political pressures and out‑of‑state special‑interest influence. Opponents warned it would diminish voters’ power to enact change through the ballot box. The electorate voted against the amendment, preserving the current simple‑majority rule.

Overall, the results reflect a balance of preserving existing protections—both in health coverage and voting rights—while embracing new mechanisms for fiscal stewardship through the unclaimed‑property trust. The rejection of the 60 % supermajority proposal signals a continued belief that South Dakotans should retain a straightforward path to amend their constitution when broad consensus emerges.

Original reporting: KOTA (Gray) – local — read the source article.