This is a production of SDPB.

The 2026 Ballot Initiatives and Constitutional Amendments Review in partnership with South Dakota News Watch, with support from the Chiesman Center for Democracy at University of South Dakota, League of Women Voters of South Dakota, and Turbak Law.

Welcome to SDPB's 2026 Ballot special.

I'm Jackie Hendry.

In this fall's general election, South Dakota voters will decide the fate of four potential amendments to the state constitution.

In this program, we'll hear arguments for and against these proposals.

We'll start with amendment I, an amendment to the South Dakota Constitution that repeals expanded Medicaid coverage if federal funding for the program drops below 90 percent.

This proposed constitutional amendment ends the expanded Medicaid coverage if the federal funding for expansion drops below 90 percent.

If federal funding drops below that 90 percent threshold.

Medicaid coverage will once again only apply to low income children, pregnant women, disabled individuals, and the elderly.

A yes vote adopts the amendment.

A no vote leaves the Constitution as it is.

Speaking in support of amendment I is Lieutenant Governor and former district 13 representative Tony Venhuizen.

Speaking in opposition of the amendment is Executive Director of the South Dakota Association of Health Care Organizations, Tim Rave.

We start with the proponents.

What this amendment has to do with is Medicaid expansion, which South Dakota's voters passed four years ago and which has been very faithfully implemented by the legislature and by Governor Noem and Governor Rhoden, and has about 30,000 people on it today.

People on Medicaid expansion are able bodied adults.

They are not disabled.

They are not elderly.

They are not children.

They're able bodied, working age adults.

And when South Dakota entered into this, the promise from the federal government was that the federal government would pay 90 percent of the cost and the state government would pay 10 percent of the cost.

And that was a big reason.

Probably the big reason that South Dakota chose to do it is you can pay 10 percent and get 90 percent of your money from the federal government.

It's a big economic benefit to the state and to the people who receive it.

The concern is that this was passed into our state constitution, and the way that it's written doesn't require that the 90 percent federal match continue.

So a year ago, when President Trump and Congress were debating what became the big beautiful bill, one of the ideas they talked about was changing the deal so that instead of the feds paying 90 percent of the cost, they would pay maybe 80percent.

Now, that didn't ultimately happen, but the fact that they were even talking about it demonstrated that this is a clear and present thing that could happen.

And in South Dakota, just a 10 percent shift would require the state general fund budget to come up with another $36 million a year.

That's money that we wouldn't be able to put to K-12 education.

We wouldn't be able to put employee salaries.

We wouldn't be able to put any of the other many needs that we have as a state.

We're not getting anything more for that money.

It's just the feds pay less and we pay more.

If the feds change to 50-50, which is how the rest of Medicaid works, well, now we're talking about $150 million a year, and there's no way South Dakota could afford that without major painful cuts or some kind of new tax.

So my point in bringing this amendment is simply this: if the federal government changes the deal on us, if they say we're not going to pay 90 percent anymore, we as a state should have the ability to reevaluate the deal.

There's nothing that says that we couldn't stay in Medicaid expansion if we wanted to, because states, lots of states enter into Medicaid expansion without putting it in their constitution.

If the feds change it from 90 percent to 89 percent, we'd almost certainly stay in.

There's very little political will to get out now at this point.

If they changed it to 50 percent, now we have to have a real conversation because we either have to if we want to stay in, we have to find $150 million a year that we might not have.

I think it's a bad idea, bad policy to tie your hands in the Constitution about making budgeting decisions.

That's something that we should be able to talk about and think about as it happens.

For voters who their primary concern is providing care for vulnerable members of the population, how do you, I guess, emphasize to those people that the fiscal responsibility of the state deserves their attention in their vote this fall?

What I would say to people who want to see Medicaid expansion continue, who want to see our state continue to care for the most vulnerable, is this, first of all, nothing precludes Medicaid expansion from continuing.

We just have to have a plan to pay for it that's sustainable.

Secondly, if the federal government, say, took Medicaid to the same 50-50 match rate for expansion, that it already is for the rest of Medicaid, and we had to come up with $150 million a year, maybe more.

If it's a few years in the future, where would we go to find that money?

Well, you could cut the provider rates that Medicaid providers receive.

That's a dial that we could turn.

You can cut K-12 education.

That's a dial you can turn.

I mean, you look at where the state of South Dakota spends its money and it's protecting the public.

It's taking care of people and it's education.

You know, do we want to cut the law enforcement?

Do we want to cut this?

$150 million is going to come from somewhere, and none of it is going to be somewhere where we want to cut.

And that's why we need to be able to have this conversation in an intelligent way.

I don't think it makes sense that the 30,000 people who are able bodied adults who are on Medicaid expansion to be constitutionally at the front of the line for money ahead of the elderly, disabled and children who also received Medicaid, who are not in the Constitution.

Ahead of all the K-12 school kids who are not in the Constitution, ahead of many, many other things, it doesn't make sense to me to have this one narrow category of spending constitutionally be at the front of the line.

Is isn't providing K-12 education in the Constitution?

Not at a specific funding level.

Great.

Any closing thoughts?

Closing messages for folks who are just really struggling with, you know, perhaps an ethical or otherwise drive to provide for the most vulnerable versus a financial argument?

I would just say a constitution should be about the structure of government and the rights of the people.

That's what should be in a constitution.

Where you get into trouble is when you start putting specific policy decisions into a constitution, because conditions can change.

And so we in South Dakota have run a state Medicaid program for decades.

You know, there were people who did not support expanding Medicaid for years, including the governor at that time, including many legislators at that time, who, once the voters approved it, did a very faithful stand up job of implementing it.

And I think anyone would tell you that South Dakota has implemented Medicaid expansion in a very strong upfront way.

30,000 people or so are on the Medicaid expansion rolls.

This is not about trying to revisit that decision.

This is, again, about making sure that if the federal government materially changes the deal, that our hands aren't tied and that we can take care not only of the people who are on the Medicaid expansion rolls, but the people on traditional Medicaid, the elderly and the nursing home, kids, the disabled.

The we can continue to fund the school system.

You know, if the if the decision to expand Medicaid had been at the expense of those other areas, who knows what the ballot measure would have said, but that we need to have a system in South Dakota where we can have those policy discussions.

And that's why I'd ask for a favorable vote on this amendment.

The voters decided to put Medicaid expansion in the state constitution in 2022.

How has that impacted your organization?

Yeah, I mean, that's a great question, Jackie.

You know, really it's been it's really been very positive.

You know, this year there is about 30,000 people at any given month, give or take, you know, maybe a thousand, that are enrolled in Medicaid expansion.

That has been about probably this year will reach about $400, a little bit more, million dollars of coverage that's paid to all practitioners and providers that use Medicaid.

So that's coverage that wasn't getting paid for before, but people still were getting treated.

I think that's important for the listeners to know that hospitals and all providers that take Medicaid do provide care for people regardless, but when they don't have a means to pay, this covers that gap to the tune of about $400 plus million dollars this year.

And, you know, Medicaid expansion, we hear the phrase a lot able bodied people.

Can you tell us a bit more about who falls in that expansion population?

Yeah.

Great question again.

You know, Medicaid expansion covers individuals ages 18 to 64.

You get to be 65, you're on Medicare.

Also confuses people, Medicare, Medicaid.

And then when you're under 18, so 17 and under, you're covered by Medicaid.

And again it's for low income families.

So it's based on what's called the federal poverty level.

And that's just a number that the federal government says if you make less than this number a year, you're in poverty.

That number this year for an individual is about $15,000 and change dollars a year in salary.

But on Medicaid expansion, we go to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, and that is about $22,000 a year.

So any individual that is working and making less than $22,000 a year can apply for and be on Medicaid.

Medicaid expansion just really is a term that says, you know, they've opened up Medicaid from what used to be the coverage areas.

And so you kind of think people in nursing homes that don't have any assets.

Medicaid pay for, pays for their time in the nursing home.

And again, like the talked about the kids that are the living in poverty, their health care is covered that way as well.

Expansion covered that bigger gap there.

The proponents stated intention of amendment I is that should the federal match for Medicaid expansion change, this gives South Dakota the option to have a further conversation, conversation about our level of participation in Medicaid expansion.

Why is that something you take issue with?

Well, really, if you read the bill, it does say, and even the opponents will admit the bill itself says, it takes it out of the Constitution and it goes away.

Now, that being said, and you're also going to hear that the legislature can continue.

They'd have to file what's called a waiver with the federal government and be approved so they can continue Medicaid expansion.

But the legislature would have to take action to do that.

That's not what the bill, the bill says, it goes away.

And but again, it doesn't prohibit the legislature from doing that, it just says they have to take action.

And really, the reason it's in the Constitution is for many years we tried to do this through the legislative process.

We're unsuccessful.

And that's why it's in the Constitution now.

So you're a former legislator on top of your current position.

You're well familiar with the budgeting process.

Of course, another argument in favor of amendment I is the risk of bankrupting the state should the deal change in a very significant way.

I guess, how would you respond to the budgetary concerns?

I think a couple of ways, actually, I think one and we they they tried to change it.

The federal government did this year through the One Big Beautiful Bill.

They were unable to change the FMAP.

I think the very reason they weren't is it would bankrupt probably about 50 states, 42 states in the country right now.

And so I don't see that ever changing.

That's number one.

Two if it ever did change, we, also the legislature can meet at the call of the governor any time.

And they have a rainy day fund to get if there was a gap that needed to be filled.

So there are opportunities to still let the people speak on it, but speak on it as a that issue.

Should the average voter be concerned about the growth of Medicaid as a line item in the state budget?

That is a fantastic question.

So Medicaid budget this year is just under $600 million, like $597 million.

I was going to say billion.

It's million.

Medicaid expansion this last year was $34 million of that, or about 6 percent.

So again, when people talk about the growth of Medicaid and Medicaid expansion is busting the budget, it's not if you're just talking about Medicaid expansion.

Because remember, the FMAP is 90-10.

So the feds are covering 90 percent of that cost.

So it's like $340 million last year.

And so that's $34 million out of that budget this year if it's 40.

So and of course the budget is going to go up.

So it's still going to be about 6 or 7 percent.

So it is not Medicaid expansion is not busting the budget.

You know, we've had great support from the legislature and the governors in the past to support nursing homes.

That is a huge part of the growth of Medicaid, if you want to look at it that way.

And so, I mean, there's other factors that are at play there.

And and the state's share based on our income level has gone up.

So the state pays more than the feds do.

It's not a true 50-50 match.

It's based on the income level, average income level in your state.

And that's that formula then changes.

And we've been as low I think since I've been in the legislature I've seen 41-49.

So federal government pays 49.

We pay 41.

Right now we're basically at 50-50.

So every time that creeps up, more responsibility comes on the state.

And that's that's really been a significant part of the growth in the last, well, five years.

So because every time that moves a percent, that's about $12 million of new money that needs to take care of that.

So that is a big part of the growth.

For voters who maybe don't have experience with Medicaid, they're looking at their ballot and they're reading this ultimately as a hypothetical situation.

If the feds change the deal, this happens.

I guess, how, what's your messaging to people to encourage them to cast a vote in either direction when they might just as soon leave the bubble blank?

Yeah, I think it's pretty simple.

And and I does pull it out of the Constitution and takes it away again, doesn't prohibit the legislature and the governor from putting it back in, but it does take it away.

I would ask the voters, you know, clearly, if we're going to spend about $400 million this year on health care, that how much should the hospitals and all providers that provide Medicaid be responsible for?

Because that's $400 million that wasn't getting paid for before we had it.

And so, you know, and and how many rural hospitals do we want to put at risk?

And so, you know, I mean, this is these are big, deep questions.

I think this particular amendment the way it is and muddies the water, because again, it's out of context for most people, they don't understand FMAP.

I think for those reasons, and that the fact that the people put it in place to start with, I think vote no on this.

And if they want to have a bigger discussion about Medicaid than more broadly, if whenever the feds change that, that's a fair discussion to have.

Up next is constitutional amendment J. An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution clarifying that an individual must be a citizen of the United States to be eligible to vote.

This constitutional amendment adds people who are not United States citizens to the list of individuals disqualified from voting, clarifying the existing requirement that only citizens may vote in state elections.

Speaking in favor of the amendment is district 34 State Senator Taffy Howard.

Speaking against the amendment is district 15 Representative Erik Muckey.

So you brought this idea forward during the 2025 legislative session.

What was the problem you were looking to solve with amendment J?

I don't know that there was necessarily a problem per se.

I had a constituent bring the issue forward.

Interestingly, Senator Hulse was also working on the very same legislation.

I just happened to introduce mine first.

Before I knew we knew somebody else was working on the issue.

So I had a constituent point out that there was this loophole in the Constitution.

So, you know, after looking at it, I'm like, yeah, absolutely.

We should close this up.

No problem.

So yeah, I brought it forward, passed the Senate 33 to 2 and the House 58 to 11.

So very, very broad support.

The way I understand the Constitution right now, who can vote is defined.

Who cannot vote is defined.

I would disagree.

I would say right now the Constitution says if you are a US citizen and not otherwise ineligible for mental incompetence or whatever, then you must be allowed to vote.

So it lays out who is allowed to vote or who must be allowed to vote.

It doesn't say who could be allowed to vote.

So you have basically this tight circle of US citizens must be allowed to vote if they meet the qualifications.

But it says nothing about you couldn't make that broader.

You could allow non-citizens to vote under our Constitution.

So that's the loophole we're trying to close.

So in state statute, we do have law that says you must be a US citizen, but there's nothing in our Constitution.

So I tend to believe our law should be anchored by our Constitution.

So I do believe our Constitution should be explicit.

You must be a US citizen right now.

It says if you are, you must be allowed to vote.

But we could also allow non-citizens to vote.

And I should be specific with my language.

We're talking like this is an amendment for the state constitution.

Of course, there's also the US Constitution.

I've heard people who might not be sure about the impact of this state constitutional amendment who might say, well, doesn't the federal Constitution fill this gap?

No.

The federal, so federally, you must be a US citizen to vote in federal elections.

It doesn't touch state or local elections.

So yeah.

Has there been an instance or instances of non-citizens trying to vote in South Dakota elections?

Yeah, not that I'm aware of, but that's you know, that wasn't the point of this.

This was to be proactive.

You think about some of the hot topics.

I'll use an example.

Data centers are very it's very much a hot topic right now.

Would we rather wait till we have one a hyperscale come in, you know, and build right next to a residential neighborhood and have no zoning?

No, no guardrails for that?

Would we rather wait till that happens and then try to rein that in, and then try to take care of what we should have taken care of before they came in?

So I would say the same applies here.

This is an attempt to be proactive instead of reactive.

And I think as legislators and I think generally the population would the people would rather us be proactive instead of reactive.

So let's address this before there's a city or a school board that wants to allow non-citizens to vote.

How would you like to address some of the concerns that I've heard that something like this could open the door for someone to show up to a polling place and have their citizenship questioned?

I would say that's a nonstarter.

I mean, nothing, nothing is changed.

We're not changing the voter registration requirements.

We're not changing the citizenship.

You know, when you go to register to vote, we're not changing anything having to do with that.

We're not changing any rules or laws regarding challenging someone's someone's vote.

This is simply saying the basis of our society, which is our constitution.

We're going to ensure that that states you will not be allowed to vote in our state if you're not a US citizen.

So are there any, you know, unintended consequences or anything like that that you've heard in the process of moving this forward that you'd like to address?

Now that I know of and you know, there's 18 other states that have an explicit prohibition in their constitution, already four other states are considering a ballot measure this fall, and I don't know of any issues where it has caused a problem.

I would say there are instances where it has helped preserve the integrity of our elections.

And I'll give a recent example.

New York City wanted to allow non-citizens to vote municipal elections.

It was the New York Constitution that stopped that, and that would have allowed 800,000 non-citizens to vote.

So it does matter to have this in our Constitution.

It is much easier to change law than it is the Constitution.

Once this is in our Constitution, let's say down the road, the law changes and we no longer have a prohibition in state statute.

It would still take a vote of the people to change our constitution, to allow non-citizens to vote.

So instead of leaving this completely in the hands of the legislature legislature, it would be in the hands of the people once it's in our Constitution.

So I think that's just a it's a stronger foundation for election integrity going forward.

So I hope people will be supportive of it.

Is there anything else you'd like to say to voters about your hopes for amendment J or election integrity in South Dakota?

Well, I hope they will support amendment J. I think it's pretty much just a common sense correction fixing a loophole in our Constitution.

So hopefully they will be a yes vote.

If anyone has any concerns, I'd love to hear them.

I haven't heard anything other than, you know, we don't have the issue here.

Well, thankfully, thankfully we we don't.

But let's keep it that way.

Let's ensure that we don't have this issue moving forward.

So hopefully everyone will agree with that and vote yes.

Of course, you know, the proponents of this amendment say this closes a loophole in the state constitution.

There's nothing currently in the state constitution that prohibits non-citizens from voting.

Tell us why you're opposed to this amendment.

It's factually wrong.

The idea that there is somehow a loophole that non-citizens can vote is purely, purely spectacle.

It's purely politics.

Our Constitution states explicitly citizens of South Dakota can vote.

That's been the rule of law in South Dakota since statehood.

To say that that somehow doesn't explain non-citizens completely out of context.

And and frankly, even when I look at the explanation for the ballot, the one thing that bothers me is that it says that it's clarifying that citizens can vote.

It's already clarified.

It's already clear.

It's in the Constitution.

What this amendment does, besides being an amendment that most people view as duplicative, it doesn't really accomplish anything.

What it does actually accomplish is it takes law that's been passed in the past two years that allows you to challenge anybody's citizenship regardless of race, color, creed, religion, whatever, without a clear processes to when that dispute is actually resolved in a particular timeline, that can take away your voting rights.

By creating this definition of noncitizen in the Constitution.

Now, the proponents of this particular constitutional amendment and challenger citizenship, and thereby challenger voting rights, without a clear process and a clear timeline as to when that actually gets resolved.

There are American citizens because of this constitutional amendment, who will be denied the right to vote because somebody decided to challenge their citizenship without a plan.

And ultimately, that's the danger of amendment J and accomplishes nothing.

But it creates new problems.

And what I think is important for South Dakotans to hear very clearly.

When you read that on your ballot, it's not clarifying whether or not citizens can vote or not.

Citizens already can vote.

And by the nature of the way it's written, non-citizens are prohibited from voting in South Dakota elections.

And that has been the rule of law since 1889.

So non-U.S.

citizens are already prohibited based on the language currently in the Constitution?

Correct.

How do you respond to arguments that non-citizens have voted in South Dakota elections under the current state of the law?

The assessment that non-citizens can vote today functionally doesn't exist.

When that argument has been brought forward by the proponents in the legislature, they use an argument that at one point in time, the Secretary of State's office had to purge non eligible voters from the rolls because of an error, a clerical error they made on their end.

Now, in that particular instance, was there an effort by those non-citizens to try to gain access to the ballot box?

No.

What you have, though, is based on a clerical error to a magnitude of less than 0.5, 0.1, percent of the electorate as an excuse to say, 'I need to litigate this issue that doesn't exist, and then be able to go challenge somebody's citizenship, citizenship status,' because a political, I guess, win or a landfall for them to be able to bring that forward.

It's fear.

All of this is all that amendment is, is fear of something that doesn't exist.

We have secure elections in South Dakota.

Non-citizens aren't voting in our elections.

And the likelihood of that ever being prosecuted when when it does actually happen is very slim from the standpoint of they're just not just nobody.

It doesn't happen.

This doesn't happen.

In our our state's history, you can maybe name a handful of times in which somebody who is an non-citizen tried to vote, and they were prosecuted under the state of law in South Dakota or federal law.

This issue that amendment J is bringing forward doesn't exist as or as what the proponents are saying.

And it creates a new problem.

And that's really, I think, the underlying message.

I want South Dakotans to continue to hear this is this amendment is entirely unnecessary.

And just to follow up on, on on that other argument, if it's functionally unnecessary, if this amendment functionally doesn't change anything, what's the harm in voting yes for it?

Yeah.

Because it doesn't change the fact that citizens already are the only ones who can vote in South Dakota.

What this creates is a new definition of what noncitizen is, to say, 'I need to set a new bar and define non-citizen to force a way for me in law, as the proponents have put forward in the legislature, to challenge your status as a citizen and say you are a noncitizen.'

Therefore, you can't vote.

By creating that new bar, it allows them to put the onus on you and say, 'Well, I don't have consequences for questioning your citizenship status, but now you have to deal with the consequences of me doing so.

You have to go prove your citizenship status.

You have to go to your county auditor to reregister.'

There is no clear timeline from when that can be resolved.

Sorry, but that's that's what we want.

That's effectively what they want to happen.

And that's, I think, for South Dakotans, the harm in this amendment is on face value.

That doesn't solve a problem.

But now you have a group of people who don't want the consequences of questioning your citizenship status.

They're trying to force you to prove it.

And that in itself, citizenship isn't always an easy thing to prove it.

For folks like me.

We were born in the United States.

I'm a seventh generation South Dakotan, and it's not easily known how to find my documents.

I have a passport, but not everybody does.

For example, when it comes down to it, putting the onus on you to prove your citizenship status is not what South Dakotans have had to do to access the right to vote by creating this new challenge.

Now there is a pathway for folks to challenge your right to vote and make it very difficult for you to vote.

If it's a case of challenging your citizenship status on grounds that are maybe unclear, and maybe purely about the fact that you might disagree with somebody, and that lies the problem of amendment J. Any closing thoughts on amendment J?

I think it's really important for South Dakotans to know that, though it might read as a harmless amendment, that everybody can agree on the law that's being presented here, the fact that non citizens shouldn't vote because it's already the law of the land.

I think it's important for South Dakotans to remember that passing amendment J isn't harmless.

It's very harmful because it gives the proponents of this measure the real opportunity to challenge your citizenship and make it really hard for you to vote.

And that's not a problem to make our elections more secure from non-citizens, it's making it harder for you as a citizen to vote.

Our next issue is amendment K, an amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing the Trust for Unclaimed Property Fund.

This proposed constitutional amendment establishes a trust fund where unclaimed abandoned property will be deposited.

Portions of the interest and income from this fund will be distributed into the State General Fund.

This proposed amendment requires the legislature to determine the amount to be distributed that promotes the growth of the trust fund and the distributed amount.

Speaking in favor of amendment K is South Dakota State Treasurer Josh Haeder.

Why don't we start in the obvious spot, which is if you could please just explain unclaimed property?

Yeah, sure.

So, you know, unclaimed property can really be anything.

It could be stocks, bonds, dividend securities.

A lot of times people will have checking and savings accounts.

And that's what I like to explain the most.

It's the one we get the most of is from a checking or savings account.

So let's say it's you, Jackie, and you live in Sioux Falls, and you decide you're going to move West River somewhere, and then you move to Oklahoma and decide you're going to move back.

Well, financial institutions have a three year rule.

If they can't contact you via hard copy mail, then it's considered abandoned or unclaimed property, and it gets turned over to the state of South Dakota.

That's what we get the vast majority of.

And, you know, unfortunately, it's not usually $1 million.

It's usually $70, $80 bucks, something like that.

But in my world, $70 or $80 is still a little bit of money.

And so it's nice if we can get that back to rightful owners.

But like I said, the law says after three years, if a holder in this case a financial institution, cannot find the rightful owner, then it comes to us and becomes unclaimed property.

And a lot of times what happens is you have that account.

You might not even know that you have it, you could be a beneficiary on it.

Or when you're updating your addresses for like your bills and things like that, you might just forget one of those accounts.

And so if the financial institution, again, is pinging that old address and they can't find you, that's when we get it right.

Roughly how much are we talking about this that South Dakota is holding?

You know, one of my favorite things to do is to turn the scripts.

What do you think we have?

This is good fun.

I like doing this.

Oh, and I'm sure I heard in legislative session too.

Oh, I won't put you on the spot.

I'm just.

I'm just messing with you.

Like $10 million dollars?

OK, it's over $1 billion.

Yeah.

So we have a massive amount of money.

Now, the one thing I would tell you is it doesn't all belong to South Dakotans.

So if a financial institution is domiciled in South Dakota, then we get their unclaimed property.

So we really do get money from all over the world, but we have millions and millions of dollars that belong to rightful owners right here in South Dakota as well.

But it's over $1 billion that's claimable right now.

It's a massive amount.

Wow.

Why create a trust?

Okay, so this is my favorite question.

This is why we need to talk about amendment K. But I want to take you back a few years to when I was first elected treasurer.

So when I was first elected treasurer and we went through the legislative process for our budget talking about unclaimed property, what we learned is the process is completely backwards.

So what happened prior to two years ago, and then we'll kind of get to that and build up to K, was whatever we didn't return in a given year - so let's say $300 million has come in.

Okay.

And we're able to return $50 million.

And then we also pay for our nominal office expenses out of that.

What happened to the rest of the money at that point in time, is it got turned over to the legislature and they just spent it all, so it's gone.

So when I say, you know, prior to two years ago, there's $1 billion in property, people would always ask me how much interest is being earned on all of those dollars.

And I would tell them zero because it's all spent.

It's 100 percent gone.

So what we were not doing is setting dollars aside to pay future claims.

So it would have been, let's see, I'm in year number eight.

So this would have been year number two.

We tried to get a trust fund set up and we went through the regular process and we failed.

We failed in committee.

And the reason I think we failed, as a politician taking credit for our failure is never a good thing, right?

But I'm term limited so I can do this.

We didn't have all the right stakeholders at the table.

We had everybody who agreed with us, but we weren't listening to the dissenting opinion.

So we learned from that.

We kind of long played it, talked with legislators, and then two years ago, we went back through the legislative process and said, 'Okay, we can all help each other out here.'

We need to set up a trust fund where the unreturned dollars can be set aside and protected, because the state's responsibility is to only hold those dollars until we can find the rightful owner.

But instead of just pulling the rug out from the legislature and saying, you get no more money, what we did is we scale it down to over a period of ten years.

It'll go down each year.

The amount of money that's going to the general fund from unclaimed property.

After that, it's at a set dollar amount.

And everything else goes into that trust fund where it can earn interest.

So a couple of years ago, this is what we did.

It was Senate Bill 155.

We went with that process, and we worked with all of the legislators who agreed and disagreed with us.

We got that bill passed and signed by the governor without a single no vote.

So you can see when you bring all the stakeholders holders together how things can change in a positive way.

So we got that done.

So as it sits today, we have a temporary trust fund.

And it does just what I said it does.

Whatever we do not return, or spend through our regular expenses, goes into that trust fund.

The problem is, is it's not really a trust fund.

It's more like a savings account at this point in time.

It's like a money market savings account.

So it earns about 2 to 3 percent interest.

The reason that is, is because law requires that if you want a permanent trust fund, it has to be passed by the voters.

And the important thing there is, the reason we need to get it passed is then it gets turned over to the South Dakota Investment Council, which, by the way, is one of the best investment councils in the country.

And then it will earn more like 8 to 9 percent interest.

Think like cement trust fund.

Right.

So it'll earn that same type of interest because now you would have the full gamut of investment tools available and then the interest earned if we pass amendment K, which we should all vote.

Yes, by the way, we'll make sure that there's a large amount of interest going to the general fund every year.

So we're really setting up a permanent source of revenue for the general fund without ever negatively impacting taxpayers.

Someone hears this and says, 'Well, would we ever be in danger of running out of that fund?'

It's not necessarily like a market driven investment.

That's correct.

It's the exact same as the other trust funds.

The principle never really goes down, they're in very safe investments.

Don't think of this like we're going to go play the stock market and hope we can make a massive return.

You're looking at very safe investments.

You know the the rate of return is better than a savings account.

Not by a whole lot, but when you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars, that adds up at the end of the day, right?

And I heard you mention, like, the legal process of establishing something like this.

And that's one of the questions is why does this need to be a constitutional amendment?

So it's permanent.

So the temporary trust fund that we have today could be changed by any legislature.

They could come in and say, you know, Treasurer's office, you have $250 million in that amount.

We think it's enough.

Good luck.

We're going to get rid of it.

See you later.

Or they can raid it at any point in time as well with a legislative vote.

So we want to make it permanent.

So we're saying we're prioritizing that this money belongs to the people, primarily the people of South Dakota.

So we're going to safeguard it until we can find you.

I'm curious as this went through the legislature again, this was back in 2025 when this went through.

So it's been a little bit of time.

But can you do you recall some of the questions you were getting from lawmakers who hadn't been in on this planning process?

Yes.

First and foremost, some of them were there many years ago when we tried this the first time.

And the first question, why were we not at the table the first time?

I'm like, 'Hi, my mistake.

You know, we have you here today and that's what matters.'

We're focused on the present, not the past.

So that was probably priority number one.

The other thing again, is there was legitimate concerns because folks were relying on this as a form of revenue for the regular budgeting process.

That's dangerous for a couple of reasons.

Number one, it belongs to somebody else.

But number two, that number is variable every year.

And we don't have any insight from the financial institutions as what they're going to give ahead of time.

It's our best guess.

So one year it's $300 million.

The next year it's $120 million.

So if you're relying on that money wholly and completely as a source of revenue, that that's a big adjustment the legislature has to make as well.

So there were some legitimate concerns about that.

I said, 'If we set it up the right way, we're getting a baseline of $25 million a year plus interest earned.'

You're not going to have that concern anymore.

So we were able to successfully address that.

Any closing thoughts on amendment K?

I would say we need to make sure people are well educated.

You're welcome to call our office and ask any questions.

Of course, the most important thing is we want to get money back to rightful owners.

So check Cash.SD.Gov and make sure you see if you have any unclaimed property.

Our final issue is amendment L, an amendment to the South Dakota Constitution requiring that a proposed constitutional amendment or revision receive an affirmative vote of 60 percent of votes cast.

If passed, further constitutional amendments must receive an affirmative vote of 60 percent of votes cast to be implemented.

A no vote leaves the approval threshold for constitutional changes at a simple majority.

Speaking in favor of amendment L is district 13 State Representative John Hughes.

Speaking against the amendment, is the chair of the No On L Coalition, Casey Murschel.

Why don't you start just by telling us what was the problem you saw that you're hoping to solve with amendment L?

Well, that is the question, after all, isn't it?

For me, the it started in 2020 with amendment A to add recreational use of marijuana and hemp to the Constitution, which I think was about the fourth attempt.

I'm all in favor of citizen initiated statutes.

I am a firm believer in democracy.

But when 54 percent of the people vote for recreational marijuana and there's $2 million in Washington, DC, special interest money spent to get it over the line, and I have amendment A with me.

It's about five pages of text with all kinds of provisions that are public policy provisions suitable for statutes, not for the Constitution, which is our foundational document.

What's really odd about this whole mix is that the people that oppose amendment L, I think, like to view themselves as ardent supporters of direct democracy.

Well, I'm an ardent supporter of direct democracy, but I'm not in support of PACs and super PACs spending $2 million, compared to the $200 and some thousand that South Dakotans raised for recreational marijuana.

I can't imagine putting an industry as a constitutional right in our Constitution again, which is our foundational document.

So I'm looking at constitutional history, the history of the initiative and referendum in South Dakota, the history of the long, long process of getting to the point where citizen initiated constitutional amendments were only first possible in 1972 and until 1988, every citizen initiated constitutional amendment had to be first enacted and approved by the legislature.

So what we really have here is less less than 40 years of constitutional history.

And I don't think people, by and large, understand the difference between public policy, which is our state laws and constitutional doctrine, which is should be almost sacred.

Plus, I have to tell you, on the best of years, on average, about 65 percent of voters turn out.

I took 20, I took ten years of elections, and it's an average of about 65 percent.

So do we want a simple majority of 65 percent of the voters that show up to do things like create new rights and entitlements in our Constitution?

Well, I think not, unless it's a 60 percent requirement.

So, you know, Jackie, that's a, I've studied this long and hard for about, well, 5 or 6 years now.

And I feel like I'm speaking for good government and for the people because the Constitution needs to be protected.

And currently it's not.

You mentioned a few times the, and I think a lot of people would share this concern with you, the influx of outside dollars and outside influence in South Dakota's election process, I guess.

What is it about amendment L, which amendment L purely changes the threshold for passing a constitutional amendment.

Why is that the best solution for this problem, as opposed to any number of policies capping investments or any number of other ways to get at the outside influence problem?

That's a great that's a great question.

You know, the hope is if the bar is higher, that there will be an incentive on people to speak more truth.

But the way things are, South Dakota's low hanging fruit and people are very sensitive.

And I understand that about direct democracy.

I get that.

And again, citizen initiated measures referendum all for it all in.

I'd go to the wall to defend those rights.

But we I don't want to stifle democracy either.

And many states have higher than simple majority thresholds.

This is a just a legitimate effort as sort of reclaiming a little bit of the turf.

But bearing in mind that South Dakota has a populist libertarian bandwidth, and those people have the right to express their views, and I don't want to unnecessarily stifle them.

But a 60 percent requirement will, I think, perhaps dissuade others from just entering into South Dakota and going, 'These people are backward.

They really don't know what they're doing.

Let's make some money here.

Let's have recreational marijuana in the Constitution and and then go to federal court if the state messes with our rights.'

Yikes.

That's frightening to me.

How would you like to distinguish why the Constitution, the state constitution, in your opinion, ought to be maybe more protected.

If I'm putting words in your mouth, please correct me.

Why, in your opinion, the Constitution ought to be more protected than other methodologies of enacting policy?

Well, because it is that foundational document, and it's designed to protect those that can't protect themselves.

When you look at the Bill of Rights, for example.

We need to protect the, I will say, almost sacred nature of the of our Constitution.

It's not a it's not a document that has a shelf life.

Statutes have shelf lives.

We change them all the time.

Good grief.

We had 800, 900 bills.

I sit on House Judiciary.

We had 80 bills come through there, and there were a handful of good ones.

There was a lot of stuff that people don't understand.

We killed.

Okay, here's what I would say.

People can have really good ideas and people can have really bad ideas.

And we're dealing when you're dealing with direct democracy, you have to have a safety valve to weave out the bad ideas.

I'm appealing to people's understanding of the origins and history of our of our constitutional republic within South Dakota, significant features of direct democracy, and I do not want to do away with those, but I do want to elevate the obligation to convince 60 percent of people that amending our Constitution is a good idea.

I've seen there is a No On L Coalition.

Who are some of the members of this coalition?

Ah, SDEA, Change Agents, League of Women Voters, Dakota Rural Action, South Dakota American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

Why do you suppose.

I did not want to forget.

Why do you suppose that kind of broad swath of people are coming out against this amendment?

Well, first of all, I would say that for some of them, voting issues are always on their radar.

And so it's just part of their DNA.

I'm thinking League of Women Voters, any time it looks like there's a dialing back of voters' abilities to participate, you know, they're certainly involved.

But I think for the rest of them, it is knowing that what our initiative and referendum process does, including with the constitutional amendments, is it gives people a chance to either bring things forward or stop things that the legislature is doing.

And it's a check and balance kind of thing, that there's no other way to do it otherwise.

So I think a lot of these organizations are, it's about voters which are their constituents, and as well as the elected officials constituents.

And so they're engaged in trying to make our direct democracy be able to stay healthy.

So this this amendment L, originated through the legislative process in 2025 to be put on the ballot in the first place.

The argument could be made, the legislatures elected, are they acting based on the will of the people who put them in office?

I guess, how would you respond to that?

As a former legislator, I know that the legislators tried to do that to the best of their ability, but there are other influences on them besides the people at home, besides the voters.

And it's very easy sometimes in the legislature for outside influences, for parties to maybe tip the balance a little bit.

There are also people out in, you know, just going about the business of living their lives that maybe haven't called their legislator, their representative, their senator, and to tell them how they feel about it.

And and it's easy as a legislator to kind of have the wrong impression of what, you know, what their constituents really are saying or want.

It also, when they get carried away, and government can do that, this offers a check and balance for the legislative process.

A common argument in favor of this amendment is the constitution of the state should be harder to change.

Well, they didn't think so when they put it in in the first place.

There were just many people in South Dakota who did not feel like their voice could be heard.

And that's where it came from.

And it succeeded.

And it was put in as an amendment and was passed.

And so how we have construed this, there are those to your point who say that it you know, the Constitution shouldn't be changed.

Well, we got this by a change of the Constitution, just like at the national level, we have our Bill of Rights because of changes to the Constitution.

Now, I happen to agree with those who say, you know, we have too much policy in our Constitution.

It should look a little different.

Fine, I get that.

But that is our Constitution and it isn't recent.

This has been going on for a long time.

So I say right, I don't think this is an issue that needs changes.

So let's leave it the way it is.

A lot has been said about potential outside influences on statewide elections, and I know this amendment isn't specific to the financing, but I could imagine the argument of if the right people put the right ads on TV, it's as simple as a 50 percent plus one to change the Constitution.

This could protect against that outside influence.

All right.

Well, if if this fails, it will be just like it is now.

And people can complain.

There are other ways to manage that then cutting back voters rights.

Certainly caps could be on amounts that that can be received.

You can't tell people they can't give money, tell them they can't accept money.

If those are those concerns.

But by making it a higher threshold, I don't see, common sense says to me, if it's expensive now, why won't it just be more expensive then?

This isn't the first time that South Dakota voters have had a say in the threshold to change the Constitution.

Yeah.

I guess what, what can you tell us about the history leading up to amendment L?

Well, it, I think it was 2018 and 2020.

Excuse me.

Yeah.

18 and 22.

And and it failed as it should.

I honestly, what I can't do is get into the head of the legislators who said, 'Okay, let's try it again.'

It just, especially those it comes a lot out of the legislature.

They voice, 'Oh there's too much on the ballot, there's whatever.'

But they're the first to pop things on the ballot.

I don't yeah.

So the history is there.

It's been tried before.

The other things to remember is that's those are things that are done in other states.

But to try and raise the threshold, make it harder and harder for direct democracy, for people to pull together and make something happen or stop something from happening.

It's not easy.

It is.

It is not easy.

It takes a lot to get the word out.

There isn't anybody, there isn't an issue or a candidate that wouldn't say, 'Hey, this is harder than it looks.'

You know what to do.

What we shouldn't make it harder.

And those states that have I don't know what the rationale is.

The legislators who wrote this up and I don't know what their rationale is.

I don't think it's saving money.

I think it is making it harder for people to participate.

The thing it boils down to, though, it's not like you can't still go vote.

But what they would be making is, with 60 percent, if it's a a win of 58 percent, 59 percent?

Oh no, it goes down.

How is that fair?

We are used to when the majority wins.

This would be the minority rules.

You can find extended versions of all these conversations on our SDPB YouTube channel.

The voter registration deadline for November's general election is October 19th.

Absentee voting is already underway and Election Day is November 3rd.

I'm Jackie Hendry.

On behalf of all of us here at SDPB and for South Dakota News Watch, thank you for watching.