A look into the 2024 South Dakota General Election

From now until the election on Nov. 5, Tea Weekly will take a look at the different measures on the ballot. A sample ballot is published in this week’s Tea Weekly. This week we take a look at Amendment E and Amendment F. 

The following stories were produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit news organization. Read more in-depth stories at sdnewswatch.org and sign up for an email every few days to get stories as soon as they’re published. 

Constitutional Amendment E would update male-only references

By STU WHITNEY

South Dakota News Watch

This is a legislative resolution from the 2023 session that proposes to change outdated male-only references to South Dakota’s governor and other officials in the state constitution and statutes.

The Attorney General’s explanation offers the following example: When referencing the Governor, instead of saying “he shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state,” the text will be changed to read “the Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state.”

The amendment also includes references to officeholders such as Lieutenant Governor, Supreme Court Justices, and Circuit Court Judges, as well as general classes of people such as persons, electors, and public officers.

“South Dakota has a long history of strong female representation in all three branches of government, and the Constitution should accurately reflect these esteemed members of our government,” Sen. Erin Tobin (R-Winner) wrote in favor of the amendment as part of the Secretary of State’s ballot question pamphlet.

Rep. Liz May (R-Kyle) took the opposing view, stating that Amendment E represents an “unnecessary change” to constitutional language.

“The reference to ‘he’ in our Constitution is simply a singular pronoun,” May wrote. “The historic use of generic male pronouns in our constitution is proper style and form and clearly does not exclude or hinder women from holding public office. While this seems like a minor change now, opening up the constitution in order to correct pronouns will not accomplish anything substantive, but will cost taxpayer dollars to reprint materials that are already effective in their current form.”

Amendment F seeks to add work requirements to Medicaid expansion

By STU WHITNEY

South Dakota News Watch

Voters will decide on Amendment F, a legislative effort to allow employment criteria to be used for able-bodied adults to receive Medicaid benefits as part of the 2022 expansion approved by South Dakota voters.

Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that helps cover medical costs for qualified individuals with limited income and resources. The move would still need to be approved by the federal government.

Work requirements are already part of the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps.

Adding the criteria to able-bodied Medicaid health care recipients highlights a fundamental difference between conservative and liberal political philosophies, not just in South Dakota but across the country.

Conservatives view work requirements as a means of putting certain individuals on a path to greater self-sufficiency and less reliance on government programs. Liberals see the requirements as an impediment to eligible citizens getting the medical assistance they need.

Unlike Medicare, which provides health care for the elderly, Medicaid focuses on low-income individuals and covers services such as hospital visits, preventative care, X-rays and family planning.

“My motivation isn’t really fiscal because I don’t think doing this would save a great deal of money,” said state Rep. Tony Venhuizen, a Sioux Falls Republican who helped spearhead Amendment F. “It’s more about just being consistent in our philosophy in South Dakota that any social program is about giving someone a hand up, not a long-term way of life.”

State Rep. Kadyn Wittman, a Sioux Falls Democrat, sees the amendment as an attempt to water down what South Dakota voters passed two years ago.

“I voted for Medicaid expansion before I was a state legislator, so I’m deeply offended by the insinuation that I did not understand what I was voting for,” said Wittman.

She added that work requirements add unnecessary administrative burdens and have not proven to boost employment numbers in states where they’ve been enacted.