Pro-Amendment L Group Calls for Truth in Advertising
SIOUX FALLS – The grassroots coalition leading the Yes effort on South Dakota’s proposed Constitutional Amendment L sent cease and desist letters to South Dakota media organizations this week, requesting that they immediately stop airing misleading and untruthful commercials funded by opponents of Amendment L.
Proposed Amendment L protects the South Dakota Constitution and South Dakota citizens by requiring a 60 percent vote to change the Constitution. All other measures remain unchanged.
“Voters deserve an open and honest debate on the merits of Amendment L,” said State Representative John Hughes (R-13), prime sponsor of the measure. “These blatant lies by anti-Amendment L activists are a desperate attempt to mislead voters, and the deceptive advertisements need to be removed from the airwaves immediately.”
The request to pull the misleading advertisement points to opponents’ false claim that the Yes on L effort is funded by wealthy non-residents. Specifically, the ad falsely states “Out of state billionaires and their lobbyists are coming to South Dakota pushing Amendment L” and “Our constitution isn’t for sale to some Californian.”
A ballot question committee in support of Amendment L, Save Our South Dakota Constitution, consists of South Dakota residents and groups of concerned citizens. Supporters of Amendment L include Protect South Dakota Kids, South Dakota Family Voice, South Dakota Retailers, and South Dakota Right to Life.
Official campaign finance disclosures filed with the South Dakota Secretary of State in mid-October will demonstrate that Save Our South Dakota Constitution is funded entirely without financial backing from any California billionaires. Ironically, according to public documents, anti-Amendment L special interest groups have already spent more than $400,000 misleading voters.
“Our state Constitution is a foundational document that makes South Dakota a great state, and that’s worth protecting by passing Amendment L,” Hughes added. “We are asking voters to defend against radical special interest groups who want to allow late-term abortions, take away gun rights, and legalize recreational marijuana.”
Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026. Amendment L was placed on the ballot by the South Dakota Legislature during the 2025 session as House Joint Resolution 5003. The measure passed the Senate with 29 yes votes and 4 no votes; it passed the House with 61 yes votes and 5 no votes.
###
What? You mean we can’t just create some evil boogieman description of someone most people in South Dakota would not agree with and then claim that they are the one supporting/backing our opponent? We actually need to tell voters the truth and work on facts? That’s gonna kill the plan that all the billionaires from California have been using, along with all their cash, to tell voters that the OTHER side is being backed by billionaires from California.
Out of staters would want things to be easier and LESS restrictive I would think. I early voted YES on this one, the public vote threshold should be as stringent as the legislative threshold, although I can see where a court clarification on body-present/body-elect to determine the threshold might be needed.
Do not be deceived.
“Do not be deceived.”
Ooooooooh, cryptic. Probably what I’d write too if I wanted to scare people but had no substantive critique to do it with.
Too late for you, obviously.
By definition, aren’t we NOT protecting the constitution by making changes to the constitution?
Silly argument, and this is yet another attempt to move power from voters to legislators.
Also, remember when legislators said that CAs were terrible and people should be doing IMs instead? What happened to that? Now we’re cool putting CAs up for a vote?
Rest assured the super majority authoritarian political party in South Dakota has freedom under control!
It’s odd that this amendment to the state constitution only needs 50% approval while if approved the process will take 60%. This is just another ploy by the legislature to gain more power while disenfranchising a big group of citizens. Never mind that it takes 35,000+ signatures to get a citizen initiated constitutional amendment on the ballot. Which means close to 38,000+ signatures. That’s a lot of legwork. So…don’t be fooled by those who say the process is easy….it’s not! (Yet it’s too easy for our legislators to get this stuff on the ballot!)
It’s not odd. Advocates for changing the threshold have no say over the number needed in this election. Their goal is to change it for all future votes; they have to use the law as it currently is to accomplish that effort. But you knew that; you’re just lack intellectual integrity.
A big fat no from me. How many times is the legislature gonna try to ram this through? Maybe they should make rules for themselves and lead by example.
I’m voting Yes!
Kinda like the liberals wanting to get rid of the electoral college.
So California and New York city can elect our Commander In Chief!
RLTW
Well, the electoral college has deeply racist roots, soooooooooo….
Even when I agree with you, I wished you’d shut up. You use your status as a Veteran to make your opinion appear to hold more weight than it warrants. As a Veteran of war myself, you disgust me.
Amen to that. Also a vet of two deployments. I cant stand this guy.
What’s your MOS?
Years you were in?
Regular or weekend warrior.
RLTW
You first. Were you in the 75th or did you get your tab? I’m getting pretender vibes here, ranger buddy.
I respect a tab whenever I see one, whether 75th or not. However, in this guy’s case, I have no respect for a man who so obnoxiously insists he’s special.
to anonymous 7:07,
I fought for your Freedom ( 1967-1990 ) for me to disgust you.
You remind me of the Pride month, I think it’s disgusting, but hey I fought for Freedom Of All Americans, no matter what my personal beliefs are.
RLTW is my signature stamp, that is on every thing I sign! Yes even on legal documents,,
My Combat Veterans ( as all Combat veterans ) status carries a lot of clout. As we EARNED IT!
Now go change your panties, kill a baby, and enjoy your Freedom.
RLTW
I bet you have a lot of friends don’t you.
Define friends?
I
RLTW
Hey’ warrior’ What’s what with Hegseth establishing the Office of Religious Affairs ?
STHU
This is anon 7:07. We both served in war. However, unlike you, I don’t think that makes me better than everyone else. That’s what makes my service better than yours; I’m not an ass about it. (Yes, that’s intentional irony.). I did my job, came home, and lived my life in quiet humility. But please, keep drawing attention to yourself and making the rest of us look bad.
“…late-term abortions, take away gun rights, and legalize recreational marijuana.” SMH. They’re really drinking the Kool-Aid. And voters have rejected this so many times, but like Anonymous @ 4:04pm said, they keep trying to ram it through. Kinda like how we voted to legalize recreational marijuana, but Krusty Noem swooped in to reverse the will of the people.
Since you brought up Amendment A, according to the Secretary of State records, it passed with votes from 41% of the eligible voters. 41% is not a majority. Amendment L will fix that. The legislature doesn’t rule based on votes cast, and neither should ballot measures.
Outcomes should always be based on the percentage of votes cast, not the percentage of registered voters. Only the people who vote should have a say. If potential voters didn’t, that’s on them for failing to participate.
Huh?? Are you saying Amendment A passed in 2020 with only 41% of the votes?
Nunya, I think the two Anonymous commenters above are talking about two different sets of people—those who actually voted on Amendment A vs. the total number of people registered to vote at that time—it would include non-voters.
My bad 🤣 I was very confused there for a sec.
That’s your opinion; but no one can claim a measure passed because “the people” wanted it when it the majority of voters either voted No or didn’t care about it enough to even fill out a ballot. Knowing that things could not pass with a minority would improve voter turnout. Thank God our Legislature doesn’t operate on your theory. What a an even larger circus that would be.
That is a very interesting take. However, we can say during any election or ballot measures, whatever, “the people” that care enough vote and make their voice heard. Those that don’t… well, I guess that’s a “them” problem. And if they complain about something not going the way they wanted, they should complain their way to the ballot box and do something about it. 🤷♀️ Can bring a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink 🤷♀️
This is such a terrible take. Things are determined by those who show up. Being absent isn’t a “no”. And the legislature is elected and gets paid to attend the session and generally can be counted on to be there to vote. And even then, you can be “excused” and you’re not counted in the denominator.
Amendment A passed with 54% of the vote. Period.
Legislative votes are based on members elect, not members present/voting.
Got it, my bad. Still, the point stands. Denominator in the legislature is a fixed number because they’re elected and expected to be there to vote. The general public has no such mandate, not should they, so the absence of a vote is neither a yes or no. If you want to be counted ya gotta show up to the table.
Excellent observation. Most conservative voters don’t understand how these type of things impact them. The SDGOP always points out such measures will prevent the Commie, Socialistic east/ west coasters out of SD. When in fact all it does is hinder the folks of SD to run their State. How many lawsuits has SD lost when barriers are thrown up to participation.
Changing the SD Constitution should be a difficult thing to do. 66% should be the standard.
Right now in 2026, the majority could vote to put the ban of eggs in the SDC
in 2028, the majority could vote to forbid all beef but Angus in the SDC
in 2030, the majority could vote to make it illegal to own guns.
Sarcastic? Of course, but to rob a line from Angels in the Outfield “it could happen”.
So majority rule is bad, is what you’re saying?
“Majority” is fluid.
Sounds like John Hughes is just a whiny little bitch when he doesn’t get his way.
Nailed it. Just like the other legislators with whom he surrounds himself.
Amendment L is aptly lettered for “Losers”.
You can bet that Lee Schoenbeck is piling big bucks into the “yes” coffers
IF passed, this means that 41% of all those who actually vote, control the outcome. A MINORITY.
How is that democratic? Answer….its not, nor is it intended to be.
Know this: the South Dakota Constitution IS NOT a “foundational” document. Unlike the US Constitution, it is filled with “policy” statements: interest, terms, land use, health care, drugs, and much more. That horse has left the barn. Most constitutional amendments already fail at 50% including the Legislature’s own housekeeping amendments, so if we raise the threshold, we’ll end up being stuck with outdated judgement calls. I’m not just voting NO, I’m calling BS and voting HELL NO.
L no.
This literally has zero chance. AGAIN. Don’t yell at me for explaining the sky is blue. PLEASE STOP LIGHTING MONEY ON FIRE.
Where is the anti L money coming from? I’ll bet there is some serious out of state funding for all that advertising.