South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Y, Changes to Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment (June 2018)

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment Y (June)
Election date June 5, 2018
Topic Law enforcement
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of South Dakota measuresSouth Dakota Constitutional Amendment Y - JuneSouth Dakota Constitutional Amendment WSouth Dakota Constitutional Amendment XSouth Dakota Constitutional Amendment ZSouth Dakota Initiated Measure 24South Dakota Initiated Measure 25Submit

The South Dakota Changes to Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights Amendment, Constitutional Amendment Y, was on the ballot in South Dakota as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on June 5, 2018. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to make changes to the Marsy's Law crime victim rights amendment passed by voters in 2016.

A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to make changes to the Marsy's Law crime victim rights amendment passed by voters in 2016.

In the six states that had passed Marsy's Law amendments prior to 2018, this was the first proposal asking voters to repeal or amend a Marsy's Law measure.

This measure is part of a national effort to enact similar Marsy's Law amendments. Measures concerning Marsy's Law crime victim rights amendments were put on the ballot in six states for 2018 elections. Electors in all six states voted to approve the amendments. Read more about Marsy's Law here »

Election results

South Dakota Amendment Y
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		106,498	79.51%
No		27,448	20.49%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did the amendment do?

Amendment Y made changes to the state's Marsy's Law constitutional amendment—Amendment S—approved by voters in 2016. The Marsy's Law amendment established certain rights for crime victims. Amendment Y made many of the rights guaranteed available if victims opt in, rather than requiring law enforcement and criminal justice officials to provide the rights unless victims opted out. It allowed law enforcement officials to share certain information with the public in order to assist in solving crimes or apprehending criminals. Amendment Y also contained provisions preventing any lawsuits from being filed against state or local government officials based on the Marsy's Law rights. Other changes made by Amendment Y are summarized below.

Did Marsy's Law proponents support Amendment Y?

Initially, a proposal to fully repeal Marsy's Law was introduced in the legislature. A compromise was reached with Marsy's Law For All, the national group that backed the 2016 measure to enact Marsy's Law, and the resolution calling for an amendment to repeal Marsy's Law was amended to become Amendment Y. Marsy's Law for South Dakota, the state branch of Marsy's Law for All, endorsed Amendment Y and requested that it be put on the June 2018 ballot instead of the November 2018 ballot.

Marsy's Law in the United States

Henry Nicholas founded the national group Marsy's Law for All to advocate for a list of certain crime victim rights called Marsy's Law, named after Nicholas' sister Marsalee Nicholas. Ballotpedia identified $29.7 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the six Marsy's Law ballot measures that had been approved before 2018. The first was passed in California in 2008. The majority of all contributions supporting Marsy's Law measures—91 percent, or $27 million—came from Henry Nicholas.

Supporters and opponents of Amendment Y

Marsy's Law for South Dakota LLC registered to support Amendment Y. No committees had registered to oppose Amendment Y. Marsy's Law for South Dakota LLC reported $450,000 in contributions from Henry Nicholas.

House Speaker Mark Mickelson (R-13), who sponsored the amendment in the legislature, said, "People voted for it the first time, and we're fixing some of the unintended consequences. It strengthens victims' rights. If you were for it before, you're for it again, and if you had some concerns about it before, it's better now."

Democrat Cory Heidelberger of Aberdeen—a candidate for state Senate District 3—said, "When first proposed by legislators, Amendment Y originally offered the one true fix for Marsy's Law—complete repeal of this unnecessary, costly, and unconstitutional amendment. But when that California billionaire came waving his money, legislators caved and offered Marsy's Fix to appease him."

Amendment design

Amendment Y made the following changes to Amendment S—the 2016 Marsy's Law amendment:

• It allowed the sharing by law enforcement of information otherwise protected from disclosure if the information was useful in getting help from the public in solving a criminal case.
• While retaining a provision requiring the prompt and complete restitution to the victim for losses suffered, it deleted a provision requiring that all money and property taken for the purposes of restitution be applied first toward restitution to the victim and only then to anything owed to the government.
• It deleted a provision making the constitutional provisions self-enabling—and in effect independent of any enabling legislation provided for by the legislature—and replaced it with a provision allowing the legislative bills or citizen initiatives "to further define, implement, preserve, and protect the rights guaranteed to victims" by Marsy's Law.
• It changed the definition of crime victim to only include the "spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, or guardian" of the directly affected victim in crimes resulting in the victim being "killed or incapacitated as a result of the crime or delinquent act" or in cases where the victim is a minor; before Amendment Y, the definition included relatives for all crimes.
  • It removed the part of the definition of crime victim that included the legal representative of the direct victim.
  • It removed from the definition of a crime victim a person "who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act."
• It added a provision stating that the crime victim rights established did not allow for a lawsuit claiming damages against a state or local government entity or any state or local government official or employee.
• It made the following rights available upon request instead of provided by default:
  • the right to not have information and records disclosed to the public, the defendant, or the defendant's attorney;
  • the right to privacy, including the right to refuse an "interview, deposition, or other discovery request";
  • the right to have notice of and be present at proceedings, including court proceedings, sentencing, parole hearings, and hearings related to possible pardoning;
  • the right to have notice of the convictions, sentencing, place and time of incarceration, release, or escape of the accused;
  • the right to confer with the prosecutor;
  • the right to get copies of pre-sentencing reports or plans for dispositions;
  • the quick return of the victim's property once it is no longer necessary for the case.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for this initiative is below:

“

An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution revising certain provisions relating to the rights of crime victims.

”

Ballot summary

The explanation of this amendment provided by the attorney general is below:

“

In 2016 the voters approved Marsy's Law, which expanded rights for crime victims and placed them in the state constitution. This amendment makes changes to Marsy's Law. The amendment narrows the definition of "victim" to mean a person against whom a crime or delinquent act is committed. If the victim is killed, incapacitated, or a minor, then "victim" may include that person's spouse, parent, child, sibling, grandparents, or guardian. The amendment makes it clear that a victim must make an affirmative request to receive the benefits of several of the rights provided by Marsy's Law. In addition, the amendment clarifies that law enforcement is allowed to share information with the public to help solve crimes. The amendment also provides that a person may not file a lawsuit for money damages against the State, local governments, or their officers and employees, if the person's rights under Marsy's Law are violated. Vote "Yes" to adopt the amendment. Vote "No" to leave the Constitution as it is.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article VI, South Dakota Constitution

Amendment Y amended section 29 of Article VI of the state constitution. The following underlined text was added, and struck-through text was deleted: Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

§ 29. A victim shall have the following rights, beginning at the time of victimization:

1. The right to due process and to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim's dignity;

2. The right to be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse;

3. The right to be reasonably protected from the accused and any person acting on behalf of the accused;

4. The right to have the safety and welfare of the victim and the victim's family considered when setting bail or making release decisions;

5. The right, upon request, to prevent the disclosure to the public, or the defendant or anyone acting on behalf of the defendant in the criminal case, of information or records that could be used to locate or harass the victim or the victim's family, or which could disclose confidential or privileged information about the victim, and to be notified of any request for such information or records. This does not limit law enforcement from sharing information with the public for the purposes of enlisting the public's help in solving a crime;

6. The right, upon request, to privacy, which includes the right to refuse an interview, deposition or other discovery request, and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interaction to which the victim consents;

7. The right, upon request, to reasonable, accurate and timely notice of, and to be present at, all proceedings involving the criminal or delinquent conduct, including release, plea, sentencing, adjudication and disposition, and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated;

8. The right, upon request, to be promptly notified of any release or escape of the accused;

9. The right to be heard in any proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, adjudication, disposition or parole, and any proceeding during which a right of the victim is implicated;

10. The right, upon request, to confer with the attorney for the government;

11. The right to provide information regarding the impact of the offender's conduct on the victim and the victim's family to the individual responsible for conducting any pre-sentence or disposition sentence investigation report or plan of disposition, and to have any such information considered in any sentencing or disposition recommendations;

12. The right, upon request, to receive a copy of any pre-sentence report or plan of disposition, and any other report or record relevant to the exercise of a victim's right, except for those portions made confidential by law;

13. The right, upon request, to the prompt return of the victim's property when no longer needed as evidence in the case;

14. The right to full and timely restitution in every case and from each offender for all losses suffered by the victim as a result of the criminal conduct and as provided by law for all losses suffered as a result of delinquent conduct. All monies and property collected from any person who has been ordered to make restitution shall be first applied to the restitution owed to the victim before paying any amounts owed to the government;

15. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, and to a prompt and final conclusion of the case and any related post-judgment proceedings;

16. The right, upon request, to be informed of the conviction, adjudication, sentence, disposition, place and time of incarceration, detention or other disposition of the offender, any scheduled release date of the offender, and the release of or the escape by the offender from custody;

17. The right, upon request, to be informed in a timely manner of all post-judgment processes and procedures, to participate in such processes and procedures, to provide information to the release authority to be considered before any release decision is made, and to be notified of any release decision regarding the offender. Any parole authority shall extend the right to be heard to any person harmed by the offender;

18. The right, upon request, to be informed in a timely manner of clemency and expungement procedures, to provide information to the Governor, the court, any clemency board and other authority in these procedures, and to have that information considered before a clemency or expungement decision is made, and to be notified of such decision in advance of any release of the offender; and

19. The right to be informed of these rights, and to be informed that a victim can seek the advice of an attorney with respect to the victim's rights. This information shall be made available to the general public and provided to each crime victim in what is referred to as a Marsy's Card.

The victim, the retained attorney of the victim, a lawful representative of the victim, or the attorney for the government, upon request of the victim, may assert and seek enforcement of the rights enumerated in this section and any other right afforded to a victim by law in any trial or appellate court, or before any other authority with jurisdiction over the case, as a matter of right. The court or other authority with jurisdiction shall act promptly on such a request, affording a remedy by due course of law for the violation of any right and ensuring that victims' rights and interests are protected in a manner no less vigorous than the protections afforded to criminal defendants and children accused of delinquency. The reasons for any decision regarding the disposition of a victim's right shall be clearly stated on the record.

The granting of these rights to any victim shall ensure the victim has a meaningful role throughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems and may not be construed to deny or disparage other rights possessed by victims. All provisions of this section apply throughout criminal and juvenile justice processes, are self-enabling and require no further action by the Legislature. The Legislature, or the people by initiative or referendum, have the authority to enact substantive and procedural laws to further define, implement, preserve, and protect the rights guaranteed to victims by this section.

As used in this section, the term, victim, means a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act or against whom the a crime or delinquent act is committed. The In the case of a victim who is killed or incapacitated as a result of the crime or delinquent act, or who is a minor, the term also includes any spouse, parent, child, sibling, or as designated by the court, grandparent, child, sibling, grandchild, or guardian, and any person with a relationship to the victim that is substantially similar to a listed relationship, and includes a lawful representative of a victim who is deceased, incompetent, a minor, or physically or mentally incapacitated. The term does not include the accused or a person whom the court finds would not act in the best interests of a deceased, incompetent, minor or incapacitated victim.

Nothing in this section or any law enacted under this section creates a cause of action for damages against the state or any political subdivision of the state, or any officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any political subdivision of the state.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 13.3, and the FRE is 30.3. The word count for the ballot title is 17, and the estimated reading time is 4 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 10.7, and the FRE is 51.1. The word count for the ballot summary is 164, and the estimated reading time is 43 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Supporters

• South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley
• Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom
• South Dakota House Speaker Mark Mickelson (R)
• Krista Hereen-Graber, Executive Director of the South Dakota Network Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse

Thom, Mickelson, and Hereen-Graber authored the voter pamphlet's pro argument for Amendment Y.

Arguments

• House Speaker Mark Mickelson said, "People voted for it the first time, and we're fixing some of the unintended consequences. It strengthens victims' rights. If you were for it before, you're for it again, and if you had some concerns about it before, it's better now." He said, "What it does is give the victim and the victim’s family members the same ‘co-equal’ rights as the accused and convicted – nothing more, nothing less."

• Minnehana County Sheriff Mike Milstead said the amendment would allow authorities to release business names and locations where crimes occur, which his office has not done since Marsy's Law went into effect. He said, “Every armed robbery where a business name was not able to be put out, it impacted. If we’re not able to say that it was this business, and people remember that they saw someone come out of that business, it’s made it more difficult to get tips and solve that crime.”

• A strategy consultant for the Marsy's Law for All campaign, Ryan Erwin, said, "This is a group of people that haven’t always seen eye-to-eye on everything, and really do now. I know there’s a genuine desire to get this passed to help law enforcement and continue to protect victims’ rights.”

• Attorney General Marty Jackley said, "That's a core function of what we do in law enforcement every day. I feel strongly that those victims deserve better protections and better rights."

Voter pamphlet arguments

The following statement was submitted as the pro-Constitutional Amendment Y argument in the ballot question voter pamphlet for the June 2018 election:

“

Two years ago, South Dakota voters approved a constitutional amendment called “Marsy’s Law” to protect the rights of crime victims. That good measure had some unintended consequences. This amendment fixes the problems and keeps the important protections of Marsy’s Law. This amendment maintains the constitutional right of victims of criminal acts to participate in criminal proceedings in South Dakota. It clarifies that most of these rights are available at the request of the victim and that in most cases the victim must be the individual victimized by a criminal act to assert these rights. The amendment also clarifies that law enforcement can share information with the public to help solve crimes. Passing this amendment will save money for county governments and it will avoid unnecessary lawsuits about these rights. This amendment is widely supported by victims and their advocates, states attorneys, sheriffs and police chiefs, and county officials. It was supported by the Governor and by legislators from both political parties. In addition, the national group that wrote and promoted “Marsy’s Law” two years ago also supports this amendment.

”

Campaign advertisements

Amendment Y in South Dakota: Empowering Crime Victims and Law Enforcement

Amendment Y in South Dakota: Effective Constitutional Rights For Crime Victims

Amendment Y in South Dakota: Vote Yes on Y to Support Crime Victims & Law Enforcement in SD

Opposition

Democrat Cory Heidelberger of Aberdeen—a candidate for state Senate District 3—urged a "no" vote on the amendment. Heidelberger said, "I wrote the con statement for the ballot question pamphlet because I was afraid no one else would... and it turned out I was right! As far as I know, no one else submitted a draft con statement in response to the Secretary of State's public invitation for submissions. Voters deserve to hear pro/con statements on every ballot measure, as there are at least two sides to every ballot issue." He said the amendment would be “bad for our constitution and for South Dakotans' rights." Heidelberger explained, "Finally, I voted no because it violates due process and the presumption of innocence, problems that Marsy's Fix leaves unremedied.”

Arguments

Voter pamphlet arguments

The following statement was submitted as the con-Constitutional Amendment Y argument in the ballot question voter pamphlet for the June 2018 election:

“

Marsy's Law is an abomination, graffiti scrawled across our constitution by a California billionaire who has never set foot in our state to explore or explain the need for his proposal in South Dakota. Amendment Y—Marsy's Fix—etches this abomination indelibly into our constitution. When first proposed by legislators, Amendment Y originally offered the one true fix for Marsy's Law—complete repeal of this unnecessary, costly, and unconstitutional amendment. But when that California billionaire came waving his money, legislators caved and offered Marsy's Fix to appease him. Amendment Y promises to save some money, though no one (as of the date of this writing) has explained how much. Marsy's Law will still place demands on county budgets that didn't exist before that California billionaire barged into our constitution. Amendment Y is actually costing us more money right now by its special, rushed placement on this primary ballot. Amendment Y also does nothing to address Marsy's Law's unjust infringement on the sacred principle of "innocent until proven guilty." By failing to take this bull by the horns, by letting Amendment Y pass, we will only strengthen the California billionaire's ability to force his vanity project down the throats of other states, imposing similar untold expense on taxpayers across America just as he has done to South Dakota. If we really want to help counties, we should reject this appeasers' proposal and demand that the Legislature return to its original, braver, wiser idea: repeal Marsy's Law completely. Send a message to America that this California billionaire's folly does not protect victims, does not protect due process, and does not belong in any state's constitution. Send a message to our Legislature that we want real South Dakota solutions, not favors for out-of-state billionaires. Vote NO on Amendment Y.

”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for South Dakota ballot measures

There was one committee—Marsy's Law for South Dakota LLC—registered in support of Amendment Y. No committees were registered to oppose Amendment Y. Marsy's Law for South Dakota was also the name of the committee that supported the Marsy's Law amendment passed in 2016 that would be changed by Amendment Y. Both committees were chaired and funded by Henry Nicholas, who founded Marsy's Law for All and is responsible for most of the funding behind Marsy's Law measures in other states as well. The 2018 Marsy's Law for South Dakota LLC committee had reported $450,000.00 in cash donations, all from Henry Nicholas, and $289,923.40 in expenditures.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$450,000.00	$0.00	$450,000.00	$289,923.40	$289,923.40
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$450,000.00	$0.00	$450,000.00	$289,923.40	$289,923.40

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Amendment Y
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Marsy's Law for South Dakota	$450,000.00	$0.00	$450,000.00	$289,923.40	$289,923.40
Total	$450,000.00	$0.00	$450,000.00	$289,923.40	$289,923.40

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Henry Nicholas	$450,000.00	$0.00	$450,000.00

Background

Marsy's Law

See also: Marsy's Law crime victim rights

Marsy's Law is a type of crime victims' rights legislation. Henry Nicholas, the co-founder of Broadcom Corp., started campaigning for Marsy's Law to increase the rights and privileges of victims in state constitutions. Marsy's Law is named after Nicholas' sister, Marsy Nicholas, who was murdered in 1983.

Henry Nicholas was the sponsor of the first Marsy's Law, which was on the ballot in California as Proposition 9 in 2008. He formed the national organization, Marsy's Law for All, in 2009.

Ballotpedia identified $113.2 million in total contributions to the support campaigns for the 14 Marsy's Law ballot measures. Henry Nicholas and the organization Marsy's Law for All provided 91 percent—about 103.2 million—of the total contributions.

The following map shows the status of Marsy's Law ballot measures across the states:

California Proposition 9

Californians voted on Proposition 9 in 2008, which was the first ballot measure known as Marsy's Law. Proposition 9 required that victims and their families be notified during all aspects of the justice process, including bail, sentencing, and parole; and that authorities take a victim's safety into concern when assigning bail or conducting a parole review. Along with Henry Nicholas, Proposition 9 received support from Crime Victims United of California and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Proposition 9 faced opposition from the California Teachers Association, the SEIU California State Council, the California Democratic Party, and the California Federation of Teachers. Proposition 9 passed with about 54 percent of the vote and became a model for several subsequent Marsy's Law ballot measures across the United States.

Marsy's Law ballot measures

The first state to vote on Marsy's Law after California was Illinois in 2014. The constitutional amendment received 72.3 percent of the vote in Illinois.

Marsy's Law for All organized campaigns for ballot initiatives in three states in 2016—Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Voters in each state approved the ballot initiative. Montana's Marsy's Law was ruled unconstitutional in 2017 because the ballot initiative, according to the court, violated the state's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. In June 2018, the South Dakota Legislature asked voters to amend Marsy's Law via Amendment Y. Amendment Y, which was approved, was defined to narrow the definition of crime victim and require victims to opt-in to Marsy's Law's protections, rather than making those protections automatic.

In 2017, Marsy's Law was on the ballot in Ohio as Issue 1 and received 82.6 percent of the vote.

The number of Marsy's Law amendments in state constitutions doubled in 2018 from six to 12. The states that voted on Marsy's Law in 2018 were Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Kentucky's Marsy's Law was ruled invalid in June 2019 because the language for the ballot measure, according to the court, did not meet constitutional requirements.

The Pennsylvania General Assembly referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on November 5, 2019. The Wisconsin State Legislature referred Marsy's Law to the ballot for the election on April 7, 2020.

The following table describes the outcome of votes on Marsy's Law ballot measures:

State	Measure	Year	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”	Status
California	Proposition 9	2008	53.84%	46.16%	Approved
Illinois	Amendment	2014	78.45%	21.55%	Approved
Montana	Initiative 116	2016	66.09%	33.91%	Approved (Overturned)
North Dakota	Measure 3	2016	62.03%	37.97%	Approved
South Dakota	Amendment S	2016	59.61%	40.39%	Approved (Amended)
Ohio	Issue 1	2017	82.59%	17.41%	Approved
Florida	Amendment 6	2018	61.61%	38.39%	Approved
Georgia	Amendment 4	2018	80.93%	19.07%	Approved
Kentucky	Amendment	2018	62.81%	37.19%	Approved (Overturned)
Nevada	Question 1	2018	61.19%	38.81%	Approved
North Carolina	Amendment	2018	62.13%	37.87%	Approved
Oklahoma	State Question 794	2018	78.01%	21.99%	Approved
Average			66.44%	33.56%

Referred amendments on the ballot

From 1995 through 2017, there were a total of 70 measures on statewide ballots in South Dakota. Of those, 33 were legislatively referred constitutional amendments. Of the 33 constitutional amendment referred to the ballot by the legislature, voters approved 16 (48.5 percent) and defeated 17 (51.5 percent). The approval rate for all 70 measures—which includes citizen-initiated measures and legislative referrals—was 40 percent. Ballot measures were featured on the ballot in an odd-numbered year only once (2001) in this time period. The average number of legislatively referred constitutional amendments on the ballot during even-numbered years was between two and three. The maximum number of legislatively referred constitutional amendments was six in 1998.

Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1995-2017
Total number	Approved	Percent approved	Defeated	Percent defeated	Even-year average	Even-year median	Annual minimum	Annual maximum
33	16	48.48%	17	51.52%	2.82	2.00	1	6

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in South Dakota

Poll times

In South Dakota, all polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. If the polls close while you are still in line, you will be permitted to vote. South Dakota is divided between Central and Mountain time zones.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in South Dakota, an applicant must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of South Dakota, and at least 18 years old by the day of the next election.

The deadline to register to vote is 15 days before the next election. To register, an applicant may submit a voter registration form to the county auditor. Prospective voters can also register in person at the county auditor's office, driver's license stations, certain public assistance agencies, or military recruitment offices.

Automatic registration

South Dakota does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

South Dakota does not permit online voter registration.

Same-day registration

South Dakota does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in South Dakota, you must be a resident of the state for at least thirty consecutive days.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

South Dakota does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. One state, Ohio, requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The South Dakota Secretary of State’s office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

South Dakota requires voters to present photo identification while voting.

Voters can present the following forms of identification:

• South Dakota driver's license or nondriver ID card
• U.S. government photo ID
• U.S. passport
• U.S. Armed Forces ID
• Current student photo identification card from a South Dakota high school or South Dakota accredited institution of higher education
• Tribal photo ID

If a voter does not have a photo ID, he or she can sign a personal identification affidavit. The voter will then be given a regular ballot.

Early voting

South Dakota permits early voting. Learn more by visiting this website.

Early voting permits citizens to cast ballots in person at a polling place prior to an election. In states that permit no-excuse early voting, a voter does not have to provide an excuse for being unable to vote on Election Day. States that allow voters to cast no-excuse absentee/mail-in ballots in person are counted as no-excuse early voting states.

Forty-seven states and the District of Columbia permit no-excuse early voting.

Absentee voting

All voters are eligible to vote absentee in South Dakota. There are no special eligibility requirements for voting absentee.

To vote absentee, an absentee ballot application must be received by county election officials no later than 5 p.m. the day before the election. A completed absentee ballot must then be received by election officials by the close of polls on Election Day.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the South Dakota Constitution

To put a legislatively referred constitutional amendment before voters, a simple majority vote is required in both the South Dakota State Senate and the South Dakota House of Representatives.

On January 24, 2018, a proposal to repeal Marsy's Law in South Dakota was introduced in the state legislature as House Joint Resolution 1004 (HJR 1004). After a compromise with proponents of this initiative, HJR 1004 was changed from a proposal repealing Marsy's Law to a proposal making certain changes to it. HJR 1004 was sponsored by 41 representatives—58.6 of the 70 members—and 16 senators—45.7 percent of the 35 members. Sponsors included House Speaker Mark Mickelson and House Majority Leader Lee Qualm. The sponsors in both the House and the Senate included one Democrat each: House Minority Leader Spencer Hawley and Sen. Craig Kennedy.

On February 21, 2018, the state House unanimously approved HJR 1004, with five members excused. This vote sent HRJ 1004 to the state Senate.

On February 28, 2018, the state Senate amended HJR 1004 to allow for the measure go on the ballot for the primary election on June 5, 2018, instead requiring that it go on the ballof for the November general election. The Senate approved the amended version of HJR 1004 in a 27-8 vote along party lines; the 27 votes in favor were from Republicans and all six Democrats voted against the amended version of HJR 1004. The amendment was sent back to the state House for a vote on the proposed election date change. The House concurred with the amendment in a vote of 61-6 on March 7, 2018, certifying the proposed amendment for the ballot.

A separate bill—House Bill 1162—actually calling for the measure to be placed on the June election and allocating $200,000 for election expenses was also passed on March 7, 2018, and Gov. Daugaard had previously said that he would sign the bill for the June election date.

Vote in the South Dakota State Senate February 28, 2018
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 18  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	27	8	0
Total percent	77.14%	22.86%	0.00%
Democrat	0	6	0
Republican	27	2	0

Vote in the South Dakota House of Representatives March 7, 2018
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 36  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	61	6	3
Total percent	87.14%	8.57%	4.29%
Democrat	4	5	1
Republican	57	1	2

Election date

A bill was passed on March 7, 2018, that put this measure on the primary election in June 2018, rather than the November election. It was also designed to allocate $200,000 for election expenses related to putting the amendment on the June ballot. A statewide ballot measure has never been placed on a primary election ballot before, according to the secretary of state. The last time a measure was placed on a special election ballot was in April 2001.

The earlier election date was supported by House Speaker Mark Mickelson (R-13), who sponsored the proposal to make changes to the 2016 Marsy's Law amendment. He said that the measure would not get lost among other races on the primary ballot like it would at the November election and that he thought it would pass regardless of what election ballot was chosen. Mickelson also said that the earlier passage of the amendment would ultimately save money and could improve the turnout at the primary election. Marsy's Law for All also supported the earlier election date so that the measure could be clarified as soon as possible. Marsy's Law for All strategy consultant Ryan Erwin said, "If there were an election tomorrow, we would be for that."

Senate Democratic Leader Billie Sutton (D-21) opposed the earlier election date because of the $200,000 cost and the lower expected turnout. As of March 7, 2018, Sutton was the only Democratic candidate for governor. Sutton said, "I just don't think we want to continue to go down this road of putting it on the primary when we clearly know that in the general you're going to have a better turnout and more people are going to weigh in on that." House Minority Leader Spencer Hawley (D-7) also opposed the June election date, saying, “I cannot let the ends justify the means by doing this."

Proposed repeal and compromise with Marsy's Law for All

House Joint Resolution 1004 was introduced as a constitutional amendment to repeal Marsy's Law. In early February 2018, Mickelson said that, if the legislature could come to a compromise with Marsy's Law for All about changes to the constitutional amendment, then the legislature would seek to alter it rather than repeal it. Mickelson said changes he would want to see were to require victims to opt into the Marsy's Law bill of rights, to allow law enforcement to share information with the public for the purpose of solving crimes, and to adjust the notification requirements for law enforcement officials. On February 14, 2018, it was announced that a compromise had been reached, and Mickelson amended his proposal to make changes—which were approved by Marsy's Law for All—to the Marsy's Law amendment instead of repealing it. Mickelson said he would push for putting the amendment on the ballot for the primary election on June 5, 2018, in accordance with a request by the group.

Before a compromise with Marsy's Law for All was proposed, South Dakota House Speaker Mark Mickelson said that the legislature would pass bills adding rights to the state's statutes regarding crime victims before putting a proposal to repeal Amendment S before voters. Mickelson said, "We’re going to strengthen South Dakota victims’ rights. Part of that is removing the unintended consequences of Marsy’s Law from the constitution.”

Gail Gitcho, a representative of Marsy's Law for All, responded to the introduction of HJR 1004 and to Mickelson, saying, “If it goes back into statute, then those rights are spineless. They have no teeth. It looks like the speaker wants to take away rights from people that were already guaranteed to them by the constitution.”

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Law enforcement on the ballot

South Dakota

• South Dakota ballot measures
• South Dakota ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• South Dakota House Joint Resolution 1004
• June 5, 2018, (Amendment Y) ballot question voter pamphlet

Support

• Marsy's Law for South Dakota website
• Marsy's Law for South Dakota Facebook

Opposition

If you know of links that should be included here, email editor@ballotpedia.org.