Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024)
 |
U.S. House • State executive offices • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • Municipal • How to run for office |
 |
| South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2024 | |
| Topic Abortion | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, the Right to Abortion Initiative, was on the ballot in South Dakota as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024.[1] The ballot measure was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported providing for a state constitutional right to abortion in South Dakota, using a trimester framework for regulation:
|
A "no" vote opposed providing for a state constitutional right to abortion in South Dakota, using a trimester framework for regulation. |
Election results
See also: Results for abortion-related ballot measures, 2024
|
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 176,809 | 41.41% | ||
|
|
250,136 | 58.59% | ||
Overview
What would Constitutional Amendment G have changed about abortion policy in South Dakota?
- See also: Text of measure
Constitutional Amendment G would have provided a state constitutional right to abortion and stated that the state could not regulate abortion before the end of the first trimester. During the second trimester, the state would have been allowed to regulate abortion, but only in ways reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman. In the third trimester, the state could have regulated or prohibited abortion, except when abortion was necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman.[1]
What was the status of abortion in South Dakota?
- See also: Status of abortion in South Dakota
In South Dakota, as of 2024, abortion was banned except to save the life of the mother. In 2005, South Dakota passed the law banning abortion, except to save the life of the mother. However, the law did not go into effect until the U.S. Supreme Court issued Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. In 2023, South Dakota enacted a law that provided that the woman who receives an unlawful abortion is not criminally liable. South Dakota mandates a 72-hour waiting period and counseling before an abortion is performed. The state also required that a parent or legal guardian of a minor must be notified 48 hours before a minor's abortion or that a judge must approve a petition for the minor to have an abortion without parental notification. South Dakota also prohibited public funding for abortion.[2]
Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Constitutional Amendment G?
- See also: Support and opposition
Dakotans for Health was leading the campaign in support of the initiative.[3] Rick Weiland, chairman of Dakotans for Health, said, "The Freedom Amendment is about empowering individuals to make deeply personal decisions about their own bodies and futures. Every woman deserves the freedom to choose whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy."[3]
Life Defense Fund was leading the campaign opposing the initiative.[4] The campaign said, "The proposed South Dakota Abortion Constitutional Amendment would be one of the most extreme abortion laws in the nation. The Abortion Amendment would legalize painful, late-term abortion, all the way to the point of birth."[4]
What states have decided on abortion ballot measures in 2022 and 2023?
- See also: History of abortion ballot measures
In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion and overturned Roe. v. Wade, placing many abortion policy decisions with the states. From 2022 to 2023, seven ballot measures addressing abortion have been on the ballot, with 2022 having the highest number of abortion ballot measures on record in a single year. Four measures—in Vermont, Michigan, and California in 2022, and Ohio in 2023— were sponsored by campaigns that described themselves as pro-choice and created state constitutional rights to abortion. All four measures were approved. Three measures—in Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana— were sponsored by campaigns describing themselves as pro-life and were designed to explicitly provide that there is no right to abortion in the state constitution. All three were defeated.
What states voted on abortion ballot measures in 2024?
The following table provides a list of abortion-related measures that were on the ballot in 2024:
| State | Date | Measure | Description | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arizona | Nov. 5, 2024 | Right to Abortion Initiative | • Establishes the fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability | 
|
| Colorado | Nov. 5, 2024 | Right to Abortion Initiative | • Provide a constitutional right to abortion in the state constitution and allow the use of public funds for abortion |
|
| Florida | Nov. 5, 2024 | Florida Amendment 4 | • Provide a constitutional right to abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider |
|
| Maryland | Nov. 5, 2024 | Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment | • Amend the Maryland Constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom, defined to include "decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy" |
|
| Missouri | Nov. 5, 2024 | Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment | • Amend the Missouri Constitution to provide the right for reproductive freedom, and provide that the state legislature may enact laws that regulate abortion after fetal viability |
|
| Montana | Nov. 5, 2024 | CI-128, Right to Abortion Initiative | • Amend the Montana Constitution to provide a state constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion" |
|
| Nebraska | Nov. 5, 2024 | Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment | • Amend the Nebraska Constitution to provide that "unborn children shall be protected from abortion in the second and third trimesters" |
|
| Nebraska | Nov. 5, 2024 | Right to Abortion Initiative | • Amend the Nebraska Constitution to provide that "all persons shall have a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability" |
|
| New York | Nov. 5, 2024 | Equal Protection of Law Amendment | • Add language to the New York Bill of Rights to provide that people cannot be denied rights based on their "ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability" or "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy." |
|
| Nevada | Nov. 5, 2024 | Right to Abortion Initiative | • Establish the constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to protect the life, physical health, or mental health of the pregnant woman. |
|
| South Dakota | Nov. 5, 2024 | Constitutional Amendment G | • Provide a trimester framework for regulating abortion in the South Dakota Constitution |
|
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[5]
| “ |
Title: An Initiated Amendment Establishing a Right to Abortion in the State Constitution. Attorney General Explanation: This initiated amendment establishes a constitutional right to an abortion and provides a legal framework for the regulation of abortion. This framework would override existing laws and regulations concerning abortion. The amendment establishes that during the first trimester a pregnant woman's decision to obtain an abortion may not be regulated nor may regulations be imposed on the carrying out of an abortion. In the second trimester, the amendment allows the regulation of a pregnant woman's abortion decision, and the regulation of carrying out an abortion. Any regulation of a pregnant woman's abortion decision, or of an abortion, during the second trimester must be reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman. In the third trimester, the amendment allows the regulation or prohibition of abortion except in those cases where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman. Whether an abortion is necessary during the third trimester must be determined by the pregnant woman's physician according to the physician's medical judgment. Judicial clarification of the amendment may be necessary. The Legislature cannot alter the provisions of a constitutional amendment. Vote "Yes" to adopt the amendment. Vote "No" to leave the Constitution as it is. [6] |
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article VI, South Dakota Constitution
The ballot initiative would have added a new section to Article VI of the South Dakota Constitution, which is the state's Bill of Rights. The following underlined language would have added:[1]
Before the end of the first trimester, the State may not regulate a pregnant woman's abortion decision and its effectuation, which must be left to the judgment of the pregnant woman.
After the end of the first trimester and until the end of the second trimester, the State may regulate the pregnant woman's abortion decision and its effectuation only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.
After the end of the second trimester, the State may regulate or prohibit abortion, except when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman.[6]
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024
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 14, and the FRE is 18. The word count for the ballot title is 12.
The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 20. The word count for the ballot summary is 186.
Support
Dakotans for Health was leading the campaign in support of the initiative.[3]
Supporters
Former Officials
- State Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry (D)
Political Parties
Organizations
Arguments
Opposition
Life Defense Fund was the campaign opposing the initiative.[4] Students for Life of America is also registered to oppose the initiative.[7]
Opponents
Officials
- U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R)
- U.S. Sen. John Thune (R)
- Gov. Kristi L. Noem (R)
- State Rep. Jon Hansen (R)
- U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R)
Political Parties
Organizations
Arguments
Campaign finance
Dakotans for Health was the campaign registered to support the amendment. Life Defense Fund and Students for Life of America were the campaigns registered to oppose the amendment.[8]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $1,606,703.65 | $0.00 | $1,606,703.65 | $1,600,338.99 | $1,600,338.99 |
| Oppose | $1,130,178.57 | $125,242.23 | $1,255,420.80 | $1,086,889.79 | $1,212,132.02 |
| Total | $2,736,882.22 | $125,242.23 | $2,862,124.45 | $2,687,228.78 | $2,812,471.01 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.[8]
| Committees in support of Constitutional Amendment G | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Dakotans for Health | $1,606,703.65 | $0.00 | $1,606,703.65 | $1,600,338.99 | $1,600,338.99 |
| Total | $1,606,703.65 | $0.00 | $1,606,703.65 | $1,600,338.99 | $1,600,338.99 |
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees.[8]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Think Big America | $830,000.00 | $0.00 | $830,000.00 |
| Michelle Lochner | $100,000.00 | $0.00 | $100,000.00 |
| Elizabeth Zieglmeier | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
| Stanford Adelstein | $10,000.00 | $0.00 | $10,000.00 |
| Arlene Kirby | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| Evelyn Rozner | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
| Merwin Foster | $5,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.[8]
| Committees in opposition to Constitutional Amendment G | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Life Defense Fund | $1,120,366.18 | $125,242.23 | $1,245,608.41 | $1,077,077.40 | $1,202,319.63 |
| Students for Life of America | $9,812.39 | $0.00 | $9,812.39 | $9,812.39 | $9,812.39 |
| Total | $1,130,178.57 | $125,242.23 | $1,255,420.80 | $1,086,889.79 | $1,212,132.02 |
Donors
The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees.[8]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Catholic Diocese of Sioux Falls | $75,000.00 | $40,000.00 | $115,000.00 |
| SD Right to Life Committee | $68,000.00 | $0.00 | $68,000.00 |
| Jericho Wall | $7,800.00 | $32,106.00 | $39,906.00 |
| Sioux Falls Right to Life | $26,755.00 | $0.00 | $26,755.00 |
| Prestige Auto Sales | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
Polls
- See also: 2024 ballot measure polls
- Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
| South Dakota Right to Abortion Amendment (2024) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Dakota News Watch | 10/12/24-10/26/24 | 500 RV | ± 3.3% | 49.8% | 46.8% | 3.4% |
| Question: "How will you vote on abortion measure?" | ||||||
| Emerson College Polling/KELO-TV/The Hill | 10/19/24-10/22/24 | 825 LV | ± 3.3% | 45% | 48.4% | 6.6% |
| Question: "Would you vote yes or no on South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, an initiated amendment establishing a right to abortion in the state constitution? A yes vote would adopt the amendment so during the first trimester a pregnant woman's decision to obtain an abortion may not be regulated. A no vote would leave the constitution as is." | ||||||
| South Dakota News Watch | 5/10/24-5/13/24 | 500 RV | ± 4.5% | 53.4% | 35.4% | 11.2% |
| Question: "Do you support the abortion amendment?" | ||||||
| South Dakota News Watch | 11/27/23-11/29/23 | 500 RV | ± 4.5% | 45.6% | 43.6% | 10.8% |
| Question: "Do you support or oppose a constitutional amendment that would allow for abortions during the first trimester?" | ||||||
Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.
Background
Status of abortion in South Dakota
In South Dakota, abortion is banned except to save the life of the mother. Following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization U.S. Supreme Court decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, a law that was enacted in 2005, § 22-17-5.1, came back into effect. In 2023, South Dakota enacted a law creating an exception to the abortion ban as it applies to the pregnant woman, and that a person who receives an unlawful abortion shall not be held criminally liable.[2]
South Dakota law mandates a 72-hour waiting period (excluding weekends and annual holidays) and counseling prior to an abortion. It also requires that a parent or legal guardian must be notified 48 hours prior to a minor’s abortion or that a judge must approve a minor’s petition without parental notification. South Dakota law also prohibits public funding for abortion.[2]
U.S. Supreme Court rulings on abortion
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
In 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a clinic and abortion facility in Mississippi, challenged the constitutionality of the "Gestational Age Act" in federal court. The newly enacted law prohibited abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities. The U.S. district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the law was unconstitutional, and put a permanent stop to the law's enforcement. On appeal, the 5th Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background. On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case.[9]
On June 24, 2022, in a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States found there was no constitutional right to abortion and overruled Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). In a 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Mississippi's abortion law at issue in the case. Roe v. Wade found that state laws criminalizing abortion prior to fetal viability violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade but rejected the trimester framework established in the case. The high court affirmed that states could not ban abortions before fetal viability.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its ruling in Roe v. Wade, finding that state laws criminalizing abortion prior to fetal viability violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The high court held that states can regulate and/or prohibit abortions (except those to preserve the life or health of the mother) once a fetus reaches the point of viability. Roe v. Wade defined fetal viability as "the interim point at which the fetus becomes 'viable,' that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." The high court further noted that "viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[10]
The ruling established a strict trimester framework to guide state abortion policies. States, according to this framework, were prohibited from banning or regulating abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. During the second trimester, states were permitted to regulate abortion to protect the mother's health. During the third trimester, states were allowed to ban abortion, except in cases where an abortion is needed to preserve the life or health of the mother.[10]
Abortion regulations by state
As of September 4, 2025, 41 states restricted abortions after a certain point in pregnancy.[11] The remaining nine states and Washington, D.C., did not. Of the 41 states with established thresholds for restrictions on abortion:
- Twelve states restrict abortion after conception
- Four states restrict abortion at six weeks post-fertilization
- Two states restrict abortion at 12 weeks post-fertilization
- Zero states restrict abortion at 15 weeks post-fertilization
- One state restricts abortion at 18 weeks since the last menstrual period
- Three states restrict abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization or 22 weeks after the last menstrual period
- Four states restrict abortion at 24 weeks since the last menstrual period
- Fourteen states restrict abortion at fetal viability
- One state restricts abortion in the third trimester
The maps and table below give more details on state laws restricting abortion based on the stage of pregnancy. Hover over the footnotes in the table for information on legislation pending legal challenges or otherwise not yet in effect.
Some of the terms that are used to describe states' thresholds for abortion restriction include the following:
- Conception: This threshold prohibits all abortions after conception, although some states provide exceptions if the woman's life or health is threatened.[12]
- Fetal heartbeat: This threshold restricts abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which may begin six weeks after the last menstrual period.[13][14]
- Fetal viability: In Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS defined fetal viability. The Supreme Court further noted that "viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[15]
- Last menstrual period: This threshold marks the beginning of a pregnancy from the first day of a woman's last menstrual period.[13]
- Post-fertilization: Thresholds using post-fertilization mark the beginning of pregnancy at the time of conception, which can occur up to 24 hours following intercourse. A threshold of 20 weeks post-fertilization is equivalent to 22 weeks since last menstrual period.[16]
- Post-implantation: Thresholds using post-implantation mark the beginning of pregnancy at the date on which a fertilized egg adheres to the lining of the uterus, roughly five days after fertilization. A threshold of 24 weeks post-implantation is equivalent to 27 weeks since last menstrual period.[16]
Abortion restriction threshold maps
Abortion restrictions by state
| State abortion restrictions based on stage of pregnancy | ||
|---|---|---|
| State | Does the state restrict abortion after a specific point in pregnancy? | Threshold for restriction |
| Alabama | Yes | Conception |
| Alaska | No | None |
| Arizona | Yes | Fetal viability[17][18] |
| Arkansas | Yes | Conception |
| California | Yes | Fetal viability |
| Colorado | No | None |
| Connecticut | Yes | Fetal viability |
| Delaware | Yes | Fetal viability |
| Florida | Yes | Six weeks post-fertilization |
| Georgia | Yes | Six weeks post-fertilization |
| Hawaii | Yes | Fetal viability |
| Idaho[19] | Yes | Conception |
| Illinois | Yes | Fetal viability |
| Indiana | Yes | Conception |
| Iowa | Yes | Six weeks post-fertilization |
| Kansas | Yes | 20 weeks since last menstrual period |
| Kentucky | Yes | Conception |
| Louisiana | Yes | Conception |
| Maine | Yes | Fetal viability |
| Maryland | No | None |
| Massachusetts | Yes | 24 weeks post-fertilization |
| Michigan | No | None |
| Minnesota | No | None |
| Mississippi | Yes | Conception |
| Missouri | Yes | Fetal viability[20][21] |
| Montana | Yes | Fetal viability |
| Nebraska | Yes | 12 weeks post-fertilization |
| Nevada | Yes | 24 weeks post-fertilization |
| New Hampshire | Yes | 24 weeks since last menstrual period |
| New Jersey | No | None |
| New Mexico | No | None |
| New York | Yes | Fetal viability |
| North Carolina | Yes | 12 weeks post-fertilization |
| North Dakota | Yes | Fetal viability[22] |
| Ohio | Yes | 20 weeks post-fertilization[23] |
| Oklahoma | Yes | Conception |
| Oregon | No | None |
| Pennsylvania | Yes | 24 weeks since last menstrual period |
| Rhode Island | Yes | Fetal viability |
| South Carolina | Yes | Six weeks post-fertilization |
| South Dakota | Yes | Conception |
| Tennessee | Yes | Conception |
| Texas | Yes | Conception |
| Utah | Yes | 18 weeks since last menstrual period |
| Vermont | No | None |
| Virginia | Yes | Third trimester since last menstrual period |
| Washington | Yes | Fetal viability |
| Washington, D.C. | No | None |
| West Virginia | Yes | Conception |
| Wisconsin | Yes | 20 weeks post-fertilization |
| Wyoming | Yes | Fetal viability |
| Sources:Guttmacher Institute, "State Policies on Later Abortions," accessed August 16, 2024; CNA, "TRACKER: Check the status of abortion trigger laws across the U.S.," accessed August 16, 2024; The Fuller Project, "How major abortion laws compare, state by state," accessed August 16, 2024 | ||
History of abortion ballot measures
- See also: History of abortion ballot measures
In 2022, there were six ballot measures addressing abortion. Measures were approved in California, Michigan, and Vermont. Measures were defeated in Kansas, Kentucky, and Montana.
From 1970 to November 2022, there were 53 abortion-related ballot measures, and 43 (81%) of these had the support of organizations that described themselves as pro-life. Voters approved 11 (26%) and rejected 32 (74%) of these 43 ballot measures. The other 10 abortion-related ballot measures had the support of organizations that described themselves as pro-choice or pro-reproductive rights. Voters approved seven (70%) and rejected three (30%).
Before Roe v. Wade in 1973, three abortion-related measures were on the ballot in Michigan, North Dakota, and Washington, and each was designed to allow abortion in its respective state.
The following graph shows the number of abortion-related ballot measures per year since 1970:
Constitutional rights
The topic constitutional rights addresses ballot measures that establish a state constitutional right to abortion. Campaigns that support these measures often describe themselves as pro-choice or pro-reproductive rights.
Constitutional interpretation
The topic constitutional interpretation addresses ballot measures designed to provide that state constitutions cannot be interpreted to establish a state constitutional right to abortion. These types of amendments are designed to address previous and future state court rulings on abortion that have prevented or could prevent legislatures from passing certain abortion laws. Campaigns that support these measures often describe themselves as pro-life.
| State | Year | Measure | Yes | No | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas | 2022 | No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment | 41.03% | 58.97% | |
| Kentucky | 2022 | No State Constitutional Right to Abortion Amendment | 47.65% | 52.35% | |
| Louisiana | 2020 | Amendment 1: No Right to Abortion in Constitution Amendment | 62.06% | 37.94% | |
| Alabama | 2018 | Amendment 2: State Abortion Policy Amendment | 59.01% | 40.99% | |
| West Virginia | 2018 | Amendment 1: No Right to Abortion in Constitution Measure | 51.73% | 48.27% | |
| Tennessee | 2014 | Amendment 1: No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment | 52.60% | 47.40% | |
| Florida | 2012 | Amendment 6: State Constitution Interpretation and Prohibit Public Funds for Abortions Amendment | 44.90% | 55.10% | |
| Massachusetts | 1986 | Question 1: No State Constitutional Right to Abortion and Legislative Power to Regulate Abortion Amendment | 41.83% | 58.17% | |
Path to the ballot
Process in South Dakota
In South Dakota, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in the previous gubernatorial election. Signatures must be submitted by the first Tuesday of May during a general election year.
The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2024 ballot:
- Signatures: 35,017 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was May 7, 2024.
Once the signatures have been gathered and filed, the secretary of state verifies the signatures using a random sample method.
Stages of this ballot initiative
- On June 17, 2022, the South Dakota Legislative Research Council reviewed the proposal put forward by Richard P. Weiland, who sponsored the measure.
- On Aug. 5, 2022, the Attorney General released an explanation for the amendment.[25]
- On Nov. 5, 2022, the Dakotans for Health campaign began collecting signatures for the initiative.[26]
- Dakotans for Health announced they had submitted signatures from more than 55,000 registered voters on May 1, 2024.[27]
- On May 17, the secretary of state's office confirmed that an estimated 46,098 valid signatures were submitted.[28]
Lawsuit
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Dakotans For Health petitioners provide affidavit showing residency status, and were petition sheets left unattended? | |
| Court: South Dakota Second Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Life Defense Fund | Defendant(s): Dakotans for Health |
Source: Complaint
On June 13, 2024, the Life Defense Fund filed a lawsuit with a South Dakota circuit court to remove the measure from the ballot, saying Dakotans for Health did not file an affidavit for petition circulators' residency, and that petitioners didn't always provide a required circulator handout and left petition sheets unattended. Life Defense Fund attorney Sara Frankenstein said, "The public should scrutinize Dakotan for Health’s comments and carefully consider its credibility. In the end, the Court will determine whether such unlawful conduct may result in the measure being included on the ballot." Rick Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, said, "They have thrown everything they could, and now the kitchen sink, to stop the voters from weighing in this November. We are confident that the people of South Dakota are going to be able to make this decision, not the politicians, come this November."[29] On July 15, Circuit Judge John Pekas dismissed the lawsuit.[30] On July 21, the Life Defense Fund filed an appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court.[31] On August 2, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's dismissal.[32] On November 15, 2024, Circuit Court Judge John Pekas granted Life Defense Fund's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In a statement, Life Defense Fund co-chair Leslee Unruh said, "The people have decided, and South Dakotans overwhelmingly rejected this constitutional abortion measure. We have won in the court of public opinion, and South Dakotans clearly saw the abortion lobby’s deception."[33]
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in South Dakota
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in South Dakota.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 South Dakota Secretary of State, "Initiative Petition," accessed November 20, 2023
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Center for Reproductive Rights, "South Dakota," accessed May 17, 2024
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Dakotans for Health, "Homepage," accessed April 27, 2023
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Life Defense Fund, "Homepage," accessed Oct 30, 2023
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, "2024 Ballot Questions," accessed September 13, 2024
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ Students for Life of America, "Homepage," accessed October 25, 2024
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 South Dakota Secretary of State, "Search," accessed May 18, 2024
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court to weigh in on Mississippi abortion ban intended to challenge Roe v. Wade," May 17, 2021
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Cornell University Law School, "Roe v. Wade," accessed April 27, 2017
- ↑ Note: Exceptions to these thresholds are generally provided when pregnancy threatens the mother's life or health.
- ↑ The Fuller Project, "How major abortion laws compare, state by state," accessed December 4, 2022
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 Kaiser Family Foundation, "States with Gestational Limits for Abortion," August 1, 2020
- ↑ Guttmacher Institute, "State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy," September 1, 2021
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 Guttmacher Institute, "The Implications of Defining When a Woman Is Pregnant," May 9, 2005
- ↑ Voters approved Proposition 139 on November 5, 2024, amending the state constitution to provide for the fundamental right to abortion, among other provisions. The amendment was set to go into effect once Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) certified the election results following the November 25, 2024, canvass deadline.
- ↑ Axios, "When Arizona's new abortion measure will take effect," November 7, 2024
- ↑ In a 6-3 decision in Moyle v. United States (consolidated with Idaho v. United States), the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2024, reinstated a U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho ruling that temporarily blocked the state of Idaho from enforcing the part of a 2022 law that barred abortion in case of certain medical emergencies.
- ↑ Voters approved Amendment 3, which provided for a right to abortion in the state constitution. The amendment was set to take effect 30 days after the election.
- ↑ Missouri Independent, "Missouri voters approve Amendment 3, overturn state’s abortion ban," November 5, 2024
- ↑ On September 12, 2024, a state judge ruled against North Dakota's abortion ban. The state appealed the ruling, and litigation is ongoing.
- ↑ Ohio voters approved Issue 1 in 2023, allowing the state to restrict abortion only after fetal viability. However, the state's previous restrictions on abortion—such as SB 127, which banned abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization—remained on the books. As of August 2024, courts had not weighed in on the interaction between Issue 1 and the older laws.
- ↑ Note: Florida Amendment 4 needed to receive a 60% vote to be approved.
- ↑ Keloland.com, "AG releases explanation for possible abortion amendment," August 5, 2022
- ↑ SDPB, "Group starts petition drive for 2024 abortion rights question," November 5, 2022
- ↑ NBC News, "South Dakota abortion rights groups collect enough signatures to advance ballot measure," May 1, 2024
- ↑ South Dakota Searchlight, "Abortion-rights measure validated for the ballot, but challenge expected," May 16, 2024
- ↑ Associated Press, "An anti-abortion group in South Dakota sues to take an abortion rights initiative off the ballot," June 24, 2024
- ↑ KOTATV, "Judge strikes down lawsuit to prevent abortion amendment removal from November ballots in South Dakota," July 16, 2024
- ↑ Bluestem Prairie, "Anti-abortion group appeals judge's ruling on abortion rights amendment to SD Supreme Court," July 21, 2024
- ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "South Dakota Court Decision Threatens Abortion Rights Measure on November Ballot," August 5, 2024
- ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "Judge Dismisses a Lawsuit Over South Dakota Abortion-Rights Measure That Voters Rejected," November 19, 2024
- ↑ South Dakota Secretary of State, “General Voting Information,” accessed July 23, 2024
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 South Dakota Secretary of State, “Register to Vote, Update Voter Registration or Cancel Voter Registration,” accessed July 23, 2024
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 NCSL, "State Profiles: Elections," accessed July 23, 2024
- ↑ 2025 South Dakota Legislature, "HB 1066," accessed April 2, 2025
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ 39.0 39.1 South Dakota Secretary of State, "General Voting Information," accessed July 23, 2024
 |
State of South Dakota Pierre (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
