Both Dakotas Put 60% Constitutional-Amendment Thresholds on November 2026 Ballots, Targeting Citizen Initiatives

Republican legislators in both Dakotas have referred measures to their November 2026 ballots that would raise the threshold for approving state constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60 percent. In South Dakota the measure is Amendment L, sponsored by Representative John Hughes, and it reaches any constitutional amendment — those initiated directly by voters and those referred by the legislature alike. In North Dakota the parallel measure is Constitutional Measure 2 (HCR 3003), sponsored by Rep. Robin Weisz (R-Hurdsfield), likewise placed on the ballot by the legislature. Neither has been enacted: both are proposals that voters themselves will decide in November, and each would take effect only if approved. The precision matters, because a simple majority is what will decide whether simple majorities keep deciding.

The benchmark South Dakota’s sponsors are working against is on the record. The state’s 2022 Medicaid expansion passed with just over 56 percent of the vote — enough under the current rule, short of the proposed one. That is the operative shape of a supermajority threshold: it does not block unpopular measures, which fail anyway. It blocks measures that win, by a margin large enough to be a clear majority and small enough to be nullified. In both states the initiative process has been the route around a legislature that would not act — North Dakota voters used it for ethics reform in 2018 and term limits in 2022. State Representative Jared Hendrix, a Republican who led that 2022 term-limits initiative before his own election, opposes Constitutional Measure 2 [CORRECTED 2026-08-28 — body text previously said “Measure 1,” a measure that does not exist in this ballot; the 2026-08-27 correction block below already established the measure is Constitutional Measure 2/HCR 3003, but this reference to Hendrix’s opposition had not been updated to match], saying the initiative “should still be an avenue that we can use with reasonable guardrails” — dissent from inside the party advancing the change.

The mechanism belongs in the same column as the other structural moves narrowing electoral participation ahead of the 2026 midterms rather than in a category of its own. Where the Voting Rights Act rollback reshaped who can elect representatives (2026-06-12–vra-gutted-southern-states-race-to-redraw-maps-eliminating-majority-black-districts, 2026-05-04–scotus-callais-vra-section-2-immediate-effect-order-overrides-100k-ballots) and the mail-ballot executive order litigation reshaped how votes are cast (2026-08-24–scotus-shadow-docket-stay-lifts-block-trump-mail-ballot-eo), a 60 percent threshold reshapes what a majority is permitted to accomplish once it has voted. Bolts reports the Dakota measures as part of a wider pattern of supermajority-threshold bills across Republican-controlled states; the funding and model-bill provenance behind that pattern is not established in the reporting and remains an open question.

Correction and sourcing (added 2026-08-27)

Corrected: North Dakota’s measure is Constitutional Measure 2, not Measure 1. Verified against Ballotpedia and North Dakota Monitor: HCR 3003, sponsored by Rep. Robin Weisz (R-Hurdsfield), on the ballot November 3, 2026. It would require 60% for constitutional amendments initiated by petition and for constitutional resolutions referred by the Legislature. South Dakota’s companion is Amendment L (HJR 5003), sponsored by Rep. John Hughes.

On funding — the honest answer is split, and the tempting connection does not hold. The national supermajority-threshold campaign is documented: Ohio, Arkansas, and South Dakota’s own 2022 Amendment C trace to the Foundation for Government Accountability, funded principally by Illinois billionaire Dick Uihlein ($17.6M cumulative to FGA; $4-5.1M personally into Ohio’s Issue 1).

But no funding link to FGA, Uihlein, or any dark-money vehicle was found for these two 2026 measures. Ballotpedia shows no ballot committee registered for or against either, and no SD or ND campaign-finance filing surfaced. That is a verified absence as of 2026-08-27, not an unsearched gap — and it should not be closed by inference from the national pattern.

ALEC adopted a “Statement of Principles on Initiatives and Referenda” endorsing supermajority thresholds at its July 2026 meeting — which POSTDATES both bills’ 2025 passage by over a year. ALEC is formalizing an existing pattern here, not authoring these bills. The direction of that arrow matters.

The structural paradox has never been litigated anywhere — whether a simple-majority vote may raise the threshold for future simple-majority votes appears only as commentary. The closest analogue is Idaho’s 2021 “tyranny of the minority” ruling, on a different mechanism.

What the mechanism would kill: South Dakota’s 2022 Medicaid expansion passed with 56.21% — under 60%, and the clearest documented case of the initiative process delivering something a supermajority rule would have blocked.

Full working, including a 15-row state census: research-supermajority-ballot-initiative-campaign-funders-2026-08-27.