In 2016, South Dakota voters passed Initiated Measure 22 to reform campaign finance and lobbying, but the state legislature repealed it months later using an emergency clause. This action sparked a constitutional debate in the United States regarding the limits of legislative power over voter-approved initiatives.
TLDR: Following the 2016 election, South Dakota lawmakers utilized an emergency clause to repeal a voter-approved anti-corruption law. The move bypassed the referendum process and ignited a national conversation about the sanctity of direct democracy. The conflict eventually led to new constitutional protections for future ballot measures in the state.
In November 2016, South Dakota voters approved Initiated Measure 22, a comprehensive package of election and ethics reforms that promised to fundamentally alter the political landscape of the state. Known as the South Dakota Anti-Corruption Act, the measure sought to overhaul the state’s campaign finance system, tighten lobbying restrictions, and establish an independent ethics commission. It passed with 51.6 percent of the vote, reflecting a clear public desire for greater transparency and accountability in the state capital of Pierre.
The act introduced an innovative “democracy credits” program, which would have provided two $10 vouchers to every registered voter to donate to political candidates of their choice. This program was designed to diversify the donor pool and reduce the reliance of candidates on wealthy contributors. Additionally, the measure lowered the limits on campaign contributions from individuals and political action committees and prohibited state officials and their staff from accepting gifts from lobbyists that exceeded a total value of $100 per year. Proponents, led by the group Represent South Dakota, argued these measures would reduce the influence of special interests and empower the average citizen.
However, the victory for reform advocates was met with immediate resistance from the political establishment. Almost immediately after the election results were certified, a group of twenty-four Republican state lawmakers and several others filed a lawsuit, Bauch v. Daugaard, challenging the constitutionality of the measure. They argued that the act infringed on free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and improperly delegated legislative authority to an unelected commission. In December 2016, a circuit court judge issued a preliminary injunction, preventing the law from take effect while the legal challenge proceeded through the courts.
When the South Dakota Legislature convened for its 2017 session, the repeal of Measure 22 became the primary focus of the Republican majority. Lawmakers introduced House Bill 1069, which sought to completely dismantle the voter-approved initiative. To ensure the repeal could not be blocked by the public, the legislature attached an “emergency clause” to the bill. Under the South Dakota Constitution, laws passed with an emergency clause take effect immediately and are immune to the standard referendum process, which usually allows citizens to gather signatures to put a legislative act to a public vote.
The use of the emergency clause sparked significant public outcry across the state. Hundreds of citizens gathered at the state capitol to protest the repeal, filling the hallways and galleries to demand that the legislature respect the will of the voters. Critics accused the legislature of using a procedural loophole to silence the electorate and protect their own interests. Supporters of the repeal, including Governor Dennis Daugaard, maintained that the measure was poorly drafted, unconstitutional, and would have been impossible to implement without creating administrative chaos.
Governor Daugaard signed the repeal into law on February 2, 2017. The swift action effectively erased the Anti-Corruption Act from the books less than three months after it had been approved at the polls. While the legislature eventually passed a series of smaller ethics bills during the same session, these new laws lacked the “democracy credits” and the robust independent oversight mechanisms that had been the centerpiece of Measure 22.
The repeal of Measure 22 led to a lasting debate over the power and sanctity of the initiative process in South Dakota and the United States. In the years following the conflict, South Dakota voters and lawmakers continued to clash over ballot measure rules, leading to several subsequent constitutional amendments aimed at refining the process. The event remains a landmark case study in the tension between direct democracy and legislative supremacy, highlighting the challenges of implementing systemic election reform through the initiative process.
Sophie Carter serves as a Staff Writer for Just Right News, where she anchors the outlet’s critical coverage of Elections, Influence, and Democracy Infrastructure. In an era where the mechanics of voting and the flow of political capital are under constant scrutiny, Sophie provides a steady, principled voice dedicated to the preservation of American institutional integrity and the rule of law.
Raised in Charlotte, North Carolina, Sophie’s perspective was forged in a community that balances rapid modern growth with a deep respect for tradition and civic duty. Growing up in the Queen City, she witnessed firsthand how a robust local culture depends on the trust between the citizen and the state. This upbringing instilled in her a foundational belief that the right to vote is a sacred trust—one that must be protected from both administrative overreach and the encroaching influence of special interest groups. Her reporting reflects these North Carolina roots, emphasizing the importance of community-led governance and the preservation of the individual’s voice in the face of nationalized political movements.
Now based in Atlanta, Georgia, Sophie operates from the heart of one of the nation’s most pivotal and contested political landscapes. Her location allows her to report from the front lines of the debate over election security, legislative reform, and the modernization of voting systems. For Sophie, the “infrastructure” of democracy is not merely a matter of machines and ballots; it is the collection of laws, people, and transparent processes required to maintain public confidence. Her work often highlights the necessity of clear, enforceable standards that ensure every legal vote is counted fairly and that the machinery of our republic remains accountable to the taxpayers who fund it.
Central to her work at Just Right News is her acclaimed feature series, “The Price of a Vote.” Through this ongoing project, Sophie explores the complex web of influence that shapes modern campaigns and policy decisions. She delves into how high-level lobbying, non-governmental organizations, and shifting bureaucratic regulations impact the weight of an individual citizen’s ballot. By examining the financial and structural pressures placed on the electoral process, she provides readers with a comprehensive look at the forces vying for control over the American political system.
Sophie’s approach to journalism is rooted in a commitment to the constitutional framework. She views her role as a watchdog for the voter, ensuring that the systems meant to serve the public remain transparent and free from corruption. Whether she is analyzing the implementation of new voting technologies or investigating the influence of outside money on state-level policy, her work is characterized by a rigorous adherence to facts and a refusal to succumb to the sensationalism that often plagues modern political reporting.
At Just Right News, Sophie Carter continues to be a vital resource for readers who value clarity, conviction, and a defense of traditional American values. Her deep ties to the Southeast and her specialized focus on the mechanics of our republic make her an essential voice in the ongoing conversation about the future of American self-governance. Through her reporting, she remains dedicated to the idea that a secure and honest electoral system is the bedrock of a free and prosperous society.