South Dakota — Amendment E (1996)

Overview

South Dakota voters adopted Amendment E (1996), establishing a system of voter instruction directing Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The amendment included provisions authorizing informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

The amendment formed part of the ballot-instruction phase of congressional term-limits reform that followed U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

Measure Identification

• Measure name: Amendment E

• Year: 1996

• Adoption method: Citizen initiative constitutional amendment

• Election date: November 5, 1996

• Result: Approved

Ballot Language

Amendment E instructed South Dakota’s Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The proposed amendment specified limits of:

• three terms for Members of the House of Representatives

• two terms for Members of the Senate

Institutional Architecture

Voter Instruction Mechanism

The amendment instructed South Dakota’s congressional delegation to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The instruction expressed the position of South Dakota voters regarding the proposed amendment.

Ballot Information Architecture

Amendment E authorized informational ballot statements to appear on election ballots identifying candidates who did not support the voter instruction concerning congressional term limits.

These statements were intended to communicate candidate positions regarding the proposed amendment.

Candidate Declaration / Pledge Mechanism

Candidates could declare whether they supported the proposed constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

Candidates declining to support the instruction could be identified through informational ballot statements.

Election Administration

Ballot Implementation

Following adoption of Amendment E, South Dakota election officials were authorized to implement informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

Administrative History

The informational statement system remained part of South Dakota law following adoption of Amendment E. The constitutional validity of ballot informational statements in federal elections was later affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Cook v. Gralike (2001).

Litigation History

No separate Supreme Court litigation specific to South Dakota’s Amendment E produced a controlling decision.

The broader legal environment surrounding ballot informational statements in federal elections was later affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Cook v. Gralike (2001).

Relationship to Cook v. Gralike (2001)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Cook v. Gralike addressed ballot informational statements used to favor or disfavor candidates based on policy positions in federal elections.

Because South Dakota’s amendment authorized similar informational ballot statements, the decision affected the broader legal viability of such systems.

Institutional Design Observations

South Dakota’s Amendment E illustrates the instruction + ballot informational statement architecture used in several ballot instruction initiatives adopted in 1996.

The amendment combined voter instruction to Members of Congress with informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the proposed amendment.

Sources

• South Dakota Secretary of State — Amendment E (1996) ballot materials and election records
  https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/

• South Dakota Secretary of State — 1996 General Election Results
  https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/election-results.aspx

• Ballotpedia — South Dakota Congressional Term Limits Instruction Initiative (Amendment E, 1996)
  https://ballotpedia.org/South_Dakota_Congressional_Term_Limits_Instruction_Initiative,_Amendment_E_(1996)

• Cook v. Gralike, 531 U.S. 510 (2001)
  https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/510/