South Dakota ballot measure · November 3, 2026
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment J, explained
Only United States citizens eligible to vote. A ballot measure is a yes-or-no question put directly to voters — no candidate is involved, and the wording on the ballot is the wording that becomes law. This page shows that wording first, then what it actually changes.
The official wordingWhat appears on the ballot. Everything below explains it.
Title: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Clarifying that an Individual Must Be a Citizen of the United States to be Eligible to Vote. Attorney General Explanation: Article VII, § 2 of the South Dakota Constitution defines who is qualified to vote in state elections. Among these qualifications are age, residency, and United States citizenship requirements. Article VII, § 2 also establishes that individuals may be disqualified from voting because of mental incompetence or a felony conviction. This constitutional amendment adds people who are not United States citizens to the list of individuals disqualified from voting, clarifying the existing requirement that only citizens may vote in state elections. Vote "Yes" to adopt the amendment. Vote "No" to leave the Constitution as it is.
What it actually means
Article VII, Section 2 of the South Dakota Constitution says every U.S. citizen who is 18 and meets residency and registration requirements may vote, and lists two disqualifications: mental incompetence and a felony conviction. This amendment adds a third — not being a U.S. citizen — so the constitution would say not only who may vote but who may not. South Dakota law and federal law already bar noncitizens from voting, and no South Dakota city allows it, so the practical question is whether writing the prohibition into the constitution makes any difference.
If you vote YES
- Article VII, Section 2 would gain the sentence "An individual who is not a citizen of the United States is disqualified from voting in any election or upon any question submitted to the voters of this state."
- Noncitizen voting would be barred by the constitution as well as by statute, so the Legislature or a municipality could not authorise it without another vote of the people.
- South Dakota would join the group of states — 18 as of 2025, including North Dakota, Wyoming, Iowa and Wisconsin — whose constitutions reserve the vote to citizens rather than simply granting it to them.
- The section is also reworded throughout for grammar and gender-neutral language; the age, residency and registration requirements themselves are unchanged.
If you vote NO
- Article VII, Section 2 keeps its current wording: every U.S. citizen who is 18, a resident and registered is entitled to vote, and only mental incompetence or a felony conviction disqualifies a person.
- U.S. citizenship remains a requirement to register and vote in South Dakota under state law, and federal law continues to bar noncitizens from voting in federal elections.
- No South Dakota city or county currently allows noncitizens to vote in local elections, and a "no" vote does not change that; what remains is the absence of an explicit constitutional bar.
- The state law effective July 1, 2026 allowing any registered voter to challenge another's registration on citizenship grounds stays in force either way — it is a statute, not part of this amendment.
What each side says2 for, 2 against — quoted, not summarised
Why supporters say YES
"However, our Constitution does not explicitly state that individuals who are not United States citizens are prohibited from voting. As long as United States citizens who meet the requirements are allowed to vote, nothing currently prohibits non-citizens also being allowed to vote. … This amendment does not change the voting rights of any eligible United States citizen. It does not change voter registration requirements, residency requirements, or election procedures."
— State Sen. Taffy Howard (R-34), official "pro" statement in the Secretary of State's 2026 Ballot Question Pamphlet
"We, and legislators who sponsor these, are getting ahead of fixing a problem that maybe has not reared its head as much in these states. It's not like it's happening everywhere and it must be stopped immediately. But preemption is not a bad thing."
— Jack Tomczak, vice president, Americans for Citizen Voting, on the wave of state citizenship-voting amendments
Why opponents say NO
"Amendment J does not solve any problems. Instead, it creates one: you, a citizen, could be denied the right to vote over a challenge to your citizenship. … Effective July 1, 2026, any registered voter may challenge your registration by claiming you are not a citizen. There is no simple document to prove a person is not a citizen. When a challenge is filed, the burden shifts to you to prove that you are a citizen, with no clear timeline."
— State Rep. Erik Muckey (D-15), official "con" statement in the Secretary of State's 2026 Ballot Question Pamphlet
"These proposed constitutional amendments are aimed really at two things: preventing local governments in those states from allowing non-U.S. citizens to vote in local elections, and advancing this false narrative that non-U.S. citizens are somehow participating in U.S. elections in large numbers, which is totally unsupported by any evidence or facts."
— Jonathan Diaz, director of voting advocacy, Campaign Legal Center, on the wave of state citizenship-voting amendments
What's genuinely uncertain
- Whether the amendment changes anything in practice is the central disagreement. Supporters say the constitution currently grants the vote to citizens without barring anyone else, leaving a gap a city could use; opponents say citizenship is already required and the amendment is redundant. No South Dakota court has ruled on whether a municipality could extend local voting to noncitizens today.
- The interaction with the separate 2026 statute allowing voter-registration challenges on citizenship grounds is contested and untested. Opponents argue the amendment gives that challenge process constitutional weight; supporters say the amendment does not touch registration procedure at all.
- The Secretary of State's pamphlet "pro" statement refers three times to "Amendment G" rather than Amendment J; the measure on the ballot is Amendment J.
- No fiscal note was printed for this measure, and no ballot question committee had registered on either side as of September 2026.
- The figure of 273 noncitizens removed from the rolls in 2024, cited in the "con" statement, comes from that statement rather than from a published state audit we could locate.
The bottom line
Whether to write into the constitution a prohibition that state and federal law already impose — supporters say only that closes off any future attempt to let noncitizens vote locally, opponents say it adds nothing except weight to a new challenge process that makes citizens prove their status.
One neutral sentence describing the tradeoff — not a recommendation.
Sources (3)The numbers in the text above link here
- 12026 Ballot Question Pamphlet — South Dakota Secretary of State — sdsos.gov
- 2South Dakota Constitutional Amendment J, Citizenship Voting Requirement Amendment (2026) — Ballotpedia — ballotpedia.org
- 3Theme of this year's South Dakota ballot issues: Let's make life tougher — South Dakota Searchlight — southdakotasearchlight.com
Checking it against the official text
The South Dakota Secretary of State publishes the certified measures and, in most states, an official voter guide with fiscal notes. That is the authoritative version. Everything here is an explanation of it, not a substitute for it.
Confirm this with the official source
Your ballot is determined by your election authority, not by us. Verify your registration, precinct, and sample ballot at South Dakota Secretary of State.
Other measures on the South Dakota ballot
Candidates on the same ballot
- U.S. Senate election in South Dakota
- South Dakota governor's race
- South Dakota's at-large congressional district