South Dakota voters will face four legislatively proposed constitutional amendments in the Nov. 3 general election, and the latest episode of Dakota Town Hall brought together lawmakers on opposing sides to explain what each would do.

Hosts Murdoc and Jake Schoenbeck were joined by District 34 Sen. Taffy Howard and District 15 Rep. Erik Muckey for a discussion of Amendments I, J, K and L. The South Dakota Secretary of State lists all four measures on the 2026 general election ballot.

Amendment J would clarify in the state constitution that a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote. Howard argued the amendment would place an existing statutory requirement into South Dakota’s foundational document.

“We don’t have an issue right now,” Howard said. “So is it necessary right now? No, but let’s just be prepared.”

Muckey opposed the amendment, arguing that citizenship is already the qualification for voting and raising concerns about how future laws could affect eligible voters who have their citizenship challenged. Both lawmakers agreed that noncitizens should not be voting in South Dakota elections, but disagreed over whether the constitutional change is necessary.

The group found more agreement on Amendment K, which would establish a constitutional trust fund for unclaimed property. Muckey described it as a way to transition away from treating unclaimed property as ordinary state revenue, while Howard said the fund could be invested similarly to South Dakota’s other constitutional trust funds.

Debate sharpened over Amendment I, which would condition the state’s constitutional Medicaid expansion requirement on the level of federal funding. Muckey argued voters already approved Medicaid expansion and questioned the need for a trigger, while Howard said the state should have flexibility if the federal government reduces its share of funding.

Amendment L would require 60% approval for future constitutional amendments. Howard said constitutional changes should face a higher threshold because of their lasting impact. Muckey countered that the proposal would weaken a citizen-driven process that has been part of South Dakota politics for more than a century.