South DakotaResolution would have asked voters to change lieutenant governor’s Senate role
The failed resolution would have asked voters to remove the lieutenant governor as Senate presiding officer and change a rule about governor impeachment trials.
What it does
The failed resolution proposed asking voters to remove the lieutenant governor as Senate presiding officer while keeping the governor’s power to delegate duties to that person.
The failed resolution also proposed asking voters to remove the rule that bars the lieutenant governor from serving on the court during a governor’s impeachment trial.
Argument forVoters could have decided whether the lieutenant governor should preside over the Senate, giving residents a direct say in that role.
Argument againstRemoving the trial restriction could leave less clarity about whether the lieutenant governor may take part in a governor’s impeachment trial.
More detail
The resolution proposed asking voters to remove the lieutenant governor as the Senate’s presiding officer. The proposal concerned the lieutenant governor’s role in the South Dakota Senate. It left in place the provision allowing the governor to delegate duties and powers to the lieutenant governor. The House rejected the resolution, so voters were not asked to approve it. If approved by the Legislature, the amendment would have gone to voters at the next general election.
The resolution proposed asking voters to remove a constitutional rule barring the lieutenant governor from serving on the court during the governor’s impeachment trial. The rule concerned the lieutenant governor’s participation in a trial to impeach the governor. The House rejected the resolution, so voters were not asked to approve it. If approved by the Legislature, the amendment would have gone to voters at the next general election.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed 1st Chamber
- Passed 2nd Chamber
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Mar 4House of Representatives Do Pass , Failed, YEAS 25, NAYS 42 H.J. 514Latest
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: fail.Lower
- Mar 2State Affairs Do Pass , Passed, YEAS 9, NAYS 3Minor
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 2Scheduled for hearing
- Feb 25First read in House and referred to House State Affairs H.J. 445Minor
- Feb 24Senate Do Pass , Passed, YEAS 19, NAYS 14 S.J. 385Passed 1st Chamber
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 23State Affairs Do Pass , Passed, YEAS 9, NAYS 0 S.J. 31Minor
- Vote recorded Do Pass. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 23Scheduled for hearing S.J. 1
- Feb 4First read in Senate and referred to Senate State Affairs S.J. 179Introduced
- Mar 4House of Representatives Do Pass , Failed, YEAS 25, NAYS 42 H.J. 514Latest
Government & Ethics