Watertown Forum Draws Large Crowd for Debate on South Dakota’s 2026 Ballot Amendments
Northeast Radio SD News – Watertown, SD - A larger-than-expected crowd of over 70 people filled the fourth floor of Lake Area Technical College in Watertown on Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2026, prompting organizers to set up extra tables and chairs as residents gathered to hear a detailed breakdown of four proposed constitutional amendments on the upcoming general election ballot.
District 5 State Sen. Glen Vilhauer of Watertown moderated the first hour of the forum, which featured Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen and District 15 State Rep. Erik Muckey of Sioux Falls. Both traveled together from Sioux Falls after recently hosting a similar presentation in Mitchell. Vilhauer organized the event in just two weeks alongside Watertown Area Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tim Sheehan after seeing the pair's Mitchell discussion.
"First of all, thrilled at the turnout," Vilhauer said to open the evening. "You know, we were kicking this around. We thought if we get 10, 20 people, we'll call it a win. And boy, look at the crowd tonight, so thrilled."
Venhuizen, a Republican appointed by Gov. Larry Rhoden who previously served in the House from District 13, and Muckey, a Democrat serving his first term in the House, both have backgrounds on the Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations alongside Vilhauer. The two presenters noted they grew up about 10 miles apart in south-central South Dakota—Venhuizen in Armour and Muckey in Corsica—and structured the evening to present the supporting and opposing arguments for each legislatively referred measure.
(Voters can review the official texts, pro and con arguments, and Attorney General explanations for all four statewide measures in the South Dakota Secretary of State 2026 Ballot Question Pamphlet.)
Constitutional Amendment I: Medicaid Expansion Federal Funding
The forum began with Constitutional Amendment I, which relates to the South Dakota Constitution's provision on expanded Medicaid coverage if federal funding for the program drops below 90 percent.
Venhuizen, who served as the prime sponsor of the resolution during his time in the State House, spoke in favor of the measure. He emphasized that the amendment does not affect traditional Medicaid—which has operated for more than 50 years, covering children, individuals with disabilities, and elderly nursing home residents at an approximate 50-50 state-federal cost share—but strictly addresses the 2022 voter-approved constitutional expansion covering able-bodied, working-age adults between 18 and 64.
Approximately 30,000 South Dakotans are enrolled in Medicaid expansion at any given time. Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government pays 90 percent of the cost, leaving South Dakota's 10 percent share at roughly $36 million annually. Venhuizen argued that while the 90-10 match was a central selling point of the 2022 campaign, that funding ratio was never written into the state constitution.
"Every 10 percent of the cost that they shift on to us will cost us another $36 million a year, and we don't get anything for it," Venhuizen said. "We're just paying a higher share of the cost. You know, if they shifted from 90 percent to 89 percent, or even 80, we can probably figure that out. If they shift it to 50-50 like the rest of Medicaid, now we're talking about $150 million. I don't know where the state's going to get that kind of money."
Venhuizen contended that passing Amendment I would not automatically end Medicaid expansion if federal funding dips, because the program is already established through state statute, Department of Social Services administrative rules, and the state Medicaid plan. Instead, he said, removing the constitutional mandate would allow state lawmakers to evaluate the budget if the federal government changes its funding share.
"What Amendment I is saying in very simple terms is that if the feds renege on the 90-10 match, then it's not in the constitution that we have to stay in," Venhuizen said. "Doesn't mean that we can't stay in, it just means that we get to decide at that point."
Muckey, who delivered his first House floor speech against the measure during the legislative session, argued that no immediate federal plan exists to reduce the match rate and pointed to conflicting interpretations between proponents and the Attorney General's official ballot explanation regarding whether the program would terminate immediately upon a funding drop.
"The reason why the voters decided to put this in the Constitution was that for most of the time that this program was available, the Legislature refused to put it into law," Muckey said. "So the question I have for you right now is, are you ready to take this out if there's concerns and questions about this program ending entirely?"
During the audience question-and-answer period, local voters pressed the lawmakers on the discrepancy between the Attorney General's explanation—which states the amendment ends expanded coverage if federal funding drops below 90 percent—and Venhuizen's explanation that the Legislature would still decide the program's fate. One audience member also voiced skepticism that the Legislature would preserve voter-approved initiatives without a constitutional mandate.
"The single number one argument for all the advertising was the 90-10 match," Venhuizen responded. "And so if the 90-10 match goes away, I think it's fair to ask the question, if they change the deal, shouldn't we be able to reconsider the deal?"
Constitutional Amendment J: Citizenship Voting Clarification
The second measure discussed was the proposed constitutional amendment clarifying that an individual who is not a citizen of the United States is disqualified from voting in South Dakota.
Venhuizen gave a brief overview of the proposal, noting that the South Dakota Constitution currently states who is eligible to vote—namely, U.S. citizens—while this measure explicitly adds the inverse language to the disqualification section. He noted, as a historical point that South Dakota permitted non-citizens to vote during early statehood to encourage settlement until the practice was ended during World War I.
"I don't think there's a real serious possibility that we would legalize voting by non-citizens," Venhuizen said. "But all this really does is put into the Constitution that if you are not a citizen, you cannot vote. That's all it is."
Muckey, who authored the official con statement in the state's ballot pamphlet, recalled giving a five-word floor speech against the resolution in Pierre.
"Eventually, what I came to with that statement of floor speech was, 'This is entirely unnecessary. Stop it,'" Muckey told the crowd.
Muckey argued that citizenship has been a clear constitutional qualification in South Dakota for more than a century and that there is bipartisan agreement to keep it that way. He noted that the prime sponsor's concerns stemmed from a small number of out-of-state municipalities allowing non-citizens to vote in local school board elections, which he said has no bearing on South Dakota.
"When you start passing laws with duplications or contradictions, start asking yourselves, what are you doing?" Muckey said. "What's the point of this? Why are we opening up, particularly the Constitution, for this specific purpose? And so, very simply, I oppose for one simple reason: citizens are already in the qualification to vote. Why do we need to change it, or why do we need to add to it?"
Constitutional Amendment K: Trust for Unclaimed Property Fund
In what Muckey described as a "fun plot twist for the evening," both presenters united in strong support of Constitutional Amendment K, which establishes the Trust for Unclaimed Property Fund in the state constitution.
Under banking laws, intangible assets abandoned at a financial institution for more than three years must be remitted to the state where the bank is chartered. Because major institutions, including Wells Fargo, Citibank, and Bancorp, are chartered in South Dakota, the state receives hundreds of millions of dollars in unclaimed property from across the globe. According to Muckey and Venhuizen, roughly 88.5 percent of those funds originate outside South Dakota, about a third have no name attached, and only about 10 percent are believed to belong to South Dakota citizens.
Historically, when unclaimed property brought in $5 million to $10 million annually, the state treated the incoming cash as general revenue while paying off claims as they arrived. However, receipts surged to $50 million, $60 million, and in one recent fiscal year more than $200 million—with total unclaimed property liabilities on the books reaching $1.4 billion.
In 2025, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 27 to phase out reliance on unclaimed property for general operational budgets and place the money into a dedicated fund, which currently holds roughly $400 million. Amendment K takes the final step by enshrining that trust fund in the state constitution, requiring a three-fourths vote of the Legislature to ever tap the principal for anything other than paying legitimate property claims.
"So essentially what we're doing here as a Legislature is saying, 'Please tie our hands,'" Muckey said. "That's basically what we're doing."
Venhuizen noted that the measure passed the Legislature unanimously, with zero opposing votes from either party, and no one submitted an opposition statement for the Secretary of State's voter pamphlet.
"This is about really protecting South Dakota from what could be a volatile revenue source and instead building up a large long-term asset that will always be there as a trust fund supporting the state," Venhuizen said.
In response to questions from Vilhauer and an audience member, Venhuizen explained that keeping the funds as liquid cash in a standard state account only yields 3 percent to 4 percent interest. Placing the money into a constitutional trust fund allows the South Dakota Investment Council to invest the principal for long-term returns averaging 8 percent to 10 percent—potentially generating $40 million a year in interest on the initial $400 million balance that the Legislature can use in the general state budget.
Constitutional Amendment L: 60 Percent Vote Threshold for Amendments
The final statewide measure discussed was Constitutional Amendment L, which would require future proposed constitutional amendments or revisions to receive an affirmative vote of 60 percent of the votes cast to be adopted, rather than a simple majority of 50 percent plus one.
Venhuizen argued in favor of raising the threshold, comparing South Dakota's relatively accessible amendment process to the U.S. Constitution, which requires two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures. In South Dakota, placing an initiated statutory measure on the ballot requires roughly 14,000 signatures, while a constitutional amendment requires about 28,000 signatures.
Venhuizen pointed to 2016's Marsy's Law—funded by a California billionaire—as an example of out-of-state interests targeting South Dakota because of its low signature threshold and inexpensive media markets, resulting in poorly drafted constitutional language that voters had to fix two years later. He also noted that policies like Deadwood casino games and Medicaid expansion belong in state statute rather than the constitution.
"A constitution should be about structure of the government and the rights of the people. That's what it should be about," Venhuizen said. "Let's only amend the Constitution when there's a pretty high level of support and it's something that's really important. Other than that, let's do these things through ballot measures."
Muckey opposed Amendment L, reminding the crowd that South Dakota was the first state in the nation to adopt citizen-initiated measures—a constitutional right that itself originally passed with less than 60 percent of the vote. He noted that voters previously rejected similar efforts to raise voter approval thresholds in 2018 and during the 2022 primary election with Amendment C.
"Every single issue that's on your ballot right now, remember, is coming from the Legislature. It's not coming from the citizens," Muckey said. "And the overwhelming majority of the measures that are brought forward to change the constitution are coming from the Legislature, not from citizens."
Muckey added that requiring a 60 percent supermajority would not stop out-of-state campaign spending—and could increase it—while allowing a 40 percent minority of voters to block constitutional changes.
"The ultimate question comes back to, if we're concerned about our Constitution being changed, why are we putting this on the voters to change as opposed to the Legislature?" Muckey asked. "Because the Legislature still only needs a majority vote to send this to your ballot."
Venhuizen noted the irony that the only campaign spending significant money on the four ballot measures is the opposition to Amendment L, which he said is funded by $2 million from the California-based Fairness Project.
During the question-and-answer session, an audience member challenged the panel on why lawmakers did not impose a 60 percent requirement on the Legislature itself to refer constitutional amendments to the ballot, sparking a back-and-forth exchange among audience members regarding legislative attendance versus voter turnout.
Civility in Public Discourse
As the hour-long constitutional segment wrapped up ahead of a second panel on Codington County Ordinance 83, both lawmakers thanked the Watertown community for engaging in a civil policy discussion. Muckey reflected on an off-session bipartisan training seminar he attended in Charlottesville, Virginia, focused on constructive disagreement.
"It's really easy for us to move into our corners when we disagree on something," Muckey said. "How do we disagree better? And how do we make sure that we're moving to the next conversation with each other so that we can solve the challenges that matter to South Dakota? The Lieutenant Governor and I do not agree on these ballot measures except for K. Please vote yes on K."
Vilhauer praised both lawmakers for making the trip from Sioux Falls to inform local voters.
"I want to tell you, we are so fortunate to have a couple leaders like this serving us out in Pierre," Vilhauer said. "It's a pleasure from my standpoint working alongside the two of them."
