Proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election amendments to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota revising and establishing certain constitutional provisions regarding the lieutenant governor and the presiding officers of the Senate and House of Representatives.
The amendments suggested by SJR502 will potentially alter the balance of power and responsibilities within the legislative branches of South Dakota's government. By transferring the responsibility of electing the presiding officers from an appointed lieutenant governor to the members of the respective legislative bodies, the bill aims to promote a more democratic approach to legislative oversight. Additionally, the resolution includes provisions regarding impeachment proceedings, modifying existing language to streamline the process and specify roles during such trials.
SJR502 is a proposed joint resolution that seeks to amend certain provisions of the South Dakota Constitution related to the roles and election of the lieutenant governor and the presiding officers of the Senate and House of Representatives. The resolution proposes that the members of the Senate and House elect their respective leaders—one to preside as president of the Senate and another as speaker of the House. This change is intended to clarify and formalize the electoral process for these leadership positions within the legislative framework of the state.
Points of contention may arise regarding the implications of reducing the lieutenant governor's role in presiding over the Senate, as it could be viewed as a diminished influence on legislative activity. Opponents may argue that this change could disrupt established procedures and possibly lead to increased partisanship among the presiding officers if not balanced correctly. Furthermore, the need for voter approval of these amendments adds another layer of complexity, as the electorate's response to such changes remains uncertain.
On February 28, 2023, the bill was voted upon, reflecting a significant legislative engagement with the proposed amendments. The resolution resulted in a divided vote, showing 27 in favor and 43 against, indicating a contentious debate among lawmakers about the necessity and potential impacts of these constitutional changes.