WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HJR 5001

proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, prohibiting the transfer of private property to a non-governmental entity for the sole purpose of economic development or increased tax revenue.

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Julie Auch and 24 co-sponsors

South Dakota proposes constitutional amendment prohibiting government seizure of private property for economic development, restricting eminent domain use and limiting local development strategies.

First read in House and referred to House State Affairs H.J. 24
#ballotmeasures #constitutionalamendments #eminentdomain #housejointresolution
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HJR 5001

Legislative bill overview

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment for South Dakota voters that would prohibit the state or local governments from using eminent domain to seize private property solely for the purpose of economic development or increasing tax revenue. The amendment would add restrictions to how governments can use their power to acquire private land, requiring a vote by South Dakota citizens to become law.

Why is this important

This issue stems from the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed governments to take private property for private development projects if deemed for "public use." This sparked significant public backlash nationwide. South Dakota would join over 40 states that have already enacted similar protections, affecting property owners' security and limiting local economic development strategies that rely on land acquisition and private development partnerships.

Potential points of contention

  • Economic development impact: Supporters of development projects argue this amendment could hamstring municipal efforts to revitalize distressed areas or attract businesses through strategic property acquisition and redevelopment deals
  • Definition disputes: The phrase "sole purpose" creates ambiguity—projects with mixed purposes (some public benefit plus tax revenue) might fall outside the restriction, leading to future legal challenges
  • Local control trade-offs: Cities and counties may argue the amendment removes flexibility in planning decisions and could advantage property owners over community-wide economic interests

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.