As South Dakota State Coordinator for the John Birch Society, I spend a lot of time watching what happens at our state capitol — and right now there are two issues that every South Dakotan who cares about the Constitution needs to understand and act on. One is about protecting your private property. The other is about protecting the Constitution itself.
Issue 1 — No Eminent Domain for Private Gain: Support HJR5001
The first issue is a proposed constitutional amendment to the South Dakota state constitution. In plain language, it says this: if you want to build a project for economic development or private equity in South Dakota, you cannot use government force to take someone’s land. You have to negotiate honestly — make a compelling offer and let the landowner decide.
This has been a three-year fight. Two years ago, we stopped those who wanted to strip away local control and private property rights. Last year, we passed a law prohibiting eminent domain for carbon capture pipelines. Now we are taking the final step — putting this protection into the state constitution itself so it cannot be undone by future legislatures.
The resolution number is HJR5001. If the legislature passes it, the amendment goes to the ballot in November 2026 — where the people of South Dakota will have the final say. That is exactly how it should work. Government should not be in the business of forcing landowners to sell their property so that private companies can profit. That is not liberty. That is theft with a legal stamp on it.
What you can do right now: Contact your state legislators and ask them to support HJR5001. Tell them you believe in private property rights. Tell them no eminent domain for private gain. Your voice matters — and so does your land.
Issue 2 — Defend the Constitution: Oppose SJR502 and SJR503
The second issue is arguably even more consequential. There is a national organization called Convention of States pushing state legislatures — including South Dakota’s — to call an Article V constitutional convention. Their intention is to amend the Constitution. The problem is what history tells us about what happens when you open a convention.
The last time the American people convened to “fix” their governing document was in 1787. They gathered under the Articles of Confederation with a limited mandate — make some adjustments, address a few problems. What came out of that convention was not a set of amendments to the Articles of Confederation. It was an entirely new document: the Constitution of the United States as we know it today.
I am grateful they wrote that Constitution. But here is the question we have to ask honestly: do we have men of that caliber available to write a new one today? The same Supreme Court that was recently asked to define what a boy and a girl are would be operating in the background of any new constitutional framework. That is not a foundation I am willing to build on.
Convention of States argues that safeguards exist — that the states control the process, that nothing dangerous can happen. But a federal judge ruled earlier this year that the states are not in control of a constitutional convention. It is a federal process under the federal Constitution, and Congress determines how it is called and run. Many of the same safeguards COS points to were also supposedly in place in 1787 — and our founders set them aside by appealing to a higher authority: the Declaration of Independence and the principle that we the people have the right to alter or abolish our government. They were right to do so then. But that same logic, applied today in a different political environment, could produce something we would not recognize as America.
We do not need to give Washington — or anyone else — the opportunity to rewrite the Constitution. What we need is to enforce the one we have.
What you can do right now: Contact your state legislators and ask them to vote no on both SJR502 and SJR503. Tell them you support the Constitution as written. Tell them a convention is a risk we do not need to take.
Why This Matters Beyond South Dakota
These two issues — property rights and constitutional integrity — are not just South Dakota issues. They are the front lines of a larger battle over what kind of country we will be. The Constitution was designed to limit government power and protect individual liberty. Every time we allow government to expand its reach into private property, and every time we flirt with rewriting the founding document, we move further from what the founders intended and closer to the kind of centralized power they risked everything to escape.
An informed citizen is a free citizen. That is why I teach Constitution classes through Blueprint for Liberty — open to anyone across the nation via Zoom. If you want to understand the founding principles, the structure of government, and what you can do to protect liberty in your community, I would love to have you join a class.
And if you want to get involved in civic action in South Dakota or connect about any of these issues, reach out directly. This is exactly the kind of work citizens need to be doing right now.