EDITORIAL: FAILURE TO PASS AMENDMENT E TROUBLING
When South Dakota voters failed to approve an amendment that would have eliminated male-only references for public officials in the state — including the governor — it reflected a shameful failure to give women proper acknowledgement and treatment as equals.
More than a week has passed since voters across the country exercised their constitutional right and cast their votes in the 2024 General Election, with highest profile outcome the election of Donald J. Trump over Kamala D. Harris.
But there were a host of other issues at stake. In South Dakota, those issues were spelled out across seven ballot measures. Not surprisingly, voters said “no” to abortion in South Dakota, “no” to recreational marijuana and — correctly — “no” to an amendment to the constitution that would have eliminated the sales tax on groceries.
But the one outcome that is the most concerning is the failure of Constitutional Amendment E, which would have eliminated male-only gender references for certain office holders, including the governor of South Dakota — who happens to be a woman.
Of all the ballot issues at play, this is the one that should have been an unequivocal “yes.”
As background, here’s what South Dakota News Watch wrote about Amendment E in its voter guide earlier this fall.
The Attorney General’s explanation offers the following example: When referencing the Governor, instead of saying “he shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state,” the text will be changed to read “the Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state.”
The amendment also includes references to officeholders such as Lieutenant Governor, Supreme Court Justices, and Circuit Court Judges, as well as general classes of people such as persons, electors, and public officers.”
Amendment E failed with just 43% of the statewide vote in favor of the change. The “yes” vote was even less in Hutchinson, Turner and McCook counties.
With women in elected positions at all levels of government, why would we still refer to those roles as “he?”
On the surface it may seem like an uncesseary change to the language of a state consititution that has been in place since before women were afforded the right to vote, but that’s exactly the point.
Women are now in positions of power at government levels large and small and should be acknowleged as an equal. Failing to change the geneder reference to neutral is an antiquated way of thinking and — frankly — a step backward for women and women’s rights.
Jeremy Waltner | Editor & Publisher
