When South Dakota voters go to the polls on Nov. 4, they will vote on seven different ballot measures.
Three of those initiatives have received a lot of. They are: an abortion ban, limiting public money in lobbying and campaigns, and term limits—amendments 10, 11 and J, respectively.
Here are summaries of those three ballots statements and the positions of those who support and oppose the measures:

Initiated Measure 10 – Open and Clean Government Act
Supporters describe Initiated Measure 10 as a simple attempt to keep public money out of lobbying and political campaign. But the question has blurred political lines.
Former state Treasurer Dick Butler, a Democrat from Faith, and Spearfish Republican Sam Kephart, joined to write arguments in support of the measure.
Republican Party Chairman Karl Adam of Pierre and Democrat Party Chairman Jack Billion of Sioux Falls have joined to write arguments against the initiative.
Butler and Kephart describe the initiative as a way to “bring common sense public disclosure and ethics reform to state and local governments, the same standards we already require by law of our federal officials in Washington.”
Attorney General Larry Long explains the measure would:
• Prohibit state and local governments, their officers and employees, and independent contractors, consultants and candidates, from using government revenue or resources for campaigning and lobbying.
• Make exceptions to allow for appearances before and communication with government bodies and the Legislature.
• Prohibit people who hire legislators or recent legislators from getting government contracts and prevent holders of no-bid government contracts, their families and others from making contributions to candidates.
• Require the secretary of state to maintain a Web site with summaries of government contracts of $500 or more.
The supporters of the measure campaigned on the theme of stopping “pay-to-play” contracts, the idea that politicians in a position to issue government contracts do so in exchange for campaign contributions.
The initiative is so severe, says those who argue against it, that it restricts cities and counties from having any say how the state does things.
Lobbying would be prohibited by any employee of Minnehaha County. It eliminates our families from being participants, so not only could my daughter not contribute to a political candidate, but her husband couldn’t,” said Minnehaha County Commissioner Jeff Barth at a Baltic City Council meeting this fall.
Opponents have tagged the initiative as a gag law to argue that it will take away the right to political speech for tens of thousands of South Dakotans.
Long cautions that if the measure is passed, it is likely to be challenged in court and could be declared unconstitutional.
A yes vote approves the proposed restrictions on lobbying, campaigning and government contracts.
A no vote leaves state laws as they are.

Initiated Measure 11 – Abortion ban
Supporters of this measure to reduce abortions in South Dakota responded to the defeat of a referred law two years ago and created Measure 11, which would make it illegal in South Dakota to perform abortions except in instances of rape, incest, or to save the life or protect the health of a pregnant women.
Those exceptions weren’t in the 2006 law.
The opponents have focused on an argument that Measure 11 would allow government to interfere in the practice of medicine.
Vote Yes For Life, the leading group supporting the initiative, says the exceptions written into this year’s ban are a direct response to the 2006 vote. That referred law, passed by the state Legislature but placed on the ballot, lost by a 56 percent-44 percent margin.
Abortions performed for reasons other than the listed exceptions would make it a felony to perform or help with an abortion in South Dakota.
The Campaign for Healthy Families, which opposes the initiated measure, says the exceptions are unworkable in real medical practice.
Medical professionals stand on both sides of the issue.
Dr. Patti Giebink, a Chamberlain physician who supports the measure, said in a recent Argus Leader interview that the goal of the law is to prevent as many abortions as possible.
Registered Nurse Donna Gaspar of Sioux Falls opposes the ban because healthcare professionals won’t be able to protect the health of their patients without government intrusion, she says.
“They might be putting themselves at risk for criminal charges,” Gaspar said.
But Rory King, a lawyer from Aberdeen who helped draft the law, said that Measure 11 does leave the woman and her physician free to make decisions when there are health concerns, and that the law’s health exceptions were written by medical professionals and are well-drafted and clear cut.
“A doctor can’t be convicted unless it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the procedure was for the purpose of aborting a child and not for health concerns ... the purpose of this law is to prohibit abortion as birth control,” King said.
Attorney General Larry Long says the odds are good that this year’s initiative would be taken to court if passed.
A yes vote would make it illegal in South Dakota to perform an abortion unless it was to save the life or health of a woman or in instances of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.
A no vote would leave state law as it is.

Amendment J – Term limits
South Dakota legislators are limited to a maximum of eight straight years in one house of the State Legislature.
Amendment J proposes to change the state constitution and eliminate any limit on how long a lawmaker may serve in one chamber or the other. Lawmakers are elected to two-year terms.
Before 1992, the constitution had no mention of term limits, and some legislators served in one house for a couple of decades.
Term-limit supporters say limiting lengths of service forces new blood into the Legislature.
Those opposing term limits argue that term limits weakens the legislative branch and takes away the right of local voters to continue to endorse a sitting lawmaker whose actions and service have pleased them.
A no vote supports term limits, continuing the eight-year cap on service in one house and leaving the state constitution as-is.
A yes vote is a vote to change the state constitution to get rid of term limits.