In a rapidly evolving political landscape, South Dakota's scenario illustrates a classic clash between modern reality and historical precedent. While the state proudly embraced Kristi Noem as its first female governor, persistent male-centric language in South Dakota's constitution highlights ongoing efforts to modernize these documents. Noem's administration made strides to replace outdated language but faced setbacks when voters rejected a constitutional amendment aimed at inclusivity for both women and nonbinary individuals in 2024.
This challenge is not unique to South Dakota. As highlighted by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, more women are assuming pivotal political roles nationwide. Thirteen women held gubernatorial positions this year before Noem transitioned to a federal role. The push for gender-neutral language in state constitutions gained momentum as women broke records in legislative participation, with 2,469 serving across the states. Despite these advancements, the linguistic reflection of such progress remains stagnant in many states.
Some states have proactively addressed these gender biases in constitutions. New York set a precedent in 2001 by adopting gender-neutral language, followed by Vermont in 1994. Efforts in other regions like Washington and Connecticut continue, though they face significant challenges. Meanwhile, legislative bodies in states like Nevada and California have modernized their terminology, opting for terms like “assemblymember” over the traditional “assemblyman” or “assemblywoman.”
Debbie Walsh, leading the Center for American Women and Politics, emphasizes the vital role of language in conveying societal values and inclusivity. In her 2023 State of the State address, Noem echoed this sentiment, urging an update to South Dakota's constitution. Despite these calls, resistance persists, tied to broader socio-political trends, including debates over the legitimacy of nonbinary identities and financial concerns over structural changes.
The pushback accurately reflects deeper societal divisions. For instance, while Republican state Sen. Erin Tobin supported the amendment, she acknowledged that voter apprehension surrounding terms like “pronoun” might have entwined the initiative with larger conservative debates on gender identity.
Kristi Noem's tenure also spotlights complex intersections of gender politics. While advocating for more inclusive language, her policies reflect a conservative stance on transgender rights, evident through bills restricting gender-affirming care and participation of transgender individuals in sports aligned with their gender identity.
Noem resigned from her gubernatorial position, transitioning to a federal role within the Department of Homeland Security under former President Donald Trump, whose administration reinforced traditional views on sex and gender. Trump's executive orders further polarized the discussion by emphasizing binary gender recognition and limiting transgender participation in sports, a stance mirrored in his presidential campaign.
Critics argue that language exclusivity undermines representation, whilst others, like Republican South Dakota state Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer, express concerns that gender-neutral language could dilute individual identity, advocating instead for the historical terminology of “he” or “she.” Neil Fulton, from the University of South Dakota School of Law, highlights how pronouns traditionally encompassed all genders and notes the constitution's historical drafting served inclusive purposes despite its masculine wording.
Ultimately, the debate over constitutional language underscores the fluidity of societal values and their institutional representation. While legislative manuals increasingly discourage gender-specific language, proponents acknowledge the evolving linguistic landscape and the pressing necessity for state constitutions to reflect contemporary gender parity.