Prohibit the use of automatic tabulating equipment.
SB 217 would prohibit the State Board of Elections and local election authorities from authorizing, adopting, implementing, or using automatic tabulating equipment and electronic ballot marking systems in elections. The bill also amends South Dakota election statutes to remove or rewrite numerous provisions that currently govern machine tabulation, electronic ballot marking, testing and certification of equipment, public notice requirements, recount procedures, and post-election audits. In practical terms, the measure would shift election administration toward hand-counting ballots and away from machine-assisted voting and counting systems.
The bill makes extensive conforming changes throughout Title 12. It revises ballot-format and polling-place provisions, requires hand counting of ballots publicly after polls close, changes how absentee and provisional ballots are processed, and updates recount procedures to rely on paper records rather than machine-generated returns. It also repeals the chapter that currently defines and regulates automatic tabulating equipment, including rules for equipment approval, testing, sealing, public observation, and post-election audits. A separate amendment to unemployment insurance law adds precinct election officials and automatic tabulating system workers to an existing exclusion for low-paid election-related service, though the bill’s broader effect is to eliminate the equipment and workers associated with those systems.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears mixed but somewhat divided. The only recorded action is a 5-4 vote to defer the bill to the 41st legislative day, which suggests the proposal did not have clear committee consensus and faced meaningful resistance. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition beyond the close vote.
The main point of contention is the bill’s elimination of automated election technology. Supporters would likely view the measure as a way to increase transparency, reduce reliance on electronic systems, and ensure ballots are counted by hand in public view. Opponents would likely be concerned about the operational burden, slower counting, higher labor demands, and the loss of existing safeguards and procedures built around machine tabulation, electronic ballot marking, and post-election audits. The bill’s sweeping repeal of established election-administration rules indicates that it would substantially restructure how elections are conducted in South Dakota.
If enacted, SB 217 would substantially amend South Dakota’s election code by removing legal authority for automatic tabulating equipment and electronic ballot marking systems and replacing machine-based counting procedures with hand-count requirements. It would repeal an entire chapter governing voting systems and related testing, certification, recount, and audit procedures, while also revising multiple sections on ballots, absentee ballots, provisional ballots, canvassing, and recounts to align with manual counting. Election officials, counties, and political subdivisions would need to abandon machine tabulation and adjust staffing, procedures, and equipment accordingly.
The available voting history suggests the bill generated divided sentiment and did not advance smoothly. A 5-4 vote to defer the bill indicates a narrow split rather than broad consensus, with enough concern to delay further action. Because there are no committee transcripts, the record does not show detailed arguments, but the close vote implies both support for election-system changes and significant hesitation about the proposal’s consequences.
The central controversy is whether South Dakota should prohibit automated election equipment entirely. Supporters are likely focused on transparency, public confidence, and hand-counted ballots, while opponents are likely concerned about feasibility, cost, slower election results, and the loss of established machine-testing and audit procedures. Additional contention likely surrounds the bill’s broad repeal of existing safeguards for absentee, provisional, and recount processes, which would require major administrative changes by county auditors and local election officials.