Require the secretary of state to publish the numbers pertaining to the collection of signatures on a nominating petition.
Summary
SB 23 requires the South Dakota Secretary of State to publish, on the agency’s website, the number of required signatures for each nominating petition covered by state law. The information must be posted no later than January 2 of an election year. The bill is limited to making these signature thresholds publicly available and does not change the underlying signature requirements themselves.
In practical terms, the measure is aimed at improving transparency for candidates, petition circulators, election officials, and the public by making petition qualification numbers easier to find in one official place. It applies to nominating petitions referenced in existing statutes governing candidate nomination by petition and related election procedures.
Impact
The bill adds a new section to chapter 12-6 of South Dakota law and imposes a ministerial duty on the Secretary of State to publish petition signature numbers online by a fixed deadline. It does not alter the number of signatures required, the petition process, or eligibility rules; instead, it centralizes and standardizes disclosure of information already established elsewhere in statute. The primary affected parties are the Secretary of State’s office, candidates seeking ballot access by petition, and voters or advocacy groups tracking election requirements.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests generally favorable support, with the bill advancing through earlier votes by comfortable margins. However, the final recorded action shows a later committee vote to defer the bill to the 41st legislative day, indicating that while the concept of publication and transparency may have been broadly acceptable, there was enough hesitation or procedural concern to delay final movement. No committee transcript is available to show detailed debate.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be not the substance of publishing petition numbers, but whether the bill was necessary, how it should be implemented, or whether it should proceed on the timeline proposed. Supporters likely viewed it as a transparency and accessibility measure for election administration, while any opposition or hesitation may have centered on administrative burden, redundancy with existing public information, or broader concerns about election-related changes. The deferment vote suggests at least some members wanted more time or were not ready to advance the measure further.