Modify provisions pertaining to the registration of voters.
Summary
SB 48 makes a broad set of changes to South Dakota’s voter registration laws. It revises the statutory definition of residence and resident for election purposes, including a new requirement that a resident have physical presence in the state and intend to remain for at least 30 days before the election. The bill also clarifies that students and active-duty military members may retain residency under specified conditions, and it updates language throughout the voter registration chapter to use “individual” and “resident” more consistently.
The bill adds a new pathway for people who do not live in a fixed, permanent, or private structure to register to vote. Such individuals could use a homeless shelter, courthouse, general delivery address, or another qualifying location tied to their residence, and they could not be denied registration solely because they lack conventional housing. It also changes registration timing rules, requiring applications to be received 30 days before an election rather than 15, and it updates the rules for runoff elections and precinct registration to match the new residency language.
Impact
SB 48 would significantly amend Title 12 election statutes governing voter eligibility, registration procedures, residency, and county auditor duties. It would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for new voter registrations, with acceptable proof including a driver license or nondriver ID meeting specified criteria, a birth certificate, passport, naturalization documents, certain tribal identification numbers, or other approved proof. Existing registrants before July 1, 2025, would be grandfathered in, and address changes would not trigger the citizenship-document requirement. The bill also expands the master registration file to include citizenship documentation while keeping that material confidential from public inspection, and it creates a special presidential-election-only voting process for certain voters who have moved out of state but have not yet met the other state’s registration requirements.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill was controversial and did not advance cleanly, as it was tabled on a vote of 8-1. That outcome indicates substantial committee reluctance despite some support. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to show detailed arguments, but the structure of the bill suggests it was viewed as a major election-law overhaul rather than a narrow technical change.
Contention
The likely points of contention are the citizenship-document requirement, the shortened registration deadline, and the new residency definitions. Supporters would likely view these changes as strengthening election integrity and clarifying eligibility, while opponents could see them as adding barriers to registration, especially for new voters, people without standard housing, and those lacking easy access to documents. The special treatment for homeless voters and the presidential-only absentee ballot provision may also have raised implementation questions for county auditors and concerns about administrative complexity or unequal treatment among voters.