Modify provisions pertaining to the testing and use of automatic tabulating equipment.
HB 1314 would substantially revise South Dakota’s rules for automatic tabulating equipment and electronic ballot marking systems used in elections. The bill tightens approval standards by prohibiting any system that can connect to the internet or that can save or tabulate votes on a ballot-marking device, and it requires state approval before distribution or use. It also requires vendors to provide source code to the secretary of state for independent review, with the examiner reporting whether the system functions as represented and whether the code appears free of defects or errors. In addition, the bill would sunset prior approvals on a rolling basis, including a hard deadline that systems approved before January 1, 2026, lose approval on July 1, 2026 unless reapproved.
The bill would amend multiple provisions in chapters 12-17B, 12-20, and 12-21 governing election equipment testing, certification, post-election audits, and recounts. It would shift more responsibility to vendors for maintaining current software, operating systems, patches, and antivirus protection, and it would require hand counting if a system is not properly updated. It also changes pre-election testing timelines and notice requirements, expands public access to testing reports, modifies post-election audit procedures and reimbursement rules, and replaces some recount-related procedures with manual counting requirements. Several existing statutes would be repealed, including provisions tied to recounts, audit-triggered recount notices, and audit exceptions, while new approval requirements would apply to systems already in use.
The available voting history suggests the bill generated some support but not unanimous agreement, as it was deferred to the 41st legislative day on a 9-3 vote. The text itself indicates a strong emphasis on election security, transparency, and verification, which suggests the bill is framed as a safeguard measure rather than a modernization or efficiency measure. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded discussion to show broader consensus or opposition beyond the recorded vote.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s strict restrictions on election technology, especially the internet prohibition, source-code review requirement, and the possibility that systems lose approval unless kept continuously updated. Another likely dispute is the bill’s shift of costs and operational risk to vendors, including requiring vendors to pay for hand-counting costs if equipment cannot be used. Election administrators may also be concerned about the administrative burden of repeated testing, public notice requirements, and mandatory manual counts or audits, while supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary to improve confidence in election results and reduce technology-related vulnerabilities.