Authorize the recall of certain elected officials or individuals appointed to fill vacancies in certain offices.
HB1315 would create a statutory recall process for certain elected officials in South Dakota, as well as individuals appointed to fill vacancies in those offices. Under the bill, a recall petition would require signatures from 15% of the registered voters in the relevant jurisdiction, measured against the total registered voters at the last general election, and signatures could not be more than 60 days old when filed. The petition would have to state one of five grounds for removal: crime or misdemeanor in office, drunkenness, gross incompetency, malfeasance, or misconduct.
The bill sets out a detailed filing, review, and election process. The secretary of state would certify qualifying petitions and order a special election, generally within 60 days, unless the petition is filed within 90 days of another primary, general, or statewide special election, in which case the recall question would go on that ballot. The targeted official could run in the recall election, and if no other candidate is nominated the election would not be held and the official would remain in office. The bill also provides for expedited court challenges to the filing or the stated grounds of the petition, and it excludes officers already subject to constitutional impeachment.
If enacted, HB1315 would add a new recall chapter to South Dakota law and expand the circumstances under which local or state officials can be removed before the end of their term. It would also assign new administrative duties to the secretary of state, the State Board of Elections, and circuit courts, while creating a process for electing and qualifying a successor to serve the remainder of the unexpired term.
The available vote history suggests some support but not unanimous agreement, with the bill deferred to the 41st legislative day by a 9-2 vote. Because there are no committee transcripts provided, the broader sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s structure and vote: it appears to be aimed at increasing voter control over officeholders, but it also introduces a significant and potentially disruptive removal mechanism. The main points of contention are likely to be the relatively low signature threshold, the broad grounds for recall, the short timelines for filing and election, and the possibility of using the process against appointed officials as well as elected ones.
HB1315 would amend South Dakota’s election and office-removal framework by adding a new recall procedure in chapter 3-17. It would affect elected officials and certain appointees filling vacancies, while excluding officials subject to constitutional impeachment. The bill would require the secretary of state and the State Board of Elections to administer petition certification, ballot placement, and rulemaking, and it would create expedited judicial review for challenges to recall petitions. It would also establish how a successor is elected, qualified, and seated for the remainder of the term.
The bill appears to have mixed but meaningful interest, as reflected by the 9-2 vote to defer it to the 41st legislative day rather than advancing it immediately. That suggests the proposal drew enough support to remain alive, but also enough concern to delay action. In the absence of committee testimony, the overall sentiment can best be described as cautious and divided, with the concept of recall likely appealing to proponents of accountability while raising procedural and constitutional concerns for others.
The most likely areas of contention are the scope and ease of the recall process. Critics may object to the 15% signature threshold, the 60-day signature validity window, and the broad list of recall grounds, which could make removal efforts easier to initiate. Others may question the compressed timelines for certification, court challenges, and special elections, as well as the bill’s application to individuals appointed to fill vacancies. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize voter accountability and a direct mechanism for removing officials accused of serious misconduct or incompetence.