HB 1324 would abolish the State Board of Elections and transfer most of its duties, rulemaking authority, and administrative functions to the secretary of state. The bill rewrites many election statutes to replace references to the State Board of Elections with the secretary of state, including authority over petition forms, ballot forms, absentee voting materials, recount procedures, voting system approval, post-election audits, and complaint resolution. It also changes several election deadlines and procedures, such as petition filing requirements for initiated measures, initiated amendments, and referral petitions, and it adds a new filing deadline for initiative and referendum signatures on the first Tuesday in May of the general election year.
The bill also makes broader changes to election administration and voter registration. It revises rules for voter registration verification, inactive voter maintenance, address confirmation mailings, voter challenges, provisional ballots, absentee ballot handling, and election equipment testing. It prohibits absentee ballot drop boxes, bars ranked-choice voting systems, and tightens various procedures for ballot counting, tabulation, and recounts. It also includes a new requirement for interpreters in certain counties with significant language-minority populations, specifically referencing Sioux dialects and federal voting-rights language-assistance standards.
In addition to shifting authority from the board to the secretary of state, the bill repeals numerous sections that currently create or empower the State Board of Elections and related rulemaking provisions. The overall legal effect would be a major restructuring of South Dakota election administration, centralizing authority in the secretary of state’s office and eliminating the board as a separate entity effective January 1, 2027.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history is favorable at least at the committee stage, with the bill receiving a 12-0 vote to be deferred to the 41st legislative day. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate summary here, but the unanimous vote suggests the bill was not immediately opposed in that setting. Because the bill is sweeping and touches many election procedures, it would likely draw attention from election administrators, county auditors, political parties, ballot measure sponsors, and voting-rights advocates.
Notable points of contention likely include the elimination of the State Board of Elections, the consolidation of power in the secretary of state, the ban on absentee ballot drop boxes, the prohibition on ranked-choice voting systems, and the stricter petition and ballot-access rules. The interpreter provisions and the repeal of older Voting Rights Act-related sections may also be sensitive, especially for Native American communities and counties with language-minority voters. The bill’s broad rewrite of election law suggests that both supporters and critics may focus on whether it improves administrative clarity or instead reduces independent oversight and voter access.
The bill would substantially amend Title 12 election law by removing the State Board of Elections from many statutory roles and assigning those responsibilities to the secretary of state. It repeals multiple provisions that create the board or authorize it to prescribe forms and rules, while revising dozens of sections to substitute the secretary of state as the rulemaking and administrative authority for petitions, ballots, voter registration, absentee voting, recounts, audits, and election complaints. It also changes deadlines and procedures for initiative, referendum, and candidate petitions, and it adds new requirements for interpreters in certain counties and for filing ballot-measure signatures by a new May deadline.
The only recorded vote in the provided history was unanimous, 12-0, to defer the bill to the 41st legislative day, which suggests the measure was not immediately divisive at that stage. No committee transcript is available, so there is no direct record of arguments for or against the bill in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s scope, it appears to be a significant election-administration overhaul that could attract both reform-oriented support and criticism from those concerned about centralization and voting access.
The main points of contention are likely to be the abolition of the State Board of Elections and the transfer of authority to the secretary of state, which concentrates control over election rules and procedures in one office. Other likely flashpoints are the ban on absentee ballot drop boxes, the prohibition on ranked-choice voting systems, tighter petition and signature-filing rules, and the repeal of several voting-rights and election-rule provisions. The new interpreter mandate and the repeal of older language-assistance sections may also be debated by Native American communities, county officials, and voting-rights advocates, especially regarding implementation costs and federal compliance.