South Dakota’s new law requiring first-time voter registrants to provide proof of citizenship is encountering a patchwork of interpretations at the county level, as auditors disagree over how to handle the state’s newly issued citizenship-marked driver’s licenses.
Senate Bill 175, enacted with an emergency clause that makes it effective for the upcoming June 2 primary, mandates that new voters submit documentation such as a passport, birth certificate, or a South Dakota driver’s license that indicates citizenship status. The secretary of state’s website lists driver’s licenses among acceptable proofs but does not clarify whether a photocopy is sufficient, leaving county auditors to set their own policies.
Hughes County Finance Officer Thomas Oliva, who acts as the county auditor, said his office is requiring new voters to show the physical card. “The main reasoning behind that is because it’s the back of the license. There’s no other identifying information on the back we can tie back to that person, so we felt it’s in the best interest to see the physical card,” Oliva said.
Haakon County Auditor Stacy Pinney echoed that stance. “I’m going to make it a policy in my office that I want to see the actual card. If I have to verify it, I want to see the real deal,” Pinney said.
Harding County Auditor Kathy Glines, however, told News Watch her office will accept a photocopy, provided it includes both the front and back of the license. “They would have to send a front and back,” Glines said, adding that she hopes applicants call ahead because of limited office hours.
Amy Scott-Stoltz, president of the League of Women Voters of South Dakota, said the lack of uniformity is creating real difficulty. “They’re trying to follow the secretary of state’s guidelines, but the vagueness has led to certain issues,” she said. “Do they need to present this stuff in person? Can they accept it by mail? Different auditors interpret that differently.”
Beyond the photocopy question, Oliva flagged a separate communication gap in the state’s voter registration system. New voters who are deemed to have not submitted adequate citizenship documentation are sometimes classified as “Federal Only” voters, restricting them to federal races. But the letter the state sends to those voters does not clearly state that missing citizenship paperwork is the reason for the designation, he said; instead it lists other potential causes, such as the use of a commercial mail receiving agency or a post office box without a sufficient residential description.
“While the letter does inform the voter of their status, it does not provide a clear explanation as to why they were designated as such,” Oliva said. To address the gap, Oliva’s office created its own letter explaining that the “Federal Only” status stemmed from a lack of proof of citizenship and outlining the documents voters can submit to regain full participation.
Oliva and other auditors stressed that voters who are already registered do not need to bring additional documents to the polls, and that primary ballots have now been delivered to the majority of counties after initial delays. “We have received questions and concerns from individuals who believe they must bring additional documentation to the polls in order to vote. This is not the case,” Oliva said.
As early and absentee voting proceeds, Scott-Stoltz said the League hopes for more clarity from Pierre. “We’re hoping for more clarification from the secretary’s office before the primary and are looking forward to working with the election board,” she said.
The secretary of state’s office did not respond to a request for comment, News Watch reported.
Separately, state Attorney General Marty Jackley issued a draft explanation for Amendment J, a measure on the November ballot that would amend the South Dakota Constitution to explicitly disqualify non-U.S. citizens from voting in state and local elections. While non-citizens are already barred from federal elections and from registering to vote in the state, the proposed amendment would close a gap in the constitution’s language. The public has until May 8 to submit written comments on the attorney general’s explanation, with a final version due May 19.