Why It Matters
The South Dakota Secretary of State’s office has revised its voter notification procedures following a federal lawsuit alleging that inaccurate letters prevented citizens from casting ballots in local elections. The changes aim to clarify why voters were designated as “federal-only” and how they can restore full voting rights before the upcoming general election.
What Happened
Monae Johnson, South Dakota’s Secretary of State, directed county auditors to distribute new form letters to voters who have been stripped of their state and local voting privileges. The updated correspondence explains the specific reasons for the loss of rights—whether due to missing citizenship documentation or address verification issues—and provides guidance on how individuals can regain full ballot access.
The directive follows a federal lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters and Jaysen Hill against the state. Hill alleged that he was unable to vote in local contests during the June 2 primary because of a registration error and a lack of timely explanation from election officials. He claimed Minnehaha County auditors sent him an erroneous letter stating he failed to provide a physical address, despite his submission of a photocopy of his ID.
The League of Women Voters argues that the state’s procedures for enforcing a new proof-of-citizenship law are unconstitutional. They asked U.S. District Judge Eric Schulte last week to halt the practice of tagging voters without providing accurate reasons or remedy options. In response, Johnson contacted the state registration system vendor to disable an auto-populating letter feature that she noted was causing some auditors to send incorrect notices about residential addresses to voters who had actually failed to provide proof of citizenship.
By the Numbers
June 2 — Date of the primary where Jaysen Hill alleges he was unable to vote in local contests.
Two — Number of laws passed in recent years creating “federal-only” voters in South Dakota.
2026 — Year of the law requiring proof of citizenship for new registrants.
2025 — Year of the law designating certain address types as federal-only.
30 days — Required period of state residency to avoid federal-only designation if using a PO box or mail-forwarding service.
Monday — Day Secretary Johnson filed a document and sent alternative form letters to auditors.
Tuesday — Day Judge Schulte scheduled a snap hearing regarding the lawsuit.
July — Month the Board of Elections voted down the League’s proposed procedural changes on a technicality.
Friday — Day advance voting begins for the upcoming election cycle.
Noon Wednesday — Deadline for additional written arguments from the plaintiffs’ attorney.
Zoom Out
The controversy stems from two laws passed in South Dakota that created a distinct class of “federal-only” voters. These individuals can vote in federal races for president, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House but are barred from participating in state and local contests or ballot questions.
The 2026 law requires newly registering voters to provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport, driver’s license, non-driver ID, tribal ID, or other acceptable documentary evidence. Photocopies are permitted for all required documents except driver’s licenses and state or tribal identification cards. The 2025 law designates voters using only mail-forwarding services or PO boxes as federal-only unless they provide a physical address and prove 30 days of residency.
Campaign Legal Center attorney William Hancock stated that Johnson’s actions satisfied the League’s request for a “simple fix” but argued they are only a first step. Hancock claimed the state waited until the “11th hour” before correcting the problem and warned that Johnson could “walk it back” any time, noting she did not promise to maintain the new procedure permanently.
What’s Next
Judge Schulte scheduled a snap hearing for Tuesday after Johnson’s filing, with all parties appearing remotely. The judge asked Hancock to submit additional written arguments by noon Wednesday. State lawyer Drew Driesen argued it would be nearly impossible for Johnson to rescind guidance near an election. Advance voting begins Friday, placing immediate pressure on the court and state officials to resolve the dispute before ballots are cast.