Case Summary
LWVSD filed a federal lawsuit asserting South Dakota’s incorrect notices to voters about voter registration problems, and hard copy DPOC requirements violated the Due Process Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In March 2026, South Dakota enacted Senate Bill 175, which imposed a dual voter registration system in the state. Under the law, new voter registration applicants and those who were previously removed from voter rolls wishing to vote a full ballot (“full ballot voters”) i.e. being able to vote on state, local, and federal races, were required to present certain forms of documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC). Voters who failed to present proper DPOC were registered as federal-only voters, meaning they could only vote in elections for President of the United States and the United States Senate and House of Representatives. The bill also required that registrants provide a hard copy of certain types of DPOC along with their voter registration forms.
In many cases, voters who had not provided DPOC were sent letters sent through the state's voter registration system, stating errors in their address had caused them to be registered as federal-only voters, when in fact, it was problems with their DPOC which caused that problem. The letters also failed to provide clear instructions on how to fix the DPOC issues.
On August 24, 2026, the League of Women Voters of South Dakota (“LWVSD”) and an individual voter filed a federal lawsuit, asserting the incorrect notice provided as part of the implementation of H.B. 175 and the hard copy provision for certain forms of DPOC violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution and Materiality Clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, respectively. The League argued that the incorrect letters: deprived voters of their right to vote in state and local elections by denying them proper notice and a path to providing proper DPOC; curtailed LWVSD's voter registration work; and imposed unnecessary, pointless burdens on voters through the hard copy requirements. The plaintiffs asked the court to order the Secretary of State to ensure voters had proper notice and a clear means of curing DPOC issues to allow them to have full ballot voter status, and to enjoin the hard copy requirement for the affected forms of DPOC. The plaintiffs also requested a preliminary injunction to ensure relief before the November 2026 election.
On September 18, 2026, after the Secretary of State agreed to ensure that voters would be provided a new letter giving proper notice and spelling out a process to cure problems with their DPOC, the district court denied the preliminary injunction, stating it was not required at this time to provide plaintiffs' relief.
LWVSD was represented in this matter by Campaign Legal Center, ACLU, ACLU of South Dakota, and Heidepriem, Purtell, Siegel, Hinrichs.
LWV Timeline
H.B. 175 is signed into law
Governor Larry Rhoden signs H.B. 175, a new bill requiring documentary proof of citizenship for new registrants and previously removed registrants, into law.
LWVSD files lawsuit
LWVSD and an individual voter file a federal lawsuit asserting the implementation of H.B. 175 and its hard copy provision for DPOC violated the Due Process Clause and the Materiality Clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, respectively.
LWVSD files for preliminary injunction
The plaintiffs file for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to order the Secretary of State to provide accurate notice to voters about problems with their DPOC and an opportunity to cure those issues.
District court denies preliminary injunction as moot
The district court rules that, since the Secretary of State agreed to the requested relief from plaintiffs, and affirmed that she would not reverse that implementation in a sworn declaration, there is no longer a current need to grant a preliminary injunction.