Voting rights lawsuit prompts South Dakota to fix ‘confusing’ proof-of-citizenship system

A federal judge Friday denied a voting rights group’s request to block part of South Dakota’s new proof-of-citizenship voting system after the state changed its voter notices and gave the group much of what it had asked for.

South Dakota overhauled part of its new proof-of-citizenship voter registration system after voting rights advocates sued last month and a federal court held oral arguments. The pro-voting developments prompted the judge to deny the plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief as moot because the state had already implemented the changes they sought.

The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and voter Jaysen Hill sued state officials over the implementation of Senate Bill 175, which requires new voter registration applicants to provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote in state and local elections. Voters who do not provide qualifying documentation can be classified as “federal-only voters,” meaning they may still vote in federal races but not state or local contests.

The lawsuit challenged, among other things, an automated notice that could tell voters they had been restricted because they used an improper residential address even when the actual problem was missing or inadequate proof-of-citizenship documentation. The court noted that some voters with valid residential addresses nevertheless received the inaccurate letter.

“Eligible voters should not be blocked from participating in state and local elections because of unnecessary barriers in the registration process,” Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice for the League of Women Voters, said in a press release last month. “When voters face confusing requirements or receive inaccurate information about their registration, the result is fewer voices being heard in our democracy.”

After the court held oral argument last week, Secretary of State Monae Johnson’s office changed course. On Monday, the state disabled the auto-generated letter and replaced it with two separate templates — one for address problems and another for missing or inadequate proof of citizenship. The state also instructed county officials to send corrected notices to federal-only voters who had previously received the wrong letter and had not yet obtained full voter status.

At a second hearing, the pro-voting plaintiffs acknowledged that the changes, if implemented, provided the relief they had sought in their preliminary injunction motion. They still asked the court to enter an order out of concern that the state could reverse course, but the judge found there was no reasonable expectation that officials would return to the challenged practice.

“With only thirty-one days from the voter registration deadline for the upcoming election and forty-six days from the election, the Secretary of State cannot, in this Court’s judgment, reasonably be expected to backtrack and return to prior allegedly illegal conduct,” the court wrote. “If defendants do not fulfill their promises, then plaintiffs are to advise the court so the court can take appropriate action.”

The court emphasized the stakes even as it declined to issue an injunction.

“Voting is a fundamental right that is the cornerstone of our democracy,” the court added. “Prospective voters should be told the truth about their voting status. The Court expects that voter applicants should be correctly and truthfully informed about their federal-only voter status going forward based on Defendants’ representations.”

The ruling does not end the lawsuit. 

The judge said the pro-voting plaintiffs’ due process claims for permanent relief remain live, and the preliminary injunction was denied without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to return to court if the state backtracks.