Legislation headed to SD Senate would authorize challenges to voters’ citizenship
Committee also advances bill specifying that cast-ballot images are public records
PIERRE — Doubts about a person’s citizenship status could be used to challenge their right to vote in South Dakota, if a proposal approved by a legislative committee Wednesday becomes law.
A person initiating a challenge would have to be registered to vote in the same county as the person being challenged. South Dakota’s secretary of state or a local county auditor’s office could also raise a challenge. The challenge would have to be filed with the county auditor at least 90 days before an election.
The Secretary of State’s Office, which oversees elections in South Dakota, requested the bill.
Supporters of the measure said it would strengthen voting integrity.
“If you find somebody who’s not a citizen and is trying to vote, then do something about it,” said Thomas Deadrick, deputy secretary of state. “This would be a way to do something about it.”
There are no specifics in the bill about what kind of proof a person would need to disprove another person’s citizenship. Deadrick gave examples that ranged from a copy of a person’s immigration visa to a sworn statement concerning a conversation about citizenship.
Sen. Liz Larson, D-Sioux Falls, was the only Senate State Affairs Committee member to vote against the measure. She raised concerns about what evidence or proof is needed to challenge a person’s vote and whether the state should give everyday citizens that authority.
“It just seems too nefarious to me, to give that right,” Larson said afterward.
Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens this month in Minneapolis. Larson said “especially in today’s environment,” the bill is “adding fuel to the fire.”
“To have those issues of people challenging citizenship for other people, it comes with so much baggage and especially now with a lot of the violence that’s going on in Minnesota,” Larson said. “I think this is too far.”
Other opponents said the bill is redundant, because there are already state and federal laws against non-citizens voting.
Melissa McCauley, a lobbyist for South Dakota Voices for Justice, said the legislation “does not add enforcement authority, new tools or cleaner standards,” and “creates administrative work without added value.”
The bill now goes to the state Senate floor.
Committee also approves ballot transparency bill
Another bill advanced by the committee Wednesday would specify that images of cast ballots made by a type of vote-counting machine used in four South Dakota counties are public records. It would also specify that cast vote records — spreadsheets full of voting tabulations — are public records. Sen. Tom Pischke, R-Dell Rapids, introduced the bill.
The counties with machines capable of producing cast ballot images are Brown, Lincoln, Minnehaha and Pennington. Counties would not be required to use the machines. There are protections in the bill against releasing images containing personally identifying or other sensitive information.
Pischke said the bill’s intent is to make the election system as open as it can be.
“As a Legislature, we provide transparency in the budget-making process, we provide transparency in the legislative process, and we do that because the people deserve it,” he told the committee. “Election results should be no different.”
Thomas Oliva, the Hughes County finance officer, said he had to process about 8,000 ballots in the 2024 general election. He shared concern for the amount of work that could be required of officials in the state’s larger counties if requests are made for the cast-ballot images.
“I don’t know in my office how I would be able to get this done personally,” he said. “I hope those commissions take a look at that administrative duty that this creates for their auditor.”
Lincoln County Auditor Sheri Lund agreed with the concern.
The committee sent the bill to the Senate without opposition.
Content courtesy of South Dakota Searchlight.
A solution in search of a problem. What a joke.
Ah yes. Once again solving non-existent problems and trying to out private information. Doesn't Pischke ever have anything better to do?