League of Women Voters of South Dakota v. Johnson

South Dakota Senate Bill 175, enacted in March 2026, requires a voter registration form to include certain forms of documentary proof of citizenship. If registrants do not provide the required documents, they are registered as federal only voters, meaning they cannot vote in state and local elections.

Shortly after the law passed, the South Dakota Secretary of State issued guidance stating that for the most common and accessible forms of this documentation — driver’s licenses, Tribal IDs and non-driver state IDs — voters must provide original copies in person. This is particularly burdensome in a rural state like South Dakota, where thousands of voters register by mail or at voter registration drives and round-trip distances to county election offices can exceed 100 miles. This guidance is also contradicted by the plain text of the statute, which allows prospective voters to submit photocopies of certain documents, including driver’s licenses and non-driver IDs.

What is worse, if there is an issue with the voter’s documentation, the state sends a notice letter containing inaccurate information about why their registration was denied. The form notice given to federal only voters does not mention proof of citizenship requirements and state officials—despite being aware of the issue—have declined to update the notice following SB 175’s passage. Nor are voters given any opportunity to appeal or cure any issues with their documentation. Instead, they must submit a brand new registration application.

The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Jaysen Hill are suing, arguing the state’s implementation of the new proof-of-citizenship requirement violates the Civil Rights Act and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. They have moved for preliminary relief in advance of the 2026 election and are represented by the ACLU Voting Rights Project, the ACLU of South Dakota, Campaign Legal Center, and Heidepriem, Purtell, Siegel, Hinrichs.