What's Happening?
South Dakota Secretary of State Monae Johnson has directed county auditors to issue more accurate letters to voters designated as 'federal-only' and provide clear instructions on how to regain full voting rights. This action stems from a federal lawsuit
filed by the League of Women Voters and a Sioux Falls resident, Jaysen Hill. Hill's lawsuit alleges he was unable to vote in local elections due to a registration error and received an inaccurate explanation. The League of Women Voters contends that the state's procedures for implementing a new proof-of-citizenship law, which creates a class of federal-only voters, are unconstitutional. These federal-only voters can participate in federal races but are excluded from state and local contests. The new guidance from Johnson includes two alternative form letters for auditors to use, explaining either a failure to provide citizenship documentation or a failure to provide a residential address. Johnson also instructed auditors to cease sending inaccurate letters, begin sending accurate ones, and send new letters to those who received incorrect information, detailing how to restore their 'full-voter status' by the October 19 registration deadline. Additionally, Johnson requested the state's registration system vendor to disable the auto-populating letter feature that produced the problematic letters.
Why It's Important?
This development is significant for voter rights and election integrity in South Dakota. The lawsuit and subsequent guidance highlight concerns about the implementation of laws requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, which have created a class of federal-only voters. The League of Women Voters argues that these procedures are unconstitutional, potentially disenfranchising citizens from participating in state and local elections. The Secretary of State's new guidance aims to address immediate issues of transparency and due process for affected voters, ensuring they receive correct information and an opportunity to rectify their registration status. This could prevent eligible voters from being mistakenly excluded from certain elections. The case also underscores the ongoing tension between state efforts to ensure voter eligibility and advocacy groups' concerns about potential barriers to voting. The outcome of the broader lawsuit could set precedents for how proof-of-citizenship requirements are implemented and communicated to voters, impacting future election processes and voter participation rates in South Dakota.
What's Next?
U.S. District Judge Eric Schulte has scheduled a hearing to assess the impact of Secretary Johnson's actions on the need for a court order. While the League of Women Voters acknowledges Johnson's steps as a positive 'first step,' they are still seeking a court order to ensure the new procedures are maintained and not rescinded. The League's attorney, William Hancock, expressed concern that Johnson's declaration did not include a promise to maintain the new procedure, and that the state had not addressed the issue until a ruling was imminent. The state's lawyer, Drew Driesen, argued that an order is unnecessary, as auditors are too busy to reverse course so close to an election. Judge Schulte has given Hancock until Wednesday noon to provide additional written arguments supporting the request for an order. Beyond the immediate issue of voter notices, the lawsuit will continue to address other demands, including forcing the state to accept photocopies of various identification documents for voter registration and rescinding guidance requiring in-person registration for those using such IDs as proof of citizenship.
Beyond the Headlines
The legal challenge and the state's response delve into deeper implications regarding the balance between election security measures and voter access. The creation of 'federal-only' voters, while intended to ensure citizenship, raises questions about the fundamental right to participate in all levels of democratic governance. The lawsuit's focus on the types of acceptable identification and the process for proving residency highlights the complexities of voter registration laws and their potential to disproportionately affect certain populations. The debate over whether photocopies of IDs should be accepted and the requirement for in-person registration for some individuals touches upon issues of accessibility, particularly for those in rural areas or with limited mobility. This case could influence future legislative efforts concerning voter identification and registration, potentially leading to broader discussions about the administrative burdens placed on voters and the role of state election officials in safeguarding both the integrity and accessibility of the electoral process. The outcome may also shape how other states approach similar voter eligibility requirements.
