Aside from transferring millions of dollars from your grocery budget to the owners of the biggest houses in town, has the 2026 Legislature done anything all that bad?
The American Civil Liberties Union and the League of Women Voters say, How about Senate Bill 175, South Dakota’s own Disenfranchise Married Women Act?
When he wasn’t busy skipping work and failing math, Senator John Carley (R-29/Piedmont) foisted upon the Legislature and the people of South Dakota SB 175, his own version of the federal SAVE Act—you know, the doomed bill Trumpists want because they know rigging the election is the only way to stop Democrats from cleaning their clocks in the midterms. South Dakota law already requires that voters be United States citizens; Carley’s SB 175 requires everyone registering to vote in South Dakota to show their county auditor documents proving their citizenship. SB 175 lists the acceptable documents:
(1) The individual’s South Dakota driver license or nondriver identification card, provided that the license or identification card was issued after July 1, 2025, and indicates that the individual has provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the individual is a United States citizen;
(2) A valid driver license or nondriver identification card issued by any other state or territory of the United States, provided that the license or identification card indicates that the individual has provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the individual is a United States citizen;
(3) The individual’s tribal identification card; or
(4) A legible photocopy of:
(a) The individual’s birth certificate;
(b) The pages of the individual’s United States passport, which identify the applicant and show the individual’s passport number;
(c) A consular report of birth abroad issued by the United States Department of State for the individual;
(d) The individual’s certificate of naturalization; or
(e) Any other type of acceptable documentary evidence of citizenship permitted under 42 C.F.R. § 436.407 (January 1, 2026).
If an individual provides a copy of the individual’s certificate of naturalization, the county auditor must verify the number of the certificate of naturalization with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service [2026 Senate Bill 175, excerpt from Section 3, as enrolled 2026.03.05].
As with the SAVE Act, if you’re married and took your spouse’s name, the auditor could refuse to accept your birth certificate as proof of your citizenship and thus refuse to let you register to vote.
The ACLU and the League of Women Voters are asking Governor Larry Rhoden to veto SB 175 because it could deny thousands of South Dakotans their right to vote:
Dear Governor Larry Rhoden:
The American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota (ACLU of South Dakota) the South Dakota League of Women Voters urge you to veto Senate Bill 175, a bill that requires an individual to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and that declares an emergency. SB 175 will potentially disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters in South Dakota who lack easy access to the required documents, such as a U.S. passport or a birth certificate. This bill will also have a heightened impact on eligible senior, youth, women, low-income, and rural voters across the State.
SB 175 places the burden on eligible voters to procure documents that take both time and money to obtain. Notably, the bill will make voting harder for married women and other South Dakotans who have changed their names; these groups will need additional documents to prove their name change, like a marriage certificate, adding extra time and cost to simply register to vote. According to the Center for American Progress, as of 2024, over 200,000 South Dakota women have a birth certificate that no longer matches their current name, the vast majority of whom changed their name after marriage. It would have a similar effect on lower-income voters, young people, seniors, and anyone else who does not travel internationally or who does not have the time or means to obtain a passport or copies of their birth certificate. Indeed, over 60% of South Dakotans—well over half a million people in the state—did not have a valid passport as of 2024. And because SB 175 will go into effect immediately, those impacted by the new law will have limited time to obtain the appropriate documentation before the May 18th voter registration deadline for the upcoming June 2nd Primary Election Day.
SB 175 is a sweeping, significant change to our voting laws that could prevent tens of thousands of citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote. When Kansas enacted a similar law, 31,000 eligible voters were prevented from voting, and the law was ultimately found to be an unconstitutional burden on voting rights. Non-citizens voting is an issue which is virtually non-existent and already illegal. Moreover, South Dakota’s county auditors have effective procedures in place to guard against illegal voting. In addition to the barriers to voting, SB 175 will also impose a burden on auditors and other county employees that is redundant to the processes already in place.
Governor Rhoden, vetoing SB 175 would send a clear message: South Dakota supports voters. This bill makes it harder to participate in elections and undermines democracy. Vetoing this unnecessary bill will help ensure that every eligible vote is counted and will prevent the imposition of unnecessary barriers that will disproportionately affect certain voters [American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota and South Dakota League of Women Voters, letter to Governor Larry Rhoden, 2026.03.16].
Note that emergency clause: since SB 175 would take effect immediately if the Governor signs it, the ACLU and LWV would not have to option to organize a petition drive to pause SB 175 and refer this noxious disenfranchisement to a public vote. If Governor Rhoden does not veto SB 175, voting-rights advocates will have to lawyer up and take South Dakota to court—and fast!—to preserve the rights of South Dakotans hoping to register and vote in the 2026 elections to participate in the democratic process.
p.s.: Only three Republicans—Senators Deibert, Kolbeck, and Mehlhaff—had the guts to vote with Democratic Senators Foster, Larson, and Smith against SB 175. But over in the House, Democratic Reps. Emery and Uhre-Balk voted for this gross disenfranchisement (shame! shame!), despite the fact that it threatens the rights of hyphenated name-changers like Rep. Uhre-Balk herself.
Gee, I just responded to this. I guess were not in Kansas anymore, too bad. Like I previously said I lost my passport but I do have my birth certificate from Dell Rapids circa 1953. I really wanted it to check…. My sister Margie who is doing fine is 18 years older than me sooo I kinda wondered. My wife has hers too but she needs to find our marriage certificate. The Trumper’s are doing this everywhere. They have to cheat to win
The Heritage foundation just let out how to put women back in the kitchen and keep them barefoot and pregnant of course. The Trumper party likes women as long as they don’t get in the way or vote differently and especially don’t sue Trump and win in a court of law. Rape isn’t that big of a deal after all.
I have a birth certificate AND a marriage certificate, who knew that was rare?
Women who don’t know where they left such documentation might want to locate it before they retire and want to compare social security benefits, or if one of you is a veteran. Like if you want VA benefits, such as being buried next to him in the veterans’ cemetery, you’ll need that marriage certificate. (incidentally, veterans are advised to hang onto their discharge papers.)
If you cannot locate a marriage certificate, you should be able to get a copy of it from the courthouse in the county in which you were married.
If that doesn’t work for you, just trot on over to the nearest courthouse, and get married all over again. They’ll give you a new one. This will not help you establish the necessary 40 quarters to qualify for social security benefits if your husband doesn’t live another ten years, but at least you can vote.
There is no evidence of large or even small numbers of non citizens voting.
All the evidence is simple allegation
When somebody wants to divert
Real attention then make allegations
To a problem that doesnt exist.
I asked a righty to find me some examples of “foreigners” voting. He came up with just one—in Pennsylvania. One, and not in South Dakota. For one case of a foreigner voting, you get to spend lots of money and gothrough a lot of trouble and expense to prove that you are a citizen, even though you might have been voting for over 50 years .
Big Government Republicans love bills like this. They can’t provide one instance of a “foreigner” voting, but they pretend there are millions of these people voting. They do this just so they can keep more and more people from votiing. For most people getting one of these “papers” is just another hurdle you will have to jump over to vote. But it will cost you money, and time, I have to say South Dakota sent me my birth certificate pretty quickly. It should be that if you are getting these “papers” to vote, that the government should provide them to you for free. They should also do all the chasing around to get them. It shouldn’t be up to you to prove you are a citizen. It should be up to government to prove you aren’t a citizen.
As for me, I’ve got all the papers these effing people want—a birth certificate, and passport, and a fancy driver license, which required a birth certificate to get. I got all these because when Trump got elected the first time, I thought I might have to escape his neo-Nazi regime. If you want to know the truth, I hate what Trump has made of this country, and we have been talking about leaving this country for good.
So, I might be voting with my feet if Trump gets really out of hand, and there are lots of people looking at this as well. Canada has recently liberalized its citizenship requirements, as have Ireland and Germany. I’m just hoping Trump kicks the bucket before I have to leave this country.
Is the young Senator Foster really a Democrat? You wouldn’t know it by her voting record or where she sits or spends time caucusing with the caucuses.
Shockingly to most of you fellows, grudznick agrees with you. Even though I can vote in South Dakota, and most of you cannot, despite your derangement syndrome on the issue.
I noted the issue date after July 1, 2025. I hope this is a typo.
My gold star driver’s license was issued before that date. Will I need to have the DMV issue a new license to replace my valid license?
The question isn’t whether the elections are fraudulent or not, the question is have too many people lost trust in the system?
The events of January 6, 2021 prove they have. Al Gore was sore when he lost to Bush and his fans were convinced the machines had bedn tampered with. Hillary Clinton claimed Trump was an “illegitimate President.” Trump continues to spout the nonsense about the 2020 election having been rigged.
The problem will not go away when Trump leaves office. Losers will continue to complain of election fraud, and without better security, their supporters will believe it.
The Democrats have maintained that 1-6-2021 was an insurrection yet they now maintain that there is no need to restore the public trust in our elections.
Well which is it? If there is no problem, what was all the fuss about? Why were those people at the Capitol raising hell?
You can’t have this both ways. Either 1-6-2021 was the terrifying result of people believing the election had been stolen, and steps must be taken to ensure it never happens again, or it was no big deal, there’s nothing to see here.
On reflection, I bet all those married women who don’t know where their marriage certificates are simply don’t know that their husbands have them in the same folders or large manila envelopes with the birth certificates and the military discharge papers. The husbands took all that with them to the VA one day and they’ve been in those files or envelopes ever since, probably in file cabinets with all the wills, DPOAs, tax returns and insurance policies. All these women need to do is ask their husbands “hey, where’s our marriage certificate?”
A woman has to prove every name change. So, a birth certificate first, then a marriage certificate, proof of divorce, and a court order to get original name back. If a woman marries more than once, add more paperwork. We already do this in S.D. to get a driver’s license. We’ve been doing this for at least a dozen years.
This does disfranchise older women who cannot get copies of their certificates because anything older than 40-50 years cannot be had online. And you can’t just call the county where the marriage occurred to get a copy. Same with birth certificates. Proof is required and some states require in person applications only.
I would now advise young women not to change their names when getting married.
Since this action affects mostly Republicans what’s the big deal?
What the hell. I’m in my 70’s. I got all these documents together (birth certificate, marriage license, divorce papers, and another marriage license) when the state required it for South Dakota drivers license. Never have had a passport as I’ve never traveled out of the U.S. Voted in every election since I was old enough to vote. Does this mean I have to reregister to vote and take all these documents when I do?
Anne Beal admits that non-citizens voting is not one based in reality. It’s based on fiction.
Anne, you make a serious false equivalency between Trump’s election denials and Gore’s and Clinton’s comments. Gore’s complaint was a partisan Supreme Court deciding an election. Both those candidates conceded the election to allow the nation to move forward.
Of course neither was happy in the result, but there just is NO comparison to the Jan 6 insurrection and constant stream of false accusations from Trump.
Larry, because we are to good guys who look out for election integrity, and enforcing rights be given to everyone — not picking and choosing who gets to have rights and who does not.
Hey, Mrs. Beal? New Mexico was one of seven states where fake electors were recruited to steal the 2020 presidential election for Trump and suits to block him from the Republican primary ballots were filed in Florida, Arizona, Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Herr Trump engaged in an insurrection and SCOTUS did not overturn that but said states can’t ban federal candidates from the ballot.
Not everyone has a birth certificate: if you were born at home, without a doctor present… might not happen. Occasionally records offices and old buildings are demolished and some records get lost with them. Not many Americans have a passport (for one thing they’re expensive, and they take time to get). And there are quite a few who have had no desire to travel abroad.
But seriously, this truly is aimed at women.
Look at JD Vance. Born James Donald Bowman, when his mother remarried his name was changed to James David Hamel, and later HE changed his last name to his mother’s maiden name, Vance. The only birth certificate for Vance on file at Ohio’s vital statistics office reads James David Hamel (which sounds fishy, doesn’t it? How do you get a new birth certificate with a new name as a child? BTW, James David Hamel is the name he served in the Marines under, as well as going to Yale. He changed it to J.D. Vance before he graduated, and then, its final iteration, was when he went into politics and got rid of the “dots”, and became JD Vance. Has anyone ever asked him for his series of papers to prove his name is legitimate? No. He’s been voting for years under any name he wants to use.
Why shouldn’t married women do the same?
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/why-has-jd-vance-changed-his-name-several-times-heres-the-real-reason/articleshow/113885336.cms
Great comments. What is important is that everyone’s vote is a constitutional right. Making it harder for those who have a name change or are too old to have a birth certificate, is excluding persons based on bias. If they have a voting history so far, they should be grandfathered or grandmothered in. In general, women tend to outlive men, so they are a voting block to be reconned with. And at times, can be very unpredictable.
A large majority of women in this area are Republican, but I know others around the state who are registered Democrats, Independents, and those like me, a No Party. Most women I know don’t vote for the party, instead they vote for the issues/person. And since raising children is one parent job at times, women tend to vote for those with solutions to their everyday struggles. We don’t see our humble public servants doing anything about housing, soaring food prices, rising utility bills, health care, on and on. And many women living in poverty don’t vote but those who do have jumped some hurdles to get there. They tend to vote liberal.
ALL VOTES COUNT.
The SAVE America Act is not about protecting elections — it’s about disguising voter suppression. Voter suppression is discriminatory and aims to disenfranchise Black voters, young voters, older voters, married voters and other Americans. This legislation is an unnecessary response to solve a problem of “voter fraud” that does not exist. Any incidents of voter fraud or double registrations — which are incredibly rare — are prosecuted. This act saves no one and only makes it harder for eligible citizens to vote. Additionally, election officials already take steps to verify a person’s eligibility to vote before registering them as a voter. Under federal law, anyone applying to register to vote must already provide either their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number. Officials use this information to verify a person’s identity and eligibility to vote under federal and state law. This involves using federal and state databases to confirm an applicant’s citizenship status and any history of criminal convictions. This process essentially serves as a “background check” for voter registration. The SAVE Act would disrupt this “background check” process and instead make American citizens prove to their own government that they are a citizen. In addition to this, election officials conduct routine voter list maintenance procedures to remove ineligible people from their rolls, such as people who have moved out of state, died, or become ineligible due to a criminal conviction.
VM, I am guessing that we just know different women: most I know vote party first on the single issue of pro-life. They do that because their mother did that before them . . . On down generations.
O, I guess we don’t know similar people. I have never met anyone who votes on the singular issue of abortion. It’s not a survival issue; like jobs, supplying food, clothing, and shelter to themselves/families. Maybe it has to do with socioeconomics. I am not middleclass, and I am surrounded by poverty, many single parent homes. It may also have to do with location, location, location. This town is over the 50% poverty level, near the reservation in north central SD. And it may have to do with age. All of my friends have been post-menopausal for 20-30 years, and way beyond childbearing years. We are living on fixed incomes but continue to work if we want to keep our teeth, sight, and hearing. We are in survival mode when we thought we would be in our golden years. We vote for Social Security and Medicare. Finally, it may be our gender/religion. Since the beginning of time, women have known ways to prevent pregnancy and to abort an unwanted 15th or 16th baby. We never use to rely on doctors or hospitals, so where there is a will there is a way. Abortion is not new nor will it cease.
VM, I have to believe that the single issue voting is more about virtue signaling than actual politics. That is the master stroke of GOP politics in SD. So many people will vote against their own political interests (and neighbor’s, family’s . . . ) on that single, ABSOLUTE issue — to the point that they will not even listen to a pro-life Democrat. That issue belongs to Republicans. It is the ultimate moral high ground, even when not in actual play or contention — no matter how abhorrent a Republican may be on any/every other issue.
Anne, the reason they rioted was because Trump told them too. He freed all the lawbreakers, too. He still claims he won. I don’t care for the lying piece of sheet but his supporters believe he’s holy. Have a nice day.
O, you are a very deep thinker who articulates very well. I assume you don’t live in S.D., otherwise I’d encourage you to run for office, any office.