South Dakota's new election law (HB 1062) tells the Secretary of State to post the statewide voter registration file online weekly, but another statute says voter registration info can't be put on the internet with unrestricted access. Do those statutes contradict each other?

Plain-English summary

In the 2025 legislative session, South Dakota passed HB 1062, which (among other things) amended SDCL 12-4-37 to require the Secretary of State to "post a weekly update to the statewide voter registration file" on the Secretary's website. But SDCL 12-4-41 has long said voter registration file information "may not be placed for unrestricted access on the internet." Representative Taylor Rehfeldt asked the AG whether the new posting duty contradicts the existing access restriction.

AG Marty Jackley says no, and walks through how to read the two statutes together:

• The Legislature is presumed to know what laws are on the books when it passes new ones. When it added the weekly posting duty in 2025, it knew SDCL 12-4-41's "no unrestricted access" rule was already in place.
• South Dakota courts disfavor "implied repeal" — when two statutes can be read to coexist, they should be. Faircloth v. Raven Industries and State v. Young are the load-bearing cases.
• The harmonized reading: the Secretary must post the weekly file, but is allowed (and required) to put a "reasonable, minimal" restriction on access to comply with SDCL 12-4-41.
• The current Secretary of State's request-form system meets that standard: anyone asking gets an online form (contact info, acknowledgment of SDCL 12-4-9 and 12-4-41), which generates a one-time link that expires in 12 hours.

So the practical answer: the file is online; you can get it; the Secretary collects your contact info and gets your acknowledgment first. If the Legislature meant something different, it can amend either statute to clarify.

This opinion is a procedural rather than substantive ruling. It does not change who can access the file or for what purposes. It explains how the Secretary should structure the access mechanism.

What this means for you

If you work in the Office of the Secretary of State

The opinion validates the request-form approach. Going forward:

• Document the rationale for the access mechanism (request form, one-time link, 12-hour expiration) in case it is ever challenged. The AG's reasoning is your defense.
• The acknowledgment language on the form is important: it should reference SDCL 12-4-9 and 12-4-41, as it currently does, so users are on notice of the use restrictions.
• Keep the 12-hour expiration and one-time-use features. The AG specifically called these "reasonable, and minimal" restrictions. Making them less restrictive could fall below SDCL 12-4-41; making them more restrictive could fall below SDCL 12-4-37.
• Maintain audit logs of access requests, including the IP and contact info each requester provided. If a downstream misuse case arises, your records will matter.

If you are a state legislator

The opinion tells you two things. First, the statutory tension exists and the AG's harmonization is a workable but interim solution. Second, the Legislature has the cleanest tool to fix the tension if the current Secretary's mechanism is not the policy you intended.

Options if you want clearer law:

• Amend SDCL 12-4-41 to explicitly carve out the SDCL 12-4-37 posting. The AG opinion essentially does this through interpretation; statutory text would be cleaner.
• Amend SDCL 12-4-37 to specify what access controls the Secretary must impose (or may impose). Right now the Secretary is implementing controls under interpretive cover; you could spell them out in statute.
• Leave both statutes as written if you are satisfied with the request-form approach. The opinion's reasoning will continue to support that approach until a different AG or a court takes a different view.

If you want to use the South Dakota voter registration file

The file is available, but not as a static download. You go to the Secretary of State's website, fill out the request form (contact information, acknowledgment of SDCL 12-4-9 and 12-4-41), and get a one-time link to the weekly snapshot. The link expires in 12 hours. Use cases SDCL 12-4-41 prohibits: selling the file, using it for any commercial purpose, putting it on the internet for unrestricted access. Acknowledging this rule is part of the request form's acknowledgment block.

Practical implications:

• Plan your retrieval window. Once you click the link, you have 12 hours.
• If you need multiple snapshots over time, you submit multiple requests; you do not get a recurring credential.
• Sharing your link or republishing the file would likely violate SDCL 12-4-41 and could expose you to civil or criminal sanction. Treat the file as locked to your authorized use.

If you are an election integrity researcher or journalist

You can access the file under the request-form system. Be careful with downstream sharing: SDCL 12-4-41 is a hard rule against republishing on the open internet. Even posting screenshots of voter data in a story may put you in tension with the statute. Talk to counsel about how to use the data without crossing the rule.

The request form's acknowledgment requirement is meaningful: by signing, you are on notice of the limits. Subsequent misuse cannot be excused by ignorance.

If you advise political campaigns or data vendors

The "no commercial use" language in SDCL 12-4-41 is the part most relevant to you. The file cannot be sold, and it cannot be used for any commercial purpose. Campaign use is allowed under SDCL 12-4-9's general access framework; commercial resale or repackaging into a commercial product is not. The opinion does not address where the line falls in edge cases (campaign tech vendors providing services to campaigns, for example), so seek guidance before integrating the file into a paid service offering.

If you are a voter wondering what info is in the file

The statewide voter registration file contains the information that South Dakota election law requires to be collected for registration purposes (name, address, date of birth, party affiliation if applicable, voting history per the relevant chapters). Sensitive information categories are governed by separate statutes; SDCL 12-4 is the access framework, not the substantive privacy rule. The new weekly posting does not change what is in the file, only how often and where the snapshot is made available.

Common questions

Q: What is the statewide voter registration file?
A: It is the centralized list maintained by the Secretary of State of registered voters in South Dakota. SDCL Chapter 12-4 governs both who can access it and how.

Q: What changed in 2025?
A: HB 1062 amended SDCL 12-4-37 to require the Secretary of State to "post a weekly update to the statewide voter registration file" on the Secretary's website. The prior version did not require weekly posting.

Q: Why does that conflict with SDCL 12-4-41?
A: SDCL 12-4-41 prohibits voter registration file information from being placed "for unrestricted access on the internet." On its face, posting a weekly file on the Secretary's public website looks like exactly that. The opinion resolves the apparent conflict by reading the posting requirement as compatible with reasonable access controls.

Q: What "reasonable, minimal" restrictions count?
A: The opinion identifies the Secretary's existing mechanism — request form requiring contact info and acknowledgment of SDCL 12-4-9 and 12-4-41, generating a one-time link that expires in 12 hours — as adequate. The opinion does not list the minimum requirements in the abstract. A more restrictive mechanism (longer acknowledgments, faster expiration) would also satisfy the statute. A meaningfully less restrictive mechanism (no acknowledgment, indefinite link) probably would not.

Q: Does this opinion bind the Secretary of State?
A: The Secretary is a separate constitutional officer. AG opinions are persuasive guidance for constitutional officers, not orders. In practice, the Secretary's current mechanism aligns with the opinion's view, so there is no conflict to resolve. If a future Secretary changed the mechanism in a way the AG views as inconsistent with SDCL 12-4-41, the AG would issue a new opinion or take other steps.

Q: Could a court reach a different result?
A: Possibly. The opinion is well-reasoned but relies on statutory harmonization principles. A court could read the 2025 amendment as an implied repeal of SDCL 12-4-41's restriction insofar as the file itself is concerned, leaving only the commercial-use bar. The opinion explicitly cites Faircloth v. Raven Industries on the disfavor of implied repeal, which makes that alternative reading less likely but not impossible.

Q: What is the practical difference between "restricted" and "unrestricted" access on the internet?
A: "Unrestricted" in the AG's reading means anyone, anywhere, with no required interaction with the data steward. A static URL serving the file would be unrestricted. "Restricted" means there is some gate — even a minimal one — between the requester and the file. A request form with acknowledgment and a time-limited link is restricted. The line is not at any specific level of friction; it is at whether the user identifies themselves and acknowledges the use rules before getting the data.

Background and statutory framework

South Dakota's voter file access framework sits in SDCL chapter 12-4. The relevant pieces:

• SDCL 12-4-9 sets out who can access the file and under what conditions. It is the substantive access rule.
• SDCL 12-4-37 (as amended in 2025 by HB 1062) directs the Secretary of State to post a weekly update of the file on the Secretary's website.
• SDCL 12-4-41 restricts use of file information: no sale, no commercial use, no placement "for unrestricted access on the internet."

The 2025 amendment was driven by a policy push toward greater file transparency. SDCL 12-4-41 represents the older, more cautious policy. The two statutes were not synchronized when HB 1062 passed, leaving the apparent conflict that Rep. Rehfeldt's question raises.

South Dakota's standard rule for statutory interpretation is the plain-language-first approach (Olson v. Butte County Comm'n, 2019 S.D. 13). When two statutes conflict, the duty is to "reasonably interpret both, giving effect, if possible, to all provisions" (Faircloth v. Raven Industries, 2000 S.D. 158). Implied repeal is "strongly disfavored unless legislative intent to repeal is apparent in the legislative act" (id.). And the Legislature is presumed to know existing law when it enacts new provisions (State v. Young, 2001 S.D. 76).

Applying those rules, the opinion finds that the 2025 Legislature, aware of SDCL 12-4-41, must have intended the SDCL 12-4-37 posting to be made through a mechanism consistent with the existing restriction. The Secretary's request-form approach is the operationalization of that compatibility.

The opinion is a textbook example of how the AG handles legislative conflict that emerges from statute-by-statute amendments without comprehensive harmonization. The Legislature can ratify or override it in the next session.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- SDCL 12-4-9 (statewide voter registration file access)
- SDCL 12-4-37 (Secretary of State weekly posting)
- SDCL 12-4-41 (no commercial use, no unrestricted internet access)
- 2025 SD HB 1062

Cases on statutory interpretation:
- Olson v. Butte County Comm'n, 2019 S.D. 13, 925 N.W.2d 463 (plain-language paramount)
- Faircloth v. Raven Industries, Inc., 2000 S.D. 158, 620 N.W.2d 198 (harmonization, implied repeal disfavored)
- State v. Young, 2001 S.D. 76, 630 N.W.2d 85 (Legislature presumed aware of prior laws)
- In re Implicated Individual, 2021 S.D. 61, 966 N.W.2d 578
- In re Taliaferro, 2014 S.D. 82, 856 N.W.2d 805

Source

• Landing page: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/OfficialOpinions/opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://atg.sd.gov/OfficialOpinions/AG%20Opinion%2025-02%20Rep.%20Taylor%20Rehfeldt.pdf

Original opinion text

OFFICIAL OPINION 25-02

Re: Official Opinion Concerning SDCL §§ 12-4-37 and 12-4-41

Dear Representative Rehfeldt,

In your capacity as State Representative, you have requested an official opinion from the Attorney General's Office on the following questions:

QUESTION:

Does the language in SDCL § 12-4-37 requiring the Secretary of State to post a weekly update of the statewide voter registration file on the Secretary of State's website conflict with the language of SDCL § 12-4-41 prohibiting information obtained from the statewide voter registration file from being placed for unrestricted access on the internet?

ANSWER:

No, the statutes can be interpreted in a manner that harmonizes their provisions and gives effect to both statutes.

FACTS:

The South Dakota Legislature passed House Bill 1062 during the 2025 legislative session. The bill, in part, requires the Secretary of State to post a weekly update of the statewide voter registration file to the Secretary of State's website. The language at issue in your request was enacted as an amendment to SDCL § 12-4-37. The language of SDCL § 12-4-41 prohibits statewide voter registration file information from being placed on the internet with unrestricted access. The question has arisen whether the duty imposed on the Secretary of State by SDCL § 12-4-37 conflicts with the prohibition found in SDCL § 12-4-41.

IN RE QUESTION:

As stated above, you have asked whether the identified provisions of SDCL §§ 12-4-37 and 12-4-41 conflict.

When interpreting statutes, "'the language expressed in the statute is the paramount consideration.'" Olson v. Butte County Comm'n, 2019 S.D. 13, ¶ 5, 925 N.W.2d 463, 464 (quoting Goetz v. State, 2001 S.D. 138, ¶ 15, 636 N.W.2d 675, 681). "When the language in a statute is clear, certain and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction[.]" In re Implicated Individual, 2021 S.D. 61, ¶ 16, 966 N.W.2d 578-583. The intent of a statute "must be determined from the statute as a whole, as well as enactments relating to the same subject." In re Taliaferro, 2014 S.D. 82, ¶ 6, 856 N.W.2d 805, 807 (citations omitted).

SDCL § 12-4-37 states in part: "the secretary of state shall post a weekly update to the statewide voter registration file to the secretary of state's website." SDCL § 12-4-41 states in part: "[a]ny information obtained from the statewide voter registration file … may not be sold, may not be used for any commercial purpose, and may not be placed for unrestricted access on the internet." Upon initial review, the language of SDCL § 12-4-37 appears to conflict with the prohibition found in SDCL § 12-4-41.

"Where two statutes appear to conflict, it is [the reader's] duty to reasonably interpret both, giving effect, if possible, to all provisions under consideration, construing them together to make them harmonious and workable." Faircloth v. Raven Industries, Inc., 2000 S.D. 158, ¶ 7, 620 N.W.2d 198, 201 (cleaned up). The implied repeal of one statute by the language of another is also strongly disfavored unless legislative intent to repeal is apparent in the legislative act. Id., ¶ 10. I must also presume the Legislature was aware of the prohibition contained in SDCL § 12-4-41 when it enacted the posting requirement in SDCL § 12-4-37. State v. Young, 2001 S.D. 76, ¶ 11, 630 N.W.2d 85, 89 (Legislature is presumed to be aware of prior laws when enacting new provisions).

Reviewing your question with these principles in mind, it is my opinion that SDCL § 12-4-37 and § 12-4-41 can be interpreted in a manner that harmonizes the statutes and gives effect to both provisions.

Reading the two provisions together, I conclude that it is reasonable to interpret SDCL § 12-4-37 as specifically authorizing the Secretary of State to post the weekly update of the statewide voter registration file to the Secretary's website, while SDCL § 12-4-41 operates to prohibit that information from being placed on the internet with unrestricted access. Under SDCL § 12-4-37 the Secretary of State is authorized to post the weekly update of the statewide voter registration file to the Secretary's website. But the prohibition in SDCL § 12-4-41 preexisted the recent amendment to SDCL § 12-4-37. The Legislature is presumed to have been aware of the "unrestricted access" prohibition at the time it tasked the Secretary of State with posting the statewide voter registration file online. That prohibition must and can be given its full effect.

It is my opinion, that while the Secretary of State is authorized to post the statewide voter registration file to the Secretary's website, it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to place certain requirements on accessing that file in order to give full effect to the "unrestricted access" language of SDCL § 12-4-41. Currently, the Secretary of State requires anyone seeking to access the statewide voter registration file to fill out an online request form providing that individual's contact information and their acknowledgement that they have read the provisions of SDCL §§ 12-4-9 and 12-4-41. Submittal of the form generates a onetime use link to access the statewide registration file. The link expires after twelve hours. This is a reasonable, and minimal, restriction on access to the statewide voter registration file that allows the Secretary of State to maintain compliance with the "unrestricted access" prohibition of SDCL § 12-4-41.

CONCLUSION

The language of SDCL § 12-4-37 and § 12-4-41 may initially appear to conflict, but I conclude that the statutes can be interpreted together to give full effect to the language of both statutes. As stated above, SDCL § 12-4-37 specifically authorizes the Secretary of State to post the weekly update of the statewide voter registration file on the Secretary's website, while SDCL § 12-4-41 prohibits the information from the statewide voter registration file from being made available on the internet with unrestricted access. The Secretary of State has established a request procedure that gives full effect to the requirements of both provisions. If the Legislature intended a different result, it should clarify its intent regarding the interaction between the language identified in SDCL § 12-4-37 and § 12-4-41.

Sincerely,

Marty J. Jackley

ATTORNEY GENERAL

MJJ/SRB/dd