Under South Dakota's 2025 HB 1130, do counties, cities, and school districts have to hold their elections on a single combined ballot, or can each level run its own ballot on the same day?
Plain-English summary
South Dakota's 2025 legislative session passed HB 1130, which moved all county, municipal, and school district elections in even-numbered years to one of two dates: the June primary or the November general. The bill becomes effective January 1, 2026. Secretary of State Monae Johnson tried to read the new statutes and could not tell whether HB 1130 also requires every entity to share a single ballot on those dates. Election guidance to county auditors, municipal finance officers, and school business managers was stuck pending an answer.
AG Marty Jackley said the statutes require the same date but not the same ballot. Two phrases drove his analysis:
- "In conjunction with" in SDCL 9-13-37 and 13-7-10.3 is a temporal phrase. It ties municipal and school board elections to the same calendar dates as the primary and general elections. It does not refer to ballot consolidation.
- "Combined election" in those statutes refers to the sharing of expenses and governmental responsibilities. The bill anticipates that municipalities, school districts, and counties will agree on how to split election costs when they run a single combined event. If they cannot agree, they hold separate ballots on the same day.
The legislative intent behind HB 1130 was to boost participation by ending April and May elections (which historically had very low turnout). Bill proponents testified that consolidation onto one ballot was permissible but not mandatory.
The opinion is a procedural ruling that lets the Secretary of State immediately publish guidance to county auditors and other officials so they can plan for 2026 elections under the new rules.
What this means for you
If you are a county auditor
Under HB 1130, your June primary or November general ballot will share a date with all municipal and school board elections in your county in even-numbered years. You and the municipalities and school districts in your county have two options:
- Combined ballot: all entities agree to a single ballot, with expenses and governmental responsibilities shared per agreement under SDCL 9-13-37 and 13-7-10.3. This is the cost-efficient default.
- Same-day separate ballots: if any entity cannot agree on cost-sharing or operational responsibilities, the entities run separate ballots on the same date. Voters will see (and you may need to administer) multiple ballots at the same polling place.
Start the conversations with your local municipalities and school districts well before each cycle. The AG's reading means you have flexibility, but you also need a documented agreement or fallback plan.
If you are a municipal finance officer
You are responsible for running the city's general election. Under HB 1130, that election is now on the June primary date or November general date in even-numbered years. To avoid administering a separate municipal ballot, you will want a cost-sharing agreement with the county. Such an agreement should cover:
- Per-ballot cost allocation;
- Polling place use;
- Who provides election workers;
- Who handles canvassing and certification;
- Who pays for any required ballot reprints or special equipment.
If you cannot reach agreement, your city runs a separate ballot. That is operationally heavier and more expensive, but it is the statutory fallback the AG identified.
If you are a school business manager
Same considerations as the municipal finance officer, but applied to school board elections. Under SDCL 13-7-10.3, "expenses of a combined election must be shared in a manner agreed upon by the school board and the boards of county commissioners involved." Multiple counties may be involved if your school district crosses county lines. Reach those agreements early; failure to agree means a separate school board ballot on the same day, which adds cost and complexity.
If you are a city council member or school board member
Decisions about ballot consolidation and cost-sharing under HB 1130 are governing-body decisions. Before the 2026 cycle, vote on:
- Whether to enter a combined-election agreement with the county;
- The terms of any cost-sharing formula;
- Backup plans if the county or another participating entity cannot agree.
This is also a policy moment. The legislature shifted from year-round April-May elections to a June or November model in part to increase turnout. A combined ballot further compresses voter cognitive load on a single date. Members who care about turnout may want to push toward combined ballots; members who want stand-alone visibility for school or municipal races may prefer separate ballots.
If you are an election lawyer or political consultant
Track local agreement status through 2026. Combined ballots will probably dominate where parties can agree, but stand-alone municipal or school ballots will emerge where cost-sharing falls apart. Both layouts have legal implications for filing deadlines, sample ballot publication, and post-election challenges. The AG opinion's emphasis on "temporal versus combined" framing will be cited in any litigation about HB 1130's effects.
If you are a voter
In June and November of even-numbered years (starting in 2026), expect to vote on more contests than you used to in a single day. Whether those contests are on one combined ballot or several separate ballots depends on whether your county, city, and school district reached an agreement. Watch for the published sample ballot from your county auditor for the layout.
Common questions
Q: When does HB 1130 take effect?
A: January 1, 2026. The first elections under the new framework will be the June 2026 primary date and the November 2026 general date.
Q: Did HB 1130 eliminate all April and May elections?
A: For municipal, school district, and county elections in even-numbered years, yes. The bill consolidated them onto the June primary or November general date. Special elections and elections in odd-numbered years follow separate rules outside this opinion's scope.
Q: What is the difference between "in conjunction with" and "combined election"?
A: "In conjunction with" is temporal, referring to when elections must occur (same date as the primary or general). "Combined election" refers to expense and responsibility sharing when multiple entities run a single election event. The first is mandatory; the second is optional and depends on agreement.
Q: What happens if a city and the county can't agree on cost-sharing?
A: They run separate elections on the same day. The municipality administers and pays for its own ballot at its own polling places (or by separate ballot at shared polling places). This is operationally awkward but is the statutory fallback the AG identified.
Q: Can a school district that spans two counties consolidate with both?
A: Yes, if all parties agree. SDCL 13-7-10.3 contemplates "the school board and the boards of county commissioners involved" (plural). Multi-county consolidation is more complex but legally permissible.
Q: Does this affect candidates or filing deadlines?
A: This opinion does not address candidate filing requirements. Filing deadlines may have shifted with HB 1130's date consolidation; check with your county auditor and the Secretary of State for specifics.
Q: Why did the Legislature consolidate election dates?
A: To increase participation. April and May municipal and school elections historically had very low turnout. Moving these elections to dates with the primary or general election increases the number of voters who will see them.
Background and statutory framework
Prior to HB 1130, South Dakota had a patchwork of election dates: counties had primary (June) and general (November) elections, municipalities often elected in April or May, and school boards had their own calendar. Voters who turned out for one cycle would often miss the others. Average turnout for stand-alone municipal and school elections was very low — sometimes below 10% — which raised concerns about the legitimacy of the choices made and about the practical efficiency of running so many separate elections.
HB 1130 consolidated those into two dates in even-numbered years. The drafting created the ambiguity at the heart of this opinion: SDCL 9-13-37 says the municipal general election is held "in conjunction with the regular June primary election or the regular November general election," and that "the expenses and governmental responsibilities of a combined election must be shared in a manner agreed upon" by the city and the county. SDCL 13-7-10.3 has parallel language for school board elections.
Read narrowly, "in conjunction with" could mean either "on the same date as" or "as part of a single ballot." The opinion picks the first reading, supported by:
- Plain language of "shall, in even-numbered years, hold" — the mandate is about when not how.
- The "combined election" cost-sharing language anticipates a separate agreement, which would be meaningless if the elections were always combined by default.
- Legislative history: bill proponents explicitly testified that consolidation onto one ballot was optional.
The AG's reading preserves local flexibility: counties and the entities within them can choose the operational model that works for them. The opinion is essentially a green light to the Secretary of State's office to publish guidance reflecting this flexibility.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL 9-13-37 (municipal election timing under HB 1130)
- SDCL 13-7-10.3 (school board election timing under HB 1130)
- SDCL 1-8-1(8) (Secretary of State's duty to distribute election law updates)
- 2025 SD HB 1130
Cases on statutory interpretation:
- Farm Bureau Life Ins. v. Dolly, 2018 S.D. 28, 910 N.W.2d 196
- Magellan Pipeline Co. v. S.D. Dep't of Revenue & Reg., 2013 S.D. 68, 837 N.W.2d 402
- Moss v. Guttormson, 1996 S.D. 76, 551 N.W.2d 14
- In re Taliaferro, 2014 S.D. 82, 856 N.W.2d 805
- In re Petition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882 (S.D. 1984)
Source
- Landing page: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/OfficialOpinions/opinions.aspx
- Original PDF: https://atg.sd.gov/OfficialOpinions/Official%20Opinion%2025-05.pdf
Original opinion text
OFFICIAL OPINION 25-05
Re: Official Opinion Concerning 2025 HB 1130
Dear Secretary of State Johnson,
In your capacity as Secretary of State, you have requested an official opinion from the Attorney General's Office on the following questions:
QUESTION(S):
- Regarding elections for counties, municipalities, and school districts, must the municipal, school district, primary, and general election contests be on the same ballot, or may they be on separate ballots?
- What do the phrases "in conjunction with" and "a combined election" mean?
ANSWER(S):
- No, the elections do not have to be on the same ballot.
- In these statutes, "in conjunction with" is a temporal phrase referring to the timing of the election dates. In contrast, "a combined election" refers to the division of expenses.
FACTS:
In 2025, the South Dakota Legislature passed House Bill 1130, scheduled to become effective January 1, 2026. The bill revamped municipal and school board election laws by creating new statutes, repealing several others, and amending more still. In your role as Secretary of State, you are tasked with distributing any amendments to the general election laws under SDCL 1-8-1(8). You indicated your office has tried to interpret HB 1130 to no avail and you are thus unable to provide guidance to county auditors, municipal finance officers, and school business managers on upcoming elections. You seek guidance on how to advise local governments on the changes prompted by the enactment of HB 1130, and its corresponding statutes.
IN RE QUESTION 1:
You specifically inquire about the following portions of SDCL 9-13-37 and SDCL 13-7-10.3, effective January 1, 2026, which say, in relevant part:
Any other provision of this chapter notwithstanding, the governing body of a municipality shall, in even-numbered years, hold the general municipal election in conjunction with the regular June primary election or the regular November general election. The expenses and governmental responsibilities of a combined election must be shared in a manner agreed upon by the governing body of the municipality and the board of county commissioners involved.
SDCL 9-13-37.
Any other provision of this chapter notwithstanding, the board of a school district shall, in even-numbered years, hold the school board election in conjunction with the regular June primary election or the regular November general election. Expenses of a combined election must be shared in a manner agreed upon by the school board and the boards of county commissioners involved.
SDCL 13-7-10.3.
First, you question whether these statutes require municipal, school district, and county elections to be combined on one ballot.
When reviewing statutes, we must "assume statutes mean what they say and that legislators have said what they meant." Farm Bureau Life Ins. v. Dolly, 2018 S.D. 28, ¶ 9, 910 N.W.2d 196, 199–200 (quoting In re Petition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882, 885 (S.D. 1984)). "When interpreting a statute, we begin with the plain language and structure of the statute." Magellan Pipeline Co. v. S.D. Dep't of Revenue & Reg., 2013 S.D. 68, ¶ 9, 837 N.W.2d 402, 404. "When the language in a statute is clear, certain and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and the Court's only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed." Moss v. Guttormson, 1996 S.D. 76, ¶ 10, 551 N.W.2d 14, 17 (citations omitted). 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). But "resorting to legislative history is justified only when legislation is ambiguous . . ." Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d at 885.
It is my opinion that these statutes do not state or otherwise require that the elections be on the same ballot. The statutes require only that the elections be held either on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June or the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The mandate "shall" refers to when the elections are to be held, not in what manner. Nothing in the plain language of HB 1130 requires the elections be on the same ballot.
IN RE QUESTION 2:
Second, you asked the meaning of the phrases "in conjunction with" and "a combined election" within these statutes. It is my opinion that "in conjunction with" is temporal. It ties the municipal election or school board election with "the regular June primary election or the regular November general election." As explained above, this phrase tells the reader when the elections must be held. They do not refer to combined or separate ballots.
On the other hand, it is my opinion that the phrase "a combined election" refers to expenses. This phrase tells the reader how expenses and governmental responsibilities must be shared. The subject sentences tie the "[e]xpenses" for school boards and "expenses and governmental responsibilities" for municipal elections to the mandate that the same be agreed upon by the governmental bodies sharing in that combined election. My interpretation of the statutes is that if the governmental bodies are unable to agree, then the elections naturally must be held separately from one another but on the same date.
While it is not necessary to consider the legislative intent behind an unambiguous statute, my interpretations align with the legislative intent of the bill. It is clear the legislative intent was to improve voter participation in municipal and school board elections by creating only two permissible dates for county, municipal, and school board elections — June and November — while eliminating the possibility of holding elections in April and May, which historically had much lower voter turnout. See House and Senate hearing testimony, available at https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/25591 (last visited November 24, 2025). Proponents specifically testified that all these elections need not be combined on one ballot, but can be, if the entities so agree.
CONCLUSION
In my opinion and based on the plain reading of these statutes, municipal, school district, and county elections do not have to be on the same ballot even though they must be held on the same days in either June or November. In these statutes, "in conjunction with" is a temporal phrase referring to the timing of the election dates, while "a combined election" refers to the division of expenses. The legislature has the power to create and revise statutes and has the duty to further clarify the relevant statutes if necessary. As such, if further clarification is required, the legislature has the power and authority to do so.
Sincerely,
Marty J. Jackley
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MJJ/SLT/dd