Now that 2025 HB 1130 has forced South Dakota municipal and school board elections onto the June primary or November general election dates, do all those contests have to share one ballot, or can each entity print its own?

Plain-English summary

The 2025 Legislature passed House Bill 1130, effective January 1, 2026. The bill is a major rewrite of when municipal and school board elections happen in South Dakota. Going forward, those elections can only be held on the same days as the regular June primary or the regular November general election. The previous April and May election dates, which historically had much lower turnout, are gone.

The new SDCL 9-13-37 and SDCL 13-7-10.3 both say the local election "shall ... be held in conjunction with the regular June primary election or the regular November general election." Both statutes go on to say "[t]he expenses and governmental responsibilities of a combined election must be shared in a manner agreed upon" by the local entities and the county.

Secretary of State Johnson asked the AG two practical questions. First, do the new statutes require the municipal, school district, and county contests to appear on the same physical ballot? Second, what do "in conjunction with" and "a combined election" actually mean?

AG Marty Jackley's answers:

1. Separate ballots are allowed. The statute requires only that the elections be held on the same day. "Shall" governs when, not how. Nothing in HB 1130 forces all three sets of contests onto one piece of paper.

2. The two phrases do different work. "In conjunction with" is temporal; it ties the local election date to the state election date. "A combined election" refers to expense sharing. The expense and responsibility-sharing requirement applies only when the county and the local entity actually choose to combine onto one ballot. If they can't agree on the cost split, they hold the elections on the same date but on separate ballots, with each entity bearing its own costs.

The opinion also notes that this reading aligns with the legislative testimony on HB 1130. Proponents told committee that ballots could be combined "if the entities so agree," and need not be.

What this means for you

For county auditors

Your office is the central planner here. After HB 1130 takes effect, you control the June and November ballots. For each election cycle, you'll need to reach out to every municipality and school district that has contests on the ballot to see whether they want to combine, and if so, negotiate cost-sharing in writing. If you can't reach agreement, plan to administer the local election on the same date but with a separate ballot. Build that contingency into your election-prep timeline.

For municipal finance officers and school business managers

Before each cycle, decide whether you want your contests on the county's ballot or on your own. Combining shares costs and is administratively cleaner; staying separate gives you ballot-layout control and avoids cost-share negotiations. Either way, start the conversation with your county auditor early. If you wait until the standard pre-election deadlines, you may find the auditor has already laid out the county ballot.

For school board members and city council members

Your district's election still happens; the choice between combined and separate ballots affects costs and logistics, not voting rights. If your district has limited budget, agreeing to a combined ballot with a fair cost split likely saves money. If your district has unique ballot needs (referenda, opt-out elections, school bond questions) and wants tight control over wording and presentation, a separate ballot may make sense.

For the Secretary of State's office

The AG opinion clarifies the operative meaning of HB 1130 for the guidance you owe county auditors under SDCL 1-8-1(8). The shorthand: timing is mandatory, ballot layout is optional, cost-sharing rules apply only when bodies actually combine.

For voters

Don't be surprised in June 2026 or November 2026 if you receive multiple ballots when you check in to vote: one for state and county contests, possibly a separate one for your city, and possibly another for your school district. That's not a glitch; it's a function of whether each entity agreed to share a single ballot or not.

Common questions

Q: What is HB 1130 in one sentence?
A: A 2025 law that forces South Dakota municipal and school board elections to happen on either the June primary date or the November general election date, eliminating the older April/May option, with the goal of increasing turnout.

Q: When does this take effect?
A: January 1, 2026. The June 2026 primary and the November 2026 general election are the first cycles affected.

Q: Do all three sets of contests have to be on one ballot?
A: No. The AG opinion says the statute requires same-day elections, not same-ballot elections.

Q: What does "in conjunction with" mean?
A: It refers to timing only. The local election occurs at the same time as the June primary or November general. It does not say anything about whether one ballot or several ballots are used.

Q: What does "a combined election" mean?
A: It refers to a situation where the local entity and the county actually combine onto one ballot, and it triggers the requirement that expenses be shared by agreement. If the parties don't agree to combine, the "combined election" cost-sharing provision doesn't apply.

Q: What happens if the county and a municipality can't agree on the cost split?
A: The AG opinion says they must then hold the elections on separate ballots, on the same date, with each entity covering its own costs. The statute does not provide a default arbitration mechanism.

Q: Can a municipality opt out of HB 1130 entirely and hold its election on a different date?
A: No. The date requirement ("June primary or November general") is mandatory. The only flexibility is whether ballots are combined.

Q: What about special elections like recalls or bond elections?
A: HB 1130's date alignment applies to general municipal and school board elections. Special elections triggered by specific statutory events (recall, bond referendum, opt-out vote) are usually governed by their own timing rules; check the specific statute that authorizes the special election before assuming HB 1130 controls.

Q: What if my city already passed a 2026 election schedule before HB 1130 took effect?
A: The new statute supersedes any prior city-set schedule effective January 1, 2026. Re-set your election calendar to match the June primary or November general date.

Background and statutory framework

South Dakota historically allowed multiple local-election dates: cities and school districts often held their general elections on a Tuesday in April. Turnout for those off-cycle elections ran much lower than for the June primary or November general. The 2025 Legislature, in HB 1130, made the policy judgment that turnout matters more than scheduling flexibility, and eliminated the April/May option.

The bill also redrew the statutory architecture. Several statutes were repealed; new SDCL 9-13-37 and SDCL 13-7-10.3 were enacted; existing election statutes were amended throughout chapters 9-13 and 13-7. The Secretary of State, under SDCL 1-8-1(8), has the duty to distribute election law amendments to county auditors, and that triggered her request for the AG's interpretation.

The opinion's analytical framework is plain-language statutory construction. The Court has repeatedly said statutes mean what they say (Farm Bureau Life Ins. v. Dolly, 2018 S.D. 28). When language is clear, no construction is needed (Moss v. Guttormson, 1996 S.D. 76). When statutes appear ambiguous, the Court can consult legislative history (In re Petition of Famous Brands, 347 N.W.2d 882 (S.D. 1984)). Here, the AG read the statute as plain on its face but also reached for the legislative history to confirm the same answer.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- SDCL 1-8-1(8)
- SDCL 9-13-37 (effective January 1, 2026)
- SDCL 13-7-10.3 (effective January 1, 2026)
- 2025 South Dakota House Bill 1130

Cases:
- Farm Bureau Life Ins. v. Dolly, 2018 S.D. 28, 910 N.W.2d 196
- In re Petition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882 (S.D. 1984)
- 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

Source

• Landing page: https://atg.sd.gov/OurOffice/OfficialOpinions/opinionhtml.aspx?id=1771
• 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 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. 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