South Dakota · individual fact

South Dakota crime

Reported violent and property crime, police reporting coverage, and South Dakota public-safety context.

Reported violent-crime rate356.9 per 100k2024 · #22 of 50* · highest first
Reported property-crime rate1,712.6 per 100k2024 · #23 of 50* · highest first
Police population reporting coverage89.6%2024 · #46 of 50* · highest first

South Dakota over time

Explore South Dakota readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. South Dakota officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a South Dakota effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a South Dakota change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

Reported violent-crime rate South Dakota · source units
South DakotaPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

Reported violent-crime rate2024: 356.9 per 100k341 per 100k423 per 100k504.9 per 100kSouth Dakota, 2015: 414.9 per 100kSouth Dakota, 2016: 436.2 per 100kSouth Dakota, 2017: 449.6 per 100kSouth Dakota, 2018: 367.1 per 100kSouth Dakota, 2019: 361.2 per 100kSouth Dakota, 2020: 489 per 100kSouth Dakota, 2021: 415.1 per 100kSouth Dakota, 2022: 405 per 100kSouth Dakota, 2023: 376.7 per 100kSouth Dakota, 2024: 356.9 per 100k201520192024
✦ Major events & context · 33National context · Booker makes federal sentencing guidelines advisory · 2005-01-12Federal sentencingNational context · Adam Walsh Act establishes new registration standards · 2006-07-27Adam Walsh ActNational context · Survey changes disrupt the 2006 victimization comparison · 2006-12-312006 survey breakNational context · Congress strengthens firearm background-check records · 2008-01-08NICS records lawNational context · Second Chance Act expands reentry support · 2008-04-09Second Chance ActNational context · Heller recognizes an individual firearm right · 2008-06-26Heller decisionNational context · Financial crisis deepens during the Great Recession · 2008-09-15Financial crisisNational context · Shepard–Byrd Act expands federal hate-crime law · 2009-10-28Federal hate-crime lawNational context · McDonald applies the firearm right to the states · 2010-06-28McDonald decisionNational context · Fair Sentencing Act changes federal crack penalties · 2010-08-03Fair Sentencing ActNational context · FBI expands the rape definition · 2013-01-01Rape definition expandsNational context · Violence Against Women Act reauthorized · 2013-03-07VAWA reauthorizationNational context · DOJ publishes Ferguson policing findings · 2015-03-04Ferguson investigationNational context · Murder rates rise in 2015 and 2016 · 2016-12-312015–2016 murder riseNational context · First Step Act enacted · 2018-12-21First Step ActNational context · FBI launches national use-of-force data collection · 2019-01-01Use-of-force reportingNational context · COVID-19 characterized as a pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · George Floyd is killed by a Minneapolis police officer · 2020-05-25George Floyd killedNational context · Murder rises sharply while property crime declines · 2020-12-312020 murder surgeNational context · FBI transitions to incident-based reporting · 2021-01-01NIBRS transitionNational context · COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act improves review and reporting · 2021-05-20Hate-crime reportingNational context · Executive order sets federal policing safeguards · 2022-05-25Federal policing orderNational context · Bruen changes the test for firearm restrictions · 2022-06-23Bruen decisionNational context · Bipartisan Safer Communities Act enacted · 2022-06-25Safer Communities ActNational context · FBI annual report again includes summary submissions · 2023-10-16Reporting coverage growsNational context · Vehicle theft rises while total property crime falls · 2023-12-31Vehicle-theft surgeNational context · Victimization survey tests a redesigned questionnaire · 2024-01-01NCVS redesign beginsNational context · Supreme Court rejects ATF’s bump-stock classification · 2024-06-14Bump-stock rulingNational context · Rahimi upholds disarmament for a credible domestic threat · 2024-06-21Domestic-threat rulingNational context · Federal policing executive order is revoked · 2025-01-20Policing order revokedNational context · Court sustains ATF’s rule covering some firearm kits · 2025-03-26Firearm-kit rulingNational context · Executive order redirects federal law-enforcement support · 2025-04-282025 policing policyNational context · FBI publishes 2025 annual crime estimates · 2026-08-142025 crime data release● South Dakota Legislature · 5● U.S. Congress · South Dakota delegation · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.◆ Governor · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.■ South Dakota agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2005-01-012026-08-31

5 of 5 reviewed South Dakota actions match · 5 date markers shown. 33 major events shown separately.

South Dakota · 2024: 356.9 per 100k · Rank #22 of 50*, highest first · U.S. benchmark: Not available

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query. These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred. South Dakota's average monthly population coverage fell below 90% in 2017 and from 2021 through 2024; those years are flagged and may understate reported rates. The lowest returned coverage was 88.6% in 2023. Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

* 89.6% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.

View observations and export data
South Dakota Reported violent-crime rate · source units
PeriodSouth DakotaRankU.S. benchmark
2024356.9 per 100k#22 of 50Not available
2023376.7 per 100k#23 of 50Not available
2022405 per 100k#20 of 50Not available
2021415.1 per 100k#17 of 50Not available
2020489 per 100k#9 of 50Not available
2019361.2 per 100k#24 of 50Not available
2018367.1 per 100k#23 of 50Not available
2017449.6 per 100k#17 of 50Not available
2016436.2 per 100k#18 of 50Not available
2015414.9 per 100k#18 of 50Not available
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

South Dakota · state comparison

Reported crime over time

Compare the same calendar year across states. A lower reported rate can reflect fewer crimes, incomplete reporting, or both.

South Dakota · 2024356.9 per 100k
South Dakota rank#22*among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

* South Dakota comparison caveat: 89.6% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.

Reported violent-crime rate

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred. South Dakota's average monthly population coverage fell below 90% in 2017 and from 2021 through 2024; those years are flagged and may understate reported rates. The lowest returned coverage was 88.6% in 2023. Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

South Dakota
Reported violent-crime rate history in South Dakota337.1 per 100k423 per 100k508.8 per 100k20152024
2024 · South Dakota: 356.9 per 100k · Rank #22 of 50*, highest first · Selected for state comparison

* 89.6% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.

View history and select a period
South Dakota Reported violent-crime rate history
PeriodSouth DakotaCompare
2015414.9 per 100k
2016436.2 per 100k
2017449.6 per 100k
2018367.1 per 100k
2019361.2 per 100k
2020489 per 100k
2021415.1 per 100k
2022405 per 100k
2023376.7 per 100k
2024356.9 per 100k

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Dakota has a dark outline.

Lower value · 102.6 per 100kHigher value · 744.7 per 100kStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

South Dakota · 356.9 per 100k2024 · Rank #22 of 50*, highest first* 89.6% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.Selected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare South Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Reported violent-crime rate · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1New Mexico744.7 per 100k—
#2Alaska731.9 per 100k—
#3Tennessee604.3 per 100k—
#4Arkansas589.6 per 100k—
#5*Louisiana504.5 per 100k82.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#6Colorado486.8 per 100k—
#7California478.4 per 100k—
#8Kansas474.7 per 100k—
#9Missouri472.7 per 100k—
#10Michigan442.6 per 100k—
#11South Carolina440.8 per 100k—
#12Arizona433 per 100k—
#13Oklahoma429.3 per 100k—
#14Montana428 per 100k—
#15Maryland425.9 per 100k—
#16Nevada408.6 per 100k—
#17Texas397.8 per 100k—
#18New York392.2 per 100k—
#19North Carolina382.9 per 100k—
#20Alabama380.8 per 100k—
#21Delaware368.4 per 100k—
#22*South Dakota · your comparison356.9 per 100k89.6% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#23*Indiana349.2 per 100k87.2% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#24Oregon341.1 per 100k—
#25Washington331.8 per 100k—
#26Georgia328 per 100k—
#27Massachusetts317.9 per 100k—
#28Ohio311.9 per 100k—
#29Illinois294.5 per 100k—
#30Wisconsin287.6 per 100k—
#31West Virginia263.8 per 100k—
#32*Florida262 per 100k81.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#33Minnesota259.4 per 100k—
#34North Dakota258 per 100k—
#35Pennsylvania251.3 per 100k—
#36Iowa247.2 per 100k—
#37Utah237.8 per 100k—
#38Idaho236.6 per 100k—
#39Hawaii230.3 per 100k—
#40Vermont227.1 per 100k—
#41Kentucky226.7 per 100k—
#42Nebraska224.6 per 100k—
#43Virginia223.7 per 100k—
#44New Jersey221.9 per 100k—
#45*Mississippi219.6 per 100k65.1% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#46*Wyoming212.5 per 100k89.9% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#47Rhode Island154.9 per 100k—
#48Connecticut139.2 per 100k—
#49New Hampshire112.3 per 100k—
#50Maine102.6 per 100k—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Reported violent-crime rate

356.9 per 100,0002024

Violent offenses reported to law enforcement per 100,000 residents in participating jurisdictions.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

  • These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred.
  • South Dakota's average monthly population coverage fell below 90% in 2017 and from 2021 through 2024; those years are flagged and may understate reported rates. The lowest returned coverage was 88.6% in 2023.
  • Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
  • Average monthly population coverage in 2024 was 89.6%; this is not complete statewide reporting.

Reported property-crime rate

1,712.6 per 100,0002024

Property offenses reported to law enforcement per 100,000 residents in participating jurisdictions.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Method and limitations

FactVote sums the 12 monthly state offense rates returned by the FBI Crime Data Explorer for each calendar year. The accompanying coverage value is the mean of the 12 monthly population-coverage percentages returned with the same query.

  • These are crimes reported to law enforcement, not all crimes that occurred.
  • South Dakota's average monthly population coverage fell below 90% in 2017 and from 2021 through 2024; those years are flagged and may understate reported rates. The lowest returned coverage was 88.6% in 2023.
  • Reporting systems, agency participation, and later revisions can change the published series.
  • Average monthly population coverage in 2024 was 89.6%; this is not complete statewide reporting.
South Dakota · state comparison

Firearm mortality

Firearm deaths include suicide, homicide, and other intents. Mortality is separate from reported crime.

South Dakota · 2024159
South Dakota rank#43among all 50 states
U.S. benchmarkNot availableSame measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Firearm deaths

Deaths with firearm injury recorded as the cause, all intents.

Counts reflect population size. They do not measure shootings, crimes, or the effect of a policy.

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. South Dakota stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. South Dakota has a dark outline.

Lower value · 55Higher value · 4,389Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

South Dakota · 1592024 · Rank #43 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare South Dakota with every state · 50 ranked
Firearm deaths · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas4,389—
#2Florida3,191—
#3California2,853—
#4Georgia1,985—
#5North Carolina1,835—
#6Ohio1,745—
#7Pennsylvania1,624—
#8Illinois1,563—
#9Tennessee1,448—
#10Arizona1,331—
#11Missouri1,234—
#12Michigan1,228—
#13Alabama1,212—
#14Indiana1,196—
#15Virginia1,153—
#16South Carolina1,064—
#17Louisiana1,031—
#18Colorado961—
#19Washington915—
#20New York896—
#21Kentucky870—
#22Mississippi810—
#23Oklahoma794—
#24Wisconsin735—
#25Maryland716—
#26Oregon663—
#27Arkansas638—
#28Minnesota582—
#28Nevada582—
#30New Mexico563—
#31Utah454—
#32Kansas446—
#33New Jersey393—
#34Iowa389—
#35Idaho331—
#36Massachusetts287—
#37West Virginia281—
#38Montana247—
#39Connecticut224—
#40Nebraska218—
#41Alaska182—
#42Maine181—
#43South Dakota · your comparison159—
#44New Hampshire152—
#45Wyoming143—
#46Delaware123—
#47North Dakota95—
#48Vermont76—
#49Hawaii56—
#50Rhode Island55—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Firearm deaths

1592024 final data

Deaths in which firearm injury was the underlying cause, with the rate age-adjusted per 100,000 residents.

This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.

Population-adjusted measure

Age-adjusted firearm death rate
17.3 per 100,000
Method and limitations

CDC National Vital Statistics System death-certificate data.

  • The total combines firearm deaths across intents, including suicide, homicide, legal intervention, and unintentional or undetermined injury.
  • It does not measure nonfatal injuries, firearm ownership, defensive uses, or policy effects.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about crime, victimization, policing and criminal justice from FactVote’s South Dakota candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

6 statements from 3 candidates

2026 South Dakota Governor and Lieutenant Governor — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Larry Rhoden

1 statement

Republican · Governor and Lieutenant Governor · SD

Policing & criminal justice context

I want to keep South Dakota strong – strong families, strong businesses, and strong institutions. I want to keep South Dakota safe – with low crime and respect for law enforcement. And I want to keep South Dakota free – freedom will continue to be our calling card as long as I am governor.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and criminal justice

Candidate campaign source

I want to keep South Dakota strong – strong families, strong businesses, and strong institutions. I want to keep South Dakota safe – with low crime and respect for law enforcement. And I want to keep South Dakota free – freedom will continue to be our calling card as long as I am governor.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Larry Rhoden — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗

2026 South Dakota U.S. House — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 5 statements

Marty Jackley

2 statements

Republican · U.S. House · SD

Policing & criminal justice context

The meth and fentanyl on our streets come across an open border. I have prosecuted the traffickers who bring it here. Secure the border, finish the wall, and let law enforcement do its job.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and criminal justice

Candidate campaign source

The meth and fentanyl on our streets come across an open border. I have prosecuted the traffickers who bring it here. Secure the border, finish the wall, and let law enforcement do its job.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Marty Jackley — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 1 more statement from Marty Jackley
Policing & criminal justice context

I have spent my career putting violent criminals behind bars. In Congress I will back our police, sheriffs, and prosecutors with the tools and the respect they have earned. Public safety comes first.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and criminal justice

Candidate campaign source

I have spent my career putting violent criminals behind bars. In Congress I will back our police, sheriffs, and prosecutors with the tools and the respect they have earned. Public safety comes first.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Marty Jackley — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

Democratic · U.S. House · SD

Crime & victimization

Strengthening programs that prevent domestic violence and sexual assault while ensuring survivors have access to safe housing, counseling, and legal services.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and criminal justice

Candidate campaign source

Strengthening programs that prevent domestic violence and sexual assault while ensuring survivors have access to safe housing, counseling, and legal services.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Nicole "Nikki" Gronli — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 2 more statements from Nicole "Nikki" Gronli
Crime & victimization

Requiring stringent background checks of our police forces across the state, eliminating any person who has a history of domestic violence from receiving employment.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and criminal justice

Candidate campaign source

Requiring stringent background checks of our police forces across the state, eliminating any person who has a history of domestic violence from receiving employment.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Nicole "Nikki" Gronli — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Policing & criminal justice context

I will work hand-in-hand with law enforcement in communities across the state in towns big and small. Our rights and safety are paramount to living a full life here in South Dakota, and should not be infringed.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Public safety and criminal justice

Candidate campaign source

I will work hand-in-hand with law enforcement in communities across the state in towns big and small. Our rights and safety are paramount to living a full life here in South Dakota, and should not be infringed.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Nicole "Nikki" Gronli — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
How statements are selected

This section matches specific crime, victimization, policing and criminal justice terms in retained, attributed source text from published South Dakota candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

South Dakota incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current South Dakota legislators and South Dakota’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from South Dakota’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

9 matching sponsorships or proposals · 7 South Dakota incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Aaron Aylward

South Dakota House of Representatives · R–SD

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Aaron Aylward
South Dakota Legislature · HB 1218

address the imposition of firearm restrictions on certain employees, officers, volunteers, and other individuals.

Mar 24, 2025 · Enacted · Signed by governor

Rep. Aaron Aylward · Sponsored / Sen. Mykala Voita · Sponsored / Rep. Heather Baxter · Co-sponsored / Rep. Josephine Garcia · Co-sponsored / Sen. Taffy Howard · Co-sponsored / Rep. Travis Ismay · Co-sponsored / Rep. Dylan Jordan · Co-sponsored / Sen. Lauren Nelson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Al Novstrup · Co-sponsored / Rep. Marty Overweg · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Sen. Sue Peterson · Co-sponsored / Sen. Tom Pischke · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tony Randolph · Co-sponsored / Rep. Bethany Soye · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1218 bars counties, townships and municipalities from restricting lawful possession of concealed firearms and compatible ammunition by their employees, officers and volunteers in their owned or leased buildings, facilities, vehicles and real property. The protection excludes inmates. It also excludes people other than law enforcement officers in secure detention areas, mental health crisis centers and substance-use residential treatment facilities, or using a government vehicle to transport someone apprehended under chapter 27A-10. Municipalities may restrict dangerous weapons inside event buildings or facilities when metal detectors screen for weapons and armed security is posted at every public entrance. Signed March 24, 2025, the law does not establish an effect on firearm deaths.

Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2025-03-24. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

The CDC fact measures age-adjusted firearm deaths across intents, including suicide, homicide and accidents. Rules for lawful concealed possession concern firearm access in specified public workplaces and facilities. The connection does not establish a direction or size of any mortality effect. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained South Dakota evidence context: Firearm deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 7-18: A board of county commissioners may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a county employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any county building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the county. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a county vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the county, and no liability may be imputed to the county. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 2. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 8-4: A board of supervisors may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a township employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any township building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the township. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a township vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the township, and no liability may be imputed to the township. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 3. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 9-14: The governing body of a municipality may not, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual who is a municipal employee, officer, or volunteer, from lawfully possessing any concealed firearm and compatible ammunition, while the individual is within any municipal building, facility, or vehicle, or while on any real property, owned or leased by the municipality. This section does not apply to possession of a concealed firearm and compatible ammunition by: (1) An individual who is an inmate; (2) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while present in the secure area of any detention facility, a mental health crisis center, or a substance use disorder residential treatment facility; or (3) An individual, other than a law enforcement officer, while using a municipal vehicle to transport another individual apprehended in accordance with chapter 27A-10. No injury or damage resulting from an individual possessing a concealed firearm may be construed to be an act of the municipality, and no liability may be imputed to the municipality. For purposes of this section, any "method or means" includes the adoption of a policy, the issuance of a guidance letter or statement, and any similar directive, whether written or oral. Section 4. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 9-14: Notwithstanding section 3 of this Act or § 9-19-20, a municipality may, by any method or means, prohibit or restrict an individual from lawfully carrying a dangerous weapon, as defined in § 22-1-2, within a building or facility at which an event is occurring, provided metal detectors are utilized to screen for any dangerous weapons and armed security personnel are posted at each public entrance. Section 5. That § 23-7-70 be REPEALED.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. David Kull

South Dakota House of Representatives · R–SD

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. David Kull
South Dakota Legislature · HB 1062

revise a provision related to aggravated assault.

Mar 9, 2026 · Enacted · Signed by governor

Sen. Helene Duhamel · Sponsored / Rep. David Kull · Sponsored / Rep. Tim Goodwin · Co-sponsored / Rep. Lana Greenfield · Co-sponsored / Sen. Amber Hulse · Co-sponsored / Rep. Curt Massie · Co-sponsored / Rep. Scott Moore · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Reisch · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kent Roe · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Walburg · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1062 revises aggravated assault to cover an attempt, by physical menace using a physical object realistically simulating a deadly weapon, to put another person in fear of imminent serious bodily harm. The provision also retains actual deadly weapons. The offense remains a Class 3 felony, and other aggravated-assault subsections remain in the enrolled text. Signed March 9, 2026, this offense-definition change does not establish a change in the number of crimes reported to the FBI.

Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2026-03-09. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

The FBI measure includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The law changes a state aggravated-assault provision, one component of the reported-crime measure. State offense definitions and FBI reporting classifications are not identical, and the law does not establish fewer reported crimes. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained South Dakota evidence context: Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Section 1. That § 22-18-1.1 be AMENDED: 22-18-1.1. No person may: (1) Cause or attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; (2) Attempt to cause, or knowingly cause, bodily injury to another with a dangerous weapon; (3) Assault another with intent to commit bodily injury, which results in serious bodily injury; (4) Attempt by physical menace with a deadly weapon or a physical object realistically simulating a deadly weapon to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily harm; or (5) Attempt to induce a fear of death or imminent serious bodily harm by impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of another person by applying pressure on the throat or neck, or by blocking the nose and mouth. A person who violates this section is guilty of aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a Class 3 felony.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Mary Fitzgerald

South Dakota House of Representatives · R–SD

2 proposals
View proposals from Rep. Mary Fitzgerald
South Dakota Legislature · HB 1115

establish the crime of aggravated criminal entry of a motor vehicle with the intent to steal a firearm or firearm silencer, to make offenders ineligible for presumptive probation, and to provide a penalty therefor.

Mar 4, 2025 · Not enacted · Deferred to 41st day

Rep. Mary Fitzgerald · Sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kevin Van Diepen · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Walburg · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1115, in its House Judiciary engrossment, proposed a Class 5 felony for entering or remaining in a motor vehicle and taking or exercising control over another person’s firearm or silencer, regardless of value. The bill also proposed an exception to presumptive probation. This engrossed provision requires taking or control of property; the title’s reference to intent alone is incomplete. The Senate committee deferred it to the 41st legislative day on March 4, 2025; it was not enacted.

The Senate Judiciary deferred the bill to the 41st legislative day on 2025-03-04. The 2025 regular session has ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

The FBI property-crime measure includes larceny-theft, burglary and motor-vehicle theft. Taking a firearm or silencer from a vehicle concerns theft from vehicles within larceny-theft; it is not theft of the entire vehicle or all property crime. This failed proposal did not establish a new penalty or fewer thefts. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained South Dakota evidence context: Reported property-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 22-32: Any person who enters or remains in a motor vehicle and takes or exercises control over the property of another, and that property is a firearm or a firearm silencer, regardless of value, is guilty of a Class 5 felony. Section 2. That § 22-6-11 be AMENDED: 22-6-11. The sentencing court shall sentence an offender convicted of a Class 5 or Class 6 felony, except those convicted under §§ 22-11A-2.1, 22-14-15, 22-18-1, 22-18-1.05, 22-18-26, 22-18-29, 22-19A-1, 22-19A-2, 22-19A-3, 22-19A-7, 22-19A-16, 22-22A-2, 22-22A-4, 22-22-24.3, subdivision 22-23-2(2), 22-24-1.2, 22-24B-2, 22-24B-12, 22-24B-12.1, 22-24B-23, 22-30A-17 if the property stolen is a firearm, 22-30A-46, section 1 of this Act, 22-42-7, subdivision 24-2-14(1), 32-23-4.6, 32-34-5, and any person ineligible for probation under § 23A-27-12, to a term of probation. If the offender is under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, the court must order a fully suspended state incarceration sentence pursuant to § 23A-27-18.4. The sentencing court may impose a sentence other than probation or a fully suspended state incarceration sentence if the court finds aggravating circumstances exist that pose a significant risk to the public and require a departure from presumptive probation under this section. If a departure is made, the judge must state the aggravating circumstances on the record at the time of sentencing and in the dispositional order. Neither this section nor its application may be the basis for establishing a constitutionally protected liberty, property, or due process interest.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
South Dakota Legislature · SB 7

prohibit the adoption or implementation of certain policies related to immigration enforcement.

Feb 7, 2025 · Enacted · Signed by governor

Sen. Casey Crabtree · Sponsored / Rep. Mary Fitzgerald · Sponsored / Rep. Aaron Aylward · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jeff Bathke · Co-sponsored / Rep. Heather Baxter · Co-sponsored / Sen. Sydney Davis · Co-sponsored / Sen. Randy Deibert · Co-sponsored / Sen. Tamara Grove · Co-sponsored / Sen. Taffy Howard · Co-sponsored / Sen. Amber Hulse · Co-sponsored / Rep. Travis Ismay · Co-sponsored / Sen. Kevin Jensen · Co-sponsored / Rep. Phil Jensen · Co-sponsored / Rep. David Kull · Co-sponsored / Rep. Logan Manhart · Co-sponsored / Rep. Curt Massie · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jim Mehlhaff · Co-sponsored / Sen. Paul Miskimins · Co-sponsored / Sen. Ernie Otten · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Rep. Drew Peterson · Co-sponsored / Sen. Sue Peterson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Rebecca Reimer · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Reisch · Co-sponsored / Rep. Matt Roby · Co-sponsored / Sen. Michael Rohl · Co-sponsored / Sen. Glen Vilhauer · Co-sponsored / Sen. Larry Zikmund · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

SB 7 bars state entities and political subdivisions from adopting or implementing policies, orders or ordinances that restrict an individual from communicating or cooperating with federal officials to verify or report another individual’s immigration status, or purport to grant lawful presence or status to noncitizens unlawfully present. Conflicting policies are void. The protection against discipline applies specifically to law enforcement officers who refuse to comply with or enforce those conflicting policies. Signed February 7, 2025, it does not equate all foreign-born residents with people unlawfully present or establish population effects.

Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2025-02-07. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

Foreign-born residents include naturalized citizens and noncitizens with different legal statuses. The law concerns communication of immigration status and policies about noncitizens unlawfully present, a limited subgroup. Foreign birth does not establish unlawful presence, and the law does not establish a population change. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained South Dakota evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 23-3: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no state entity or political subdivision may adopt or implement a policy, order, or ordinance that: (1) Limits or prohibits an individual from communicating or cooperating with a federal agency or official to verify or report the immigration status of another individual; or (2) Grants a noncitizen unlawfully present in the United States the right to lawful presence or status within the state or political subdivision. Any policy, order, or ordinance adopted or implemented in violation of this section is void. No state entity or political subdivision may take disciplinary action against a law enforcement officer based upon the officer's refusal to comply with or enforce any policy, order, or ordinance in violation of this section.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Rep. Tim Reisch

South Dakota House of Representatives · R–SD

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Tim Reisch
South Dakota Legislature · HB 1268

repeal capital punishment.

Feb 18, 2026 · Not enacted · Deferred to 41st day

Sen. Helene Duhamel · Sponsored / Rep. Tim Reisch · Sponsored / Rep. Eric Emery · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Goodwin · Co-sponsored / Rep. Leslie Heinemann · Co-sponsored / Sen. Steve Kolbeck · Co-sponsored / Sen. Liz Larson · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jim Mehlhaff · Co-sponsored / Rep. Erik Muckey · Co-sponsored / Rep. William Shorma · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jamie Smith · Co-sponsored / Rep. Nicole Uhre-Balk · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kadyn Wittman · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1268 proposed removing the death-eligible Class A felony category and making first-degree murder a Class B felony, alongside second-degree murder. It would have barred death sentences not imposed before July 1, 2026 while preserving earlier death sentences, subject to the text’s other provisions and juvenile sentencing exception. The committee deferred the bill to the 41st legislative day on February 18, 2026. It was not enacted and did not abolish capital punishment.

The House Judiciary deferred the bill to the 41st legislative day on 2026-02-18. The 2026 regular session has ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

The CDC fact measures age-adjusted resident homicide deaths. Punishment for first-degree murder concerns a subset of homicide offenses; criminal classifications do not exactly equal death-certificate coding. The bill failed, did not abolish capital punishment, and does not establish deterrence or a change in homicide mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained South Dakota evidence context: Homicide deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Section 3. That § 22-6-1 be AMENDED: 22-6-1. Except as otherwise provided by law, felonies are divided into the following nine classes, which are distinguished from each other by the following maximum penalties that are authorized upon conviction: (1) Class B felony: life imprisonment in a state correctional facility. A lesser sentence may not be given for a Class B felony. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (2) Class C felony: life imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (3) Class 1 felony: fifty years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (4) Class 2 felony: twenty-five years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (5) Class 3 felony: fifteen years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of thirty thousand dollars may be imposed; (6) Class 4 felony: ten years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of twenty thousand dollars may be imposed; (7) Class 5 felony: five years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of ten thousand dollars may be imposed; and (8) Class 6 felony: two years imprisonment in a state correctional facility or a fine of four thousand dollars, or both. If the defendant is under the age of eighteen years at the time of the offense and found guilty of a Class B or C felony, the maximum sentence may be a term of years in a state correctional facility, and a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed. The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant who has been found guilty of a felony, shall order in addition to the sentence that is imposed pursuant to the provisions of this section, that the defendant make restitution to any victim in accordance with the provisions of chapter 23A-28. Nothing in this section limits increased sentences for habitual criminals under §§ 22-7-7, 22-7-8, and 22-7-8.1. Section 4. That § 22-16-12 be AMENDED: 22-16-12. Murder in the first degree and second degree is a Class B felony. Section 11. Notwithstanding chapter 23A-27A, a defendant who has been charged with a crime carrying an authorized punishment of death but who has not yet been convicted and sentenced to death prior to July 1, 2026, may not be sentenced to death. Section 12. Nothing in this Act alters, mitigates, or suspends the execution of any death sentence initially imposed prior to July 1, 2026, regardless of any appellate litigation resulting from the death sentence. Nothing in this Act gives rise to any cause of action to alter, mitigate, or suspend the execution of any death sentence initially imposed prior to July 1, 2026, regardless of any appellate litigation resulting from the death sentence.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Casey Crabtree

South Dakota Senate · R–SD

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Casey Crabtree
South Dakota Legislature · SB 7

prohibit the adoption or implementation of certain policies related to immigration enforcement.

Feb 7, 2025 · Enacted · Signed by governor

Sen. Casey Crabtree · Sponsored / Rep. Mary Fitzgerald · Sponsored / Rep. Aaron Aylward · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jeff Bathke · Co-sponsored / Rep. Heather Baxter · Co-sponsored / Sen. Sydney Davis · Co-sponsored / Sen. Randy Deibert · Co-sponsored / Sen. Tamara Grove · Co-sponsored / Sen. Taffy Howard · Co-sponsored / Sen. Amber Hulse · Co-sponsored / Rep. Travis Ismay · Co-sponsored / Sen. Kevin Jensen · Co-sponsored / Rep. Phil Jensen · Co-sponsored / Rep. David Kull · Co-sponsored / Rep. Logan Manhart · Co-sponsored / Rep. Curt Massie · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jim Mehlhaff · Co-sponsored / Sen. Paul Miskimins · Co-sponsored / Sen. Ernie Otten · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Rep. Drew Peterson · Co-sponsored / Sen. Sue Peterson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Rebecca Reimer · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Reisch · Co-sponsored / Rep. Matt Roby · Co-sponsored / Sen. Michael Rohl · Co-sponsored / Sen. Glen Vilhauer · Co-sponsored / Sen. Larry Zikmund · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

SB 7 bars state entities and political subdivisions from adopting or implementing policies, orders or ordinances that restrict an individual from communicating or cooperating with federal officials to verify or report another individual’s immigration status, or purport to grant lawful presence or status to noncitizens unlawfully present. Conflicting policies are void. The protection against discipline applies specifically to law enforcement officers who refuse to comply with or enforce those conflicting policies. Signed February 7, 2025, it does not equate all foreign-born residents with people unlawfully present or establish population effects.

Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2025-02-07. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

Foreign-born residents include naturalized citizens and noncitizens with different legal statuses. The law concerns communication of immigration status and policies about noncitizens unlawfully present, a limited subgroup. Foreign birth does not establish unlawful presence, and the law does not establish a population change. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained South Dakota evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 23-3: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no state entity or political subdivision may adopt or implement a policy, order, or ordinance that: (1) Limits or prohibits an individual from communicating or cooperating with a federal agency or official to verify or report the immigration status of another individual; or (2) Grants a noncitizen unlawfully present in the United States the right to lawful presence or status within the state or political subdivision. Any policy, order, or ordinance adopted or implemented in violation of this section is void. No state entity or political subdivision may take disciplinary action against a law enforcement officer based upon the officer's refusal to comply with or enforce any policy, order, or ordinance in violation of this section.
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Helene Duhamel

South Dakota Senate · R–SD

2 proposals
View proposals from Sen. Helene Duhamel
South Dakota Legislature · HB 1062

revise a provision related to aggravated assault.

Mar 9, 2026 · Enacted · Signed by governor

Sen. Helene Duhamel · Sponsored / Rep. David Kull · Sponsored / Rep. Tim Goodwin · Co-sponsored / Rep. Lana Greenfield · Co-sponsored / Sen. Amber Hulse · Co-sponsored / Rep. Curt Massie · Co-sponsored / Rep. Scott Moore · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Reisch · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kent Roe · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Walburg · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1062 revises aggravated assault to cover an attempt, by physical menace using a physical object realistically simulating a deadly weapon, to put another person in fear of imminent serious bodily harm. The provision also retains actual deadly weapons. The offense remains a Class 3 felony, and other aggravated-assault subsections remain in the enrolled text. Signed March 9, 2026, this offense-definition change does not establish a change in the number of crimes reported to the FBI.

Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2026-03-09. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

The FBI measure includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. The law changes a state aggravated-assault provision, one component of the reported-crime measure. State offense definitions and FBI reporting classifications are not identical, and the law does not establish fewer reported crimes. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained South Dakota evidence context: Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Section 1. That § 22-18-1.1 be AMENDED: 22-18-1.1. No person may: (1) Cause or attempt to cause serious bodily injury to another under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; (2) Attempt to cause, or knowingly cause, bodily injury to another with a dangerous weapon; (3) Assault another with intent to commit bodily injury, which results in serious bodily injury; (4) Attempt by physical menace with a deadly weapon or a physical object realistically simulating a deadly weapon to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily harm; or (5) Attempt to induce a fear of death or imminent serious bodily harm by impeding the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of another person by applying pressure on the throat or neck, or by blocking the nose and mouth. A person who violates this section is guilty of aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a Class 3 felony.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
South Dakota Legislature · HB 1268

repeal capital punishment.

Feb 18, 2026 · Not enacted · Deferred to 41st day

Sen. Helene Duhamel · Sponsored / Rep. Tim Reisch · Sponsored / Rep. Eric Emery · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Goodwin · Co-sponsored / Rep. Leslie Heinemann · Co-sponsored / Sen. Steve Kolbeck · Co-sponsored / Sen. Liz Larson · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jim Mehlhaff · Co-sponsored / Rep. Erik Muckey · Co-sponsored / Rep. William Shorma · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jamie Smith · Co-sponsored / Rep. Nicole Uhre-Balk · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kadyn Wittman · Co-sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1268 proposed removing the death-eligible Class A felony category and making first-degree murder a Class B felony, alongside second-degree murder. It would have barred death sentences not imposed before July 1, 2026 while preserving earlier death sentences, subject to the text’s other provisions and juvenile sentencing exception. The committee deferred the bill to the 41st legislative day on February 18, 2026. It was not enacted and did not abolish capital punishment.

The House Judiciary deferred the bill to the 41st legislative day on 2026-02-18. The 2026 regular session has ended without enactment of this measure.

Why this record is included

The CDC fact measures age-adjusted resident homicide deaths. Punishment for first-degree murder concerns a subset of homicide offenses; criminal classifications do not exactly equal death-certificate coding. The bill failed, did not abolish capital punishment, and does not establish deterrence or a change in homicide mortality. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.

Retained South Dakota evidence context: Homicide deaths. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

Section 3. That § 22-6-1 be AMENDED: 22-6-1. Except as otherwise provided by law, felonies are divided into the following nine classes, which are distinguished from each other by the following maximum penalties that are authorized upon conviction: (1) Class B felony: life imprisonment in a state correctional facility. A lesser sentence may not be given for a Class B felony. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (2) Class C felony: life imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (3) Class 1 felony: fifty years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (4) Class 2 felony: twenty-five years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (5) Class 3 felony: fifteen years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of thirty thousand dollars may be imposed; (6) Class 4 felony: ten years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of twenty thousand dollars may be imposed; (7) Class 5 felony: five years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of ten thousand dollars may be imposed; and (8) Class 6 felony: two years imprisonment in a state correctional facility or a fine of four thousand dollars, or both. If the defendant is under the age of eighteen years at the time of the offense and found guilty of a Class B or C felony, the maximum sentence may be a term of years in a state correctional facility, and a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed. The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant who has been found guilty of a felony, shall order in addition to the sentence that is imposed pursuant to the provisions of this section, that the defendant make restitution to any victim in accordance with the provisions of chapter 23A-28. Nothing in this section limits increased sentences for habitual criminals under §§ 22-7-7, 22-7-8, and 22-7-8.1. Section 4. That § 22-16-12 be AMENDED: 22-16-12. Murder in the first degree and second degree is a Class B felony. Section 11. Notwithstanding chapter 23A-27A, a defendant who has been charged with a crime carrying an authorized punishment of death but who has not yet been convicted and sentenced to death prior to July 1, 2026, may not be sentenced to death. Section 12. Nothing in this Act alters, mitigates, or suspends the execution of any death sentence initially imposed prior to July 1, 2026, regardless of any appellate litigation resulting from the death sentence. Nothing in this Act gives rise to any cause of action to alter, mitigate, or suspend the execution of any death sentence initially imposed prior to July 1, 2026, regardless of any appellate litigation resulting from the death sentence.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current South Dakota officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a South Dakota statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.