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.
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
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
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
Period
South Dakota
Compare
2015
414.9 per 100k
2016
436.2 per 100k
2017
449.6 per 100k
2018
367.1 per 100k
2019
361.2 per 100k
2020
489 per 100k
2021
415.1 per 100k
2022
405 per 100k
2023
376.7 per 100k
2024
356.9 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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New Mexico
744.7 per 100k
—
#2
Alaska
731.9 per 100k
—
#3
Tennessee
604.3 per 100k
—
#4
Arkansas
589.6 per 100k
—
#5*
Louisiana
504.5 per 100k
82.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#6
Colorado
486.8 per 100k
—
#7
California
478.4 per 100k
—
#8
Kansas
474.7 per 100k
—
#9
Missouri
472.7 per 100k
—
#10
Michigan
442.6 per 100k
—
#11
South Carolina
440.8 per 100k
—
#12
Arizona
433 per 100k
—
#13
Oklahoma
429.3 per 100k
—
#14
Montana
428 per 100k
—
#15
Maryland
425.9 per 100k
—
#16
Nevada
408.6 per 100k
—
#17
Texas
397.8 per 100k
—
#18
New York
392.2 per 100k
—
#19
North Carolina
382.9 per 100k
—
#20
Alabama
380.8 per 100k
—
#21
Delaware
368.4 per 100k
—
#22*
South Dakota · your comparison
356.9 per 100k
89.6% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#23*
Indiana
349.2 per 100k
87.2% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#24
Oregon
341.1 per 100k
—
#25
Washington
331.8 per 100k
—
#26
Georgia
328 per 100k
—
#27
Massachusetts
317.9 per 100k
—
#28
Ohio
311.9 per 100k
—
#29
Illinois
294.5 per 100k
—
#30
Wisconsin
287.6 per 100k
—
#31
West Virginia
263.8 per 100k
—
#32*
Florida
262 per 100k
81.0% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#33
Minnesota
259.4 per 100k
—
#34
North Dakota
258 per 100k
—
#35
Pennsylvania
251.3 per 100k
—
#36
Iowa
247.2 per 100k
—
#37
Utah
237.8 per 100k
—
#38
Idaho
236.6 per 100k
—
#39
Hawaii
230.3 per 100k
—
#40
Vermont
227.1 per 100k
—
#41
Kentucky
226.7 per 100k
—
#42
Nebraska
224.6 per 100k
—
#43
Virginia
223.7 per 100k
—
#44
New Jersey
221.9 per 100k
—
#45*
Mississippi
219.6 per 100k
65.1% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#46*
Wyoming
212.5 per 100k
89.9% population coverage; below the 90% threshold.
#47
Rhode Island
154.9 per 100k
—
#48
Connecticut
139.2 per 100k
—
#49
New Hampshire
112.3 per 100k
—
#50
Maine
102.6 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.
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.
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.
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
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Texas
4,389
—
#2
Florida
3,191
—
#3
California
2,853
—
#4
Georgia
1,985
—
#5
North Carolina
1,835
—
#6
Ohio
1,745
—
#7
Pennsylvania
1,624
—
#8
Illinois
1,563
—
#9
Tennessee
1,448
—
#10
Arizona
1,331
—
#11
Missouri
1,234
—
#12
Michigan
1,228
—
#13
Alabama
1,212
—
#14
Indiana
1,196
—
#15
Virginia
1,153
—
#16
South Carolina
1,064
—
#17
Louisiana
1,031
—
#18
Colorado
961
—
#19
Washington
915
—
#20
New York
896
—
#21
Kentucky
870
—
#22
Mississippi
810
—
#23
Oklahoma
794
—
#24
Wisconsin
735
—
#25
Maryland
716
—
#26
Oregon
663
—
#27
Arkansas
638
—
#28
Minnesota
582
—
#28
Nevada
582
—
#30
New Mexico
563
—
#31
Utah
454
—
#32
Kansas
446
—
#33
New Jersey
393
—
#34
Iowa
389
—
#35
Idaho
331
—
#36
Massachusetts
287
—
#37
West Virginia
281
—
#38
Montana
247
—
#39
Connecticut
224
—
#40
Nebraska
218
—
#41
Alaska
182
—
#42
Maine
181
—
#43
South Dakota · your comparison
159
—
#44
New Hampshire
152
—
#45
Wyoming
143
—
#46
Delaware
123
—
#47
North Dakota
95
—
#48
Vermont
76
—
#49
Hawaii
56
—
#50
Rhode Island
55
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
5 of 5 reviewed South Dakota actions · newest first
Mar 9, 2026 · HB 1062 · revise a provision related to aggravated assault. · Enacted · Signed by governorSouth 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.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Feb 18, 2026 · HB 1268 · repeal capital punishment. · Not enacted · Deferred to 41st daySouth 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.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 24, 2025 · HB 1218 · address the imposition of firearm restrictions on certain employees, officers, volunteers, and other individuals. · Enacted · Signed by governorSouth 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.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Mar 4, 2025 · 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. · Not enacted · Deferred to 41st daySouth 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.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Feb 7, 2025 · SB 7 · prohibit the adoption or implementation of certain policies related to immigration enforcement. · Enacted · Signed by governorSouth 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.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified South Dakota officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. David KullSouth 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.
2 proposalsView proposals from Rep. Mary FitzgeraldSouth 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.
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.
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Tim ReischSouth 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.
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. Casey CrabtreeSouth 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.
2 proposalsView proposals from Sen. Helene DuhamelSouth 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.
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.
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.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
South Dakota snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to South Dakota, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.