South Dakota state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is South Dakota state government. Federal debt is not allocated to South Dakota; a state budget is not the federal budget.
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.
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
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.
2 of 2 reviewed South Dakota actions match · 2 date markers shown. 51 major events shown separately.
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.
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
#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.
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
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.
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.
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.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $166.39B | — |
| #2 | New York | $120.59B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $70.05B | — |
| #4 | Massachusetts | $65.87B | — |
| #5 | New Jersey | $57.23B | — |
| #6 | Pennsylvania | $48.67B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $43.38B | — |
| #8 | Virginia | $33.73B | — |
| #9 | Connecticut | $33.27B | — |
| #10 | Ohio | $32.29B | — |
| #11 | Washington | $30.62B | — |
| #12 | Maryland | $25.9B | — |
| #13 | Michigan | $25.02B | — |
| #14 | Colorado | $23.57B | — |
| #15 | Wisconsin | $22.79B | — |
| #16 | Florida | $20.14B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $17.03B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $16.91B | — |
| #19 | Louisiana | $16.09B | — |
| #20 | South Carolina | $15.36B | — |
| #21 | West Virginia | $15.08B | — |
| #22 | Georgia | $14.05B | — |
| #23 | North Carolina | $13.13B | — |
| #24 | Hawaii | $11.72B | — |
| #25 | Rhode Island | $11.41B | — |
| #26 | Alabama | $10.99B | — |
| #27 | Oklahoma | $10.15B | — |
| #28 | Kentucky | $10.08B | — |
| #29 | Tennessee | $9.03B | — |
| #30 | Indiana | $8.52B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $8.06B | — |
| #32 | Arkansas | $8.05B | — |
| #33 | Mississippi | $7.72B | — |
| #34 | New Hampshire | $7.58B | — |
| #35 | Kansas | $7.16B | — |
| #36 | New Mexico | $7.12B | — |
| #37 | Missouri | $6.99B | — |
| #38 | Arizona | $6.88B | — |
| #39 | Alaska | $5.72B | — |
| #40 | Utah | $5.55B | — |
| #41 | Maine | $5.3B | — |
| #42 | North Dakota | $4.89B | — |
| #43 | South Dakota · your comparison | $4.67B | — |
| #44 | Delaware | $3.69B | — |
| #45 | Nebraska | $3.39B | — |
| #46 | Nevada | $2.89B | — |
| #47 | Montana | $2.76B | — |
| #48 | Vermont | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho | $728.59M | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
#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.
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
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.
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.
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.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Texas | $54.35B | — |
| #2 | California | $53.33B | — |
| #3 | Florida | $40.09B | — |
| #4 | Washington | $22.81B | — |
| #5 | New York | $19.99B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $16.33B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $16.05B | — |
| #8 | Pennsylvania | $15.6B | — |
| #9 | New Jersey | $14.31B | — |
| #10 | Tennessee | $14.08B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $13.16B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $12.7B | — |
| #13 | North Carolina | $12.16B | — |
| #14 | Indiana | $10.96B | — |
| #15 | Massachusetts | $9.4B | — |
| #16 | Georgia | $9.01B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $8.49B | — |
| #18 | Nevada | $8.4B | — |
| #19 | Wisconsin | $7.59B | — |
| #20 | Virginia | $7.4B | — |
| #21 | Maryland | $6.85B | — |
| #22 | South Carolina | $6.44B | — |
| #23 | Connecticut | $6.23B | — |
| #24 | Kentucky | $5.8B | — |
| #25 | Missouri | $5.26B | — |
| #26 | Mississippi | $5.07B | — |
| #27 | Arkansas | $5.07B | — |
| #28 | Louisiana | $4.87B | — |
| #29 | Hawaii | $4.79B | — |
| #30 | Colorado | $4.67B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $4.64B | — |
| #32 | Utah | $4.63B | — |
| #33 | Alabama | $4.59B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $4.33B | — |
| #35 | New Mexico | $4.33B | — |
| #36 | Oklahoma | $3.81B | — |
| #37 | Idaho | $3.09B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $2.97B | — |
| #39 | Maine | $2.35B | — |
| #40 | West Virginia | $1.82B | — |
| #41 | South Dakota · your comparison | $1.68B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $1.63B | — |
| #43 | Oregon | $1.34B | — |
| #44 | North Dakota | $1.32B | — |
| #45 | Wyoming | $1.01B | — |
| #46 | Vermont | $597.33M | — |
| #47 | Alaska | $0 | — |
| #47 | Delaware | $0 | — |
| #47 | Montana | $0 | — |
| #47 | New Hampshire | $0 | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current South Dakota appropriations act.
#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.
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
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.
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.
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.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $156.71B | — |
| #2 | New York | $97.35B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $57.32B | — |
| #4 | Illinois | $41.13B | — |
| #5 | Florida | $40.11B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $39.77B | — |
| #7 | Pennsylvania | $39.34B | — |
| #8 | Massachusetts | $34.12B | — |
| #9 | North Carolina | $30.64B | — |
| #10 | New Jersey | $28.06B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $26.02B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $24.37B | — |
| #13 | Virginia | $23.68B | — |
| #14 | Minnesota | $23.37B | — |
| #15 | Indiana | $22.93B | — |
| #16 | Maryland | $21.61B | — |
| #17 | Kentucky | $20.54B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $20.47B | — |
| #19 | Washington | $19.6B | — |
| #20 | Georgia | $18.99B | — |
| #21 | Louisiana | $18.69B | — |
| #22 | Tennessee | $16.42B | — |
| #23 | Wisconsin | $16.26B | — |
| #24 | Missouri | $15.65B | — |
| #25 | Oklahoma | $14.57B | — |
| #26 | Colorado | $13.6B | — |
| #27 | South Carolina | $12.84B | — |
| #28 | New Mexico | $10.72B | — |
| #29 | Iowa | $10.26B | — |
| #30 | Alabama | $9.73B | — |
| #31 | Arkansas | $8.67B | — |
| #32 | Mississippi | $8.08B | — |
| #33 | Utah | $6.91B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $6.84B | — |
| #35 | Nevada | $6.62B | — |
| #36 | West Virginia | $6.24B | — |
| #37 | Maine | $5.7B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $4.97B | — |
| #39 | Connecticut | $4.88B | — |
| #40 | Rhode Island | $4.54B | — |
| #41 | Hawaii | $4.14B | — |
| #42 | Delaware | $3.97B | — |
| #43 | Idaho | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $2.69B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $2.09B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota · your comparison | $1.95B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $1.09B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
#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.
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from South Dakota’s FY2027 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 audit shown below.
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.
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.
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.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $287.03B | — |
| #2 | New York | $161.37B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $136.18B | — |
| #4 | Florida | $86.61B | — |
| #5 | Pennsylvania | $77.15B | — |
| #6 | Illinois | $75.67B | — |
| #7 | Ohio | $66.77B | — |
| #8 | New Jersey | $64.53B | — |
| #9 | Massachusetts | $61.38B | — |
| #10 | North Carolina | $59.01B | — |
| #11 | Michigan | $57.27B | — |
| #12 | Virginia | $53.45B | — |
| #13 | Washington | $49.82B | — |
| #14 | Georgia | $45.19B | — |
| #15 | Maryland | $45.06B | — |
| #16 | Oregon | $41.41B | — |
| #17 | Arizona | $38.71B | — |
| #18 | Minnesota | $38.1B | — |
| #19 | Indiana | $37.4B | — |
| #20 | Kentucky | $36.94B | — |
| #21 | Wisconsin | $34.5B | — |
| #22 | Missouri | $34.43B | — |
| #23 | South Carolina | $32.85B | — |
| #24 | Colorado | $32.73B | — |
| #25 | Louisiana | $31.67B | — |
| #26 | Tennessee | $31.12B | — |
| #27 | Alabama | $26.99B | — |
| #28 | Oklahoma | $24.28B | — |
| #29 | Utah | $22.7B | — |
| #30 | New Mexico | $21.94B | — |
| #31 | Connecticut | $21.22B | — |
| #32 | Iowa | $19.89B | — |
| #33 | Kansas | $18.39B | — |
| #34 | Hawaii | $16.62B | — |
| #35 | Mississippi | $16.46B | — |
| #36 | Arkansas | $16.28B | — |
| #37 | West Virginia | $13.19B | — |
| #38 | Nevada | $12.43B | — |
| #39 | Nebraska | $10.41B | — |
| #40 | Maine | $10.12B | — |
| #41 | Delaware | $9.24B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $8.93B | — |
| #43 | Alaska | $8.4B | — |
| #44 | Idaho | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $6.28B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $5.63B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota · your comparison | $4.55B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $4.01B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Expenditure authority in South Dakota's FY2027 General Appropriations Act, HB 1326, across general, federal, and other funds. The headline covers the ordinary expenses authorized by that act; separate special-appropriation and capital measures are outside the total, and the act's fund transfers are not counted again as spending.
Tax revenue reported as general revenue for South Dakota's primary government on the government-wide Statement of Activities. The total excludes locally retained property tax because the State does not levy or collect it.
FactVote groups the act's exact department totals into six service groups. General, federal, and other fund authority is combined, and the groups reconcile to the exact $7.472 billion statewide appropriation.
Government-wide revenue and expenses for South Dakota's primary government on the accrual basis, combining governmental and business-type activities and excluding component units. Revenue is program revenue plus general revenue; transfers between the two primary-government columns cancel.
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt 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.
South Dakota’s congressional delegation hasn’t included a military veteran for decades, and it shows. As the only veteran running for federal office in the state, I know that vets kept their promises to us during America’s longest war because I was there with them. I will ensure we keep our promises…
South Dakota’s congressional delegation hasn’t included a military veteran for decades, and it shows. As the only veteran running for federal office in the state, I know that vets kept their promises to us during America’s longest war because I was there with them. I will ensure we keep our promises to them. Too many career politicians are trying to privatize Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare so Big Money can profit off the backs of our veterans. Only 27 percent of the VA’s 2022/23/24 healthcare budget was spent on direct VA-provided healthcare, while the rest went to private contractors. VA medical facilities are already facing severe staff shortages and must now deal with recently announced significant workforce reductions. Both issues are causing healthcare delays and access problems, along with a growing backlog and increased wait for claim processing. Intentionally shortchanging the VA so it will fail in its mission and can be privatized for profit is disgraceful. On my watch, Americans who served their country will not be abandoned at home just so Big Money can make an extra buck.Brian L. Bengs — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Big Money bought the ability to create their preferred tax system that helps the rich get richer at the expense of everyday Americans. It’s long past time for the ultra-rich to pay their fair share once again, like they had to in the 1960s. So-called “fiscally responsible” politicians are lying when…
Big Money bought the ability to create their preferred tax system that helps the rich get richer at the expense of everyday Americans. It’s long past time for the ultra-rich to pay their fair share once again, like they had to in the 1960s. So-called “fiscally responsible” politicians are lying when they say we must choose between programs benefiting regular people or paying down our national debt. Both are possible. Not only that, but we can actually lower taxes for small businesses and people who work for a living. Specifics are available here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-173472009Brian L. Bengs — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
The healthcare industry is effectively a monopoly. Big Money owns career politicians who keep the entire system rigged for maximum profit. Healthcare accounted for 27 percent of federal spending in fiscal year 2024, a percentage projected to rise dramatically if nothing changes. Compared to other we…
The healthcare industry is effectively a monopoly. Big Money owns career politicians who keep the entire system rigged for maximum profit. Healthcare accounted for 27 percent of federal spending in fiscal year 2024, a percentage projected to rise dramatically if nothing changes. Compared to other wealthy countries, the U.S. spends far more per person on healthcare and pays 278 percent higher prescription drug prices. Indeed, since the adoption of the Affordable Care Act, the top 5 for-profit health insurance companies have collected 230 percent more profits while premiums skyrocketed. It’s no wonder medical debt causes over 50 percent of personal bankruptcies. By every measure, regular people are getting the shaft. Completely overhauling American healthcare is a complex challenge that we literally cannot afford to ignore any longer. A 5-stage effects-based process of reinventing our system will simultaneously reduce costs while improving the affordability and accessibility that everyday Americans deserve.Brian L. Bengs — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Roughly 50 percent of our national debt is the result of the four tax cuts since 2000 that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest 1 percent. The time for talking and budget gimmicks is over. America’s long-term prosperity and security depend upon restoring fiscal responsibility. Balancing the feder…
Roughly 50 percent of our national debt is the result of the four tax cuts since 2000 that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest 1 percent. The time for talking and budget gimmicks is over. America’s long-term prosperity and security depend upon restoring fiscal responsibility. Balancing the federal budget and paying down the national debt are not just economically prudent actions; they are imperatives. Both conservatives and liberals are guilty of reckless spending without the accountability taxpayers deserve. We must set aside partisan grandstanding and engage in honest budgeting with effects-based investing that strengthens our economy so we don’t pass down a bill to the next generation. To make that happen, members of Congress apparently need repercussions for not doing their job, such as withholding their salary during a government shutdown.Brian L. Bengs — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt 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.
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.
3 matching sponsorships or proposals · 3 South Dakota incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
South Dakota House of Representatives · R–SD
1 proposalMar 27, 2026 · Enacted · Signed by governor
Rep. Amber Arlint · Sponsored / Sen. Tim Reed · Sponsored / Rep. Eric Emery · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Goodwin · Co-sponsored / Rep. Liz May · Co-sponsored / Rep. Erik Muckey · Co-sponsored / Rep. Brian Mulder · Co-sponsored / Rep. Rebecca Reimer · Co-sponsored / Rep. Matt Roby · Co-sponsored / Rep. Nicole Uhre-Balk · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kevin Van Diepen · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kadyn Wittman · Co-sponsored
HB 1244 appropriates $500,000 to the Department of Education for a nonprofit grant supporting Jobs for America’s Graduates programs in school districts and accredited nonpublic schools. It limits use to specified matching or collaborative support, excludes endowment additions, and takes effect June 30, 2026. The department identifies JAG-SD as supporting students toward high school graduation. Appropriation and program purpose do not establish completed grants or diplomas.
Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2026-03-27. The text specifies June 30, 2026 as its effective date. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
The fact measures high-school-or-higher attainment among residents age 25 and older. The grant supports a program serving students toward high school graduation, rather than the already-measured adult population. Funding does not establish completed diplomas or a change in adult attainment. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: Adults with at least a high school diploma. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. There is appropriated $500,000 from the general fund, to the Department of Education, for the purpose of providing a grant to a nonprofit organization located within the state to provide financial support to school districts and accredited nonpublic schools implementing the Jobs for America's Graduates program. Section 2. The grant may be used only to: (1) Match moneys received from private contributions or donations; (2) Match any federal education or career readiness grants received by the Jobs for America's Graduates-South Dakota program; or (3) Support larger, collaborative efforts in which the nonprofit organization is a partner. Any moneys generated or efforts supported under this section must be directed toward the operations of a Jobs for America's Graduates program in a school district or accredited nonpublic school located within this state and may not be added to an endowment fund. Section 3. The secretary of the Department of Education shall approve vouchers and the state auditor shall draw warrants to pay expenditures authorized by this Act. Section 4. Any amounts appropriated in this Act not lawfully expended or obligated shall revert in accordance with the procedures described in chapter 4-8. Section 5. The state treasurer shall transfer any moneys currently held in the special donation fund, created pursuant to § 13-66-3, to the general fund. Section 6. That § 13-66-3 be REPEALED. Section 7. This Act is effective beginning June 30, 2026.Review official supporting evidence ↗
South Dakota House of Representatives · R–SD
1 proposalFeb 23, 2026 · Not enacted · Deferred to 41st day
Rep. Brian Mulder · Sponsored / Rep. Roger DeGroot · Co-sponsored / Rep. Eric Emery · Co-sponsored / Rep. Erik Muckey · Co-sponsored / Sen. Carl Perry · Co-sponsored / Sen. Mykala Voita · Co-sponsored
HB 1251 proposed a target teacher salary supplement fund administered by the Department of Education. The fund would support budget requests to increase the statutory target teacher salary, with expenditures through the general appropriation bill. A separate provision proposed routing 30% of remaining unobligated cash to the fund after the reserve requirement. The committee deferred the bill to the 41st legislative day on February 23, 2026; it did not create this fund or guarantee salary increases.
The House Committee on Appropriations deferred the bill to the 41st legislative day on 2026-02-23. The 2026 regular session has ended without enactment of this measure.
Household money income includes wages before taxes. A proposed fund to increase the target teacher salary concerns teachers’ earnings within household income. A funding-formula target is not a guaranteed paycheck increase; the bill failed and did not establish higher salaries or a higher statewide median. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: Median household income. 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 13-13: There is created in the state treasury the target teacher salary supplement fund. The fund consists of moneys specified for deposit in the fund pursuant to § 4-7-32. The Department of Education shall administer the fund. The purpose of the fund is to enable an increase to the target teacher salary, as set forth in § 13-13-10.1. The department, as part of the annual budget submission, in accordance with § 4-7-7, shall submit a budget request utilizing money from the fund to provide an increase in the target teacher salary, as set forth in § 13-13-10.1. Interest on moneys credited to the fund must remain in the fund. Expenditures from the fund must be budgeted through the general appropriation bill. Section 4. That § 4-7-32 be AMENDED: 4-7-32. The transfer of all prior year unobligated cash must occur in accordance with this section: (1) On July first of each fiscal year or at the time that the prior fiscal year general fund unobligated cash balance is determined, the commissioner of the Bureau of Finance and Management shall transfer prior year unobligated cash, up to an amount equaling ten percent of the general fund appropriations from the general appropriation act for the prior fiscal year, into the budget reserve fund. The cash balance in the budget reserve fund may not exceed ten percent of the general fund appropriations from the general appropriation act for the prior fiscal year; (2) If any unobligated cash balance remains after the requirements of subdivision (1) are met, the commissioner must: (a) Transfer thirty percent of the remaining balance to the community-based providers methodology supplement fund, created in section 2 of this Act; (b) Transfer thirty percent of the remaining balance to the target teacher salary supplement fund, created in section 1 of this Act; and (c) Transfer forty percent of the remaining balance to the general revenue placement fund, created in § 4-7-45.Review official supporting evidence ↗
South Dakota Senate · R–SD
1 proposalMar 27, 2026 · Enacted · Signed by governor
Rep. Amber Arlint · Sponsored / Sen. Tim Reed · Sponsored / Rep. Eric Emery · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tim Goodwin · Co-sponsored / Rep. Liz May · Co-sponsored / Rep. Erik Muckey · Co-sponsored / Rep. Brian Mulder · Co-sponsored / Rep. Rebecca Reimer · Co-sponsored / Rep. Matt Roby · Co-sponsored / Rep. Nicole Uhre-Balk · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kevin Van Diepen · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kadyn Wittman · Co-sponsored
HB 1244 appropriates $500,000 to the Department of Education for a nonprofit grant supporting Jobs for America’s Graduates programs in school districts and accredited nonpublic schools. It limits use to specified matching or collaborative support, excludes endowment additions, and takes effect June 30, 2026. The department identifies JAG-SD as supporting students toward high school graduation. Appropriation and program purpose do not establish completed grants or diplomas.
Approved by Gov. Larry Rhoden on 2026-03-27. The text specifies June 30, 2026 as its effective date. Signing, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.
The fact measures high-school-or-higher attainment among residents age 25 and older. The grant supports a program serving students toward high school graduation, rather than the already-measured adult population. Funding does not establish completed diplomas or a change in adult attainment. This relationship does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain its earlier value.
Retained South Dakota evidence context: Adults with at least a high school diploma. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Section 1. There is appropriated $500,000 from the general fund, to the Department of Education, for the purpose of providing a grant to a nonprofit organization located within the state to provide financial support to school districts and accredited nonpublic schools implementing the Jobs for America's Graduates program. Section 2. The grant may be used only to: (1) Match moneys received from private contributions or donations; (2) Match any federal education or career readiness grants received by the Jobs for America's Graduates-South Dakota program; or (3) Support larger, collaborative efforts in which the nonprofit organization is a partner. Any moneys generated or efforts supported under this section must be directed toward the operations of a Jobs for America's Graduates program in a school district or accredited nonpublic school located within this state and may not be added to an endowment fund. Section 3. The secretary of the Department of Education shall approve vouchers and the state auditor shall draw warrants to pay expenditures authorized by this Act. Section 4. Any amounts appropriated in this Act not lawfully expended or obligated shall revert in accordance with the procedures described in chapter 4-8. Section 5. The state treasurer shall transfer any moneys currently held in the special donation fund, created pursuant to § 13-66-3, to the general fund. Section 6. That § 13-66-3 be REPEALED. Section 7. This Act is effective beginning June 30, 2026.Review official supporting evidence ↗
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.