South Dakota State Laws
✅ Law #1: SB 100 — Campus Concealed Carry Reform
Statute / Bill: SB 100 (2025) — “Limit the imposition of restrictions on the carrying of a concealed pistol and other items of self-defense while on the campus of a public institution of higher education.” (LegiScan)
Effective: July 1, 2025 (part of the bundle of new laws effective that date) (https://www.dakotanewsnow.com)
📝 What it does
Makes it easier (or removes certain restrictions) for people with concealed pistol permits to carry pistols or other self-defense items on public college or university campuses. (LegiScan)
Public institutions must align their policies to allow it under the law, subject to permit requirements.
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Minimal direct cost to state; maybe some administrative cost for colleges updating policies or signage.
Possible insurance or litigation risk if incidents occur; not clear in summaries.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Students, staff, or faculty who want or already carry concealed weapons and have permits; gun rights supporters.
Affects: Universities/public colleges; those concerned about campus safety; people opposed to more weapons on campus.
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Sponsored by state legislature (R-majority) as part of campus safety / gun rights expansion. (Exact sponsor not clearly in summary.) (LegiScan)
Opposition likely from university administrations, campus safety advocates, and some public safety groups.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Expands Second Amendment rights for permit holders.
Possibly discourages certain threats if people feel more protected.
❌ Cons:
Could increase risk or perception of risk on college campuses.
Potential for accidents or misuse.
Might create tension among campus community members around safety.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
As of July 1, 2025, South Dakota’s SB 100 lets those with concealed pistol permits more freely bring them onto public college campuses — expanding gun access under permit rules, with campus safety trade-offs ahead.
✅ Law #2: HB 1259 — “Bathroom / Changing Facilities” Access Restrictions for Transgender People
Statute / Bill: HB 1259 (2025) — restricts transgender people from using restrooms, locker rooms, or changing facilities that match their gender identity in public schools or state buildings. (AP News)
Effective: July 1, 2025 as part of the laws going into effect that day. (https://www.dakotanewsnow.com)
📝 What it does
Prohibits use of communal facilities aligned with one’s gender identity for transgender individuals in public schools or public state-owned/operated buildings. (AP News)
Allows people to sue (seek injunctive / declaratory relief) if the school or state doesn’t take “reasonable steps” to prevent this usage. (AP News)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Some cost for school districts / public facilities to modify access, signage, ensure compliance.
Potential litigation costs if lawsuits are filed.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Those who support limiting facility access by gender identity under “biological sex” definitions; some parents or community members who favor such restrictions.
Affects: Transgender individuals; school administrators; state facility managers; civil rights groups.
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Sponsored via the state legislature (R party). (LegiScan)
Opposed by LGBTQ+ rights groups; organizations concerned about discrimination and mental health impacts.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Some voters see this as protecting privacy or safety.
Clearer legal standard for schools / public facilities.
❌ Cons:
Likely to harm transgender students’ wellbeing and safety.
Risk of discrimination complaints or lawsuits.
“Reasonable steps” is vague; enforcement and consistency may be uneven.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
HB 1259 takes effect July 1, 2025 in South Dakota: transgender people are restricted from using restrooms, changerooms, etc. matching their gender identity in schools and public state buildings, with legal recourse if not enforced — big change with strong debates over fairness and rights.
✅ Law #3: Eminent Domain Ban for CO₂ Pipelines
Statute / Law: Law banning use of eminent domain for pipelines carrying captured carbon dioxide. (Reuters)
Effective: July 1, 2025 (one of the laws effective on that date) (https://www.dakotanewsnow.com)
📝 What it does
Prevents private companies / pipeline projects (e.g. CO₂ capture pipelines) from using eminent domain powers in South Dakota. Owners of land cannot be forced to grant rights for such pipelines. (Reuters)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Little direct cost to state; potentially lost economic development or tax revenue if pipeline proejcts withdraw.
Legal / administrative costs for regulatory oversight or plan denials.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: Landowners who didn’t want pipeline easements; property rights advocates.
Affects: Companies planning CO₂ pipelines; gas/energy/carbon capture industry; environmental agencies; infrastructure planners.
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Sponsored / passed by state legislature with strong landowner/property rights constituency. (Reuters)
Opposed by pipeline companies (Summit Carbon Solutions) and others invested in CO₂ capture or transport for climate/environment or energy-sector reasons.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Protects property rights; prevents forced seizure of land for pipelines.
Hills to hold developers accountable via voluntary easements or agreements.
❌ Cons:
Could slow or block CO₂ capture infrastructure (which is argued by some to be part of climate solutions).
Potential economic opportunity lost; some projects may stop or reroute.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
Starting July 1, 2025, South Dakota bans pipelines carrying CO₂ from using eminent domain — wins for landowners and property rights, possible setbacks for carbon capture projects.
✅ Law #4: Government Accountability / Whistleblower Protections — SB 62 & SB 63
Statute / Bills: SB 62 & SB 63 (2025) — establishing reporting requirements for improper governmental conduct, and protections for state employees who report such misconduct. (https://www.dakotanewsnow.com)
Effective: July 1, 2025 (as part of the batch of laws going into effect on that date) (https://www.dakotanewsnow.com)
📝 What it does
SB 62: Requires mandatory reporting of improper government conduct/crime by certain officials or entities. (https://www.dakotanewsnow.com)
SB 63: Protects state employees who report (whistleblowers) from retaliation; establishes procedures / protections. (https://www.dakotanewsnow.com)
💰 Cost to taxpayers / state budget
Some cost to state government in setting up reporting systems, possibly investigations. (https://www.dakotanewsnow.com)
Potential savings if misconduct is caught earlier and misused funds avoided.
👥 Who it helps / affects
Helps: State employees who witness wrongdoing; citizens benefitting from more government transparency.
Affects: State agencies; supervisors; elected or appointed officials; possible cultural change in government.
⚙️ Who sponsored / who opposed
Sponsored by Attorney General office and Governor’s office in cooperation. (https://www.dakotanewsnow.com)
Generally supported by accountability/transparency groups; opposition possibly from officials concerned about exposure or legal risk.
✅ Pros & ❌ Cons
✅ Pros:
Encourages transparency and honesty in government.
Helps protect employees who report misconduct.
Could deter corruption or misuse of public resources.
❌ Cons:
Cost of setting up systems/training; potential for frivolous complaints.
Need for effective enforcement and oversight; if poorly implemented, protections may be weak.
🗳️ The Ballot Beacon Takeaway
As of July 1, 2025, South Dakota rolled out SB 62 & SB 63 that strengthen government accountability: employees are protected when reporting wrongdoing, and officials must report improper conduct — boosting oversight, with implementation and cost duties ahead.