Governor's Veto Halts SD HB1132: A Bipartisan Effort for Child Care Relief Falls Short in South Dakota

The Story of SD HB1132: A Vetoed Effort to Support Child Care Workers

In the 2025 South Dakota legislative session, House Bill 1132 emerged as a beacon of hope aimed at tackling a critical issue: the affordability of child care for the very people who provide it. The bill sought to establish provisions making certain child care employees eligible for the state's child care assistance program by excluding their income when determining eligibility. Despite navigating a complex legislative path with bipartisan support, HB1132 ultimately met its end with a gubernatorial veto, highlighting the persistent challenges in addressing the child care crisis.

What Was HB1132 Designed to Do?

The core purpose of HB1132 was straightforward: make it easier for individuals working in licensed or registered child care facilities to afford child care for their own families. As introduced by Representative Erin Healy (Dem) and Representative Tim Reed (Rep), the bill proposed that the Department of Social Services exclude all earned and unearned income of a child care worker's household if the applicant worked at least 20 hours per week in a qualified setting (like a day care center, family day care home, or before/after school program).

LegiEquity analysis projected a significant positive impact, scoring the bill at 80% Positive Overall with high confidence. The benefits were particularly pronounced for specific demographics: 85% Positive Impact for Children/Youth and 80% Positive Impact for Females. This reflects the reality that easing the financial burden on child care workers—a predominantly female workforce—would not only support them but also enhance the stability and quality of care available to children across the state.

The Legislative Gauntlet: A Journey of Amendments and Close Votes

HB1132's journey began on January 29th, 2025. Its bipartisan sponsorship, featuring Rep. Healy (Effectiveness Score: 20.0) and Rep. Reed (Effectiveness Score: 50.0), signaled potential for broad appeal.

Introduction & Committee Referral: Introduced in the House, it was quickly referred to the powerful House Health and Human Services Committee (Power Score: 100.0) on January 30th.
First Hurdle & Amendment: On February 13th, the committee hearing resulted in the passage of Amendment 1132A and a narrow 'Do Pass Amended' recommendation on a 7-6 vote, indicating early contention.
House Floor Action & Second Amendment: Reaching the House floor, the bill faced another amendment (1132B) on February 19th. The final enrolled version reveals the impact of these amendments: the required work hours increased from 20 to 30 hours per week, and a crucial qualifier was added – the applicant's household income could not exceed 300% of the federal poverty level. This significantly narrowed the scope of the original proposal. Despite these changes, the amended bill passed the House, but again with a relatively close vote of 39 Yeas to 31 Nays.
Senate Passage: The bill moved to the Senate, referred to its Health and Human Services Committee (also Power Score: 100.0) on February 20th. It passed the committee 5-2 on March 3rd and cleared the full Senate floor 20-14 on March 4th. While still showing division, the Senate passage confirmed bicameral support.
Final Steps & Veto: After being signed by the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate, HB1132 was delivered to the Governor on March 10th. However, on March 13th, the Governor vetoed the bill.
Override Attempt Fails: The House attempted to override the veto the same day, but the effort fell short, mustering only 27 votes in favor against 43 opposed, far from the required two-thirds majority.

Why the Veto Matters: Impact and Context

The veto of HB1132 represents a significant setback. The child care sector nationwide, and certainly in South Dakota, faces immense pressure from staffing shortages, low wages, and high operational costs, which translate into high prices for parents. HB1132 aimed to alleviate one part of this complex equation by supporting the workforce directly. By making child care more accessible for employees, the state could have potentially improved staff retention and recruitment in a vital sector.

The LegiEquity analysis underscores the potential positive impact lost, particularly for working mothers and the children needing care. While the amendments tightened eligibility (requiring 30 hours/week and imposing an income cap at 300% FPL), the core concept—excluding income for child care workers seeking assistance—remained intact and aimed to address a real barrier.

The bipartisan nature of the bill's sponsorship and its passage through both Republican-controlled chambers (albeit with noted opposition) suggested a recognition of the problem across the aisle. However, the Governor's veto and the subsequent failure to override it demonstrate the political or fiscal obstacles that ultimately prevented this targeted relief from becoming law.

This outcome leaves South Dakota child care workers continuing to struggle with the irony of providing essential care they may not be able to afford themselves. The story of HB1132 serves as a case study in how promising, data-supported legislative solutions can falter at the final hurdle, leaving critical societal needs unmet.

LegiEquity analyzes proposed legislation to determine its potential impact on various demographic groups. Our goal is to provide objective insights into how laws may affect different communities.