South Dakota Mandates Citizenship Status on IDs: The Story of SB75
South Dakota has officially enacted Senate Bill 75 (SB75), a piece of legislation set to fundamentally change the face of state-issued identification. Passed and signed into law, SD SB75 requires that all motor vehicle operator's licenses, permits, and nondriver identification cards explicitly state whether the holder is a United States citizen. This seemingly simple administrative change carries significant weight, sparking debate and raising concerns analyzed by LegiEquity.
The Bill's Purpose and Path
The stated goal of SB75, as introduced, was clear: amend South Dakota Codified Law § 32-12-17.10 to add a new requirement for driver's licenses and permits – an indication of US citizenship. The initial text focused solely on these documents.
The legislative journey began on January 16, 2025, with its first reading in the Senate. It was swiftly referred to the powerful Senate State Affairs Committee (Power Score: 85.0) the next day. This committee, known for its influence, scheduled a hearing for January 24th. On that day, the committee passed an amendment (75B) and recommended the amended bill with a strong 8-1 vote.
The full Senate followed suit on January 28th, passing the amended bill with a decisive 32-3 vote, sending it to the House.
The House received SB75 on January 29th and referred it to its own State Affairs Committee (also Power Score: 85.0). After nearly a month, a hearing was held on February 26th. Here, the bill underwent another significant change. The House committee passed amendment 75C with an 11-2 vote. Crucially, this amendment expanded the bill's scope, as reflected in the enrolled version's Section 2 (amending § 32-12-17.2), to include nondriver identification cards under the citizenship status requirement. The committee then recommended the doubly amended bill with another 11-2 vote.
The full House of Representatives passed the further amended SB75 on March 4th with an overwhelming 66-4 vote. Two days later, on March 6th, the Senate concurred with the House amendments in a 31-2 vote, finalizing the legislative text.
The bill was then signed by the Senate President (March 10th), the House Speaker (March 11th), delivered to the Governor on March 12th, and finally signed into law by the Governor on March 31, 2025.
Sponsors, Support, and Political Context
SB75 was primarily sponsored by Republican Representatives Mary Fitzgerald (Effectiveness Score: 40.0) and Amber Hulse (Effectiveness Score: 55.0), joined by a lengthy list of Republican co-sponsors. Notably, the bill metadata indicates it lacked bipartisan support (hasBipartisanSupport: false). The voting patterns confirm this, with near-unanimous support from the Republican majority in both chambers and only a handful of 'Nay' votes, likely from the Democratic minority.
This partisan divide underscores the controversial nature of the legislation. While proponents might argue it enhances security or aligns with federal initiatives like REAL ID (which already requires proof of lawful status, though not necessarily an explicit citizenship marker visible on the card face for all types), the implementation raises red flags.
LegiEquity Analysis: A High Potential for Bias
LegiEquity's analysis paints a concerning picture, assigning SB75 an Overall Impact score of 80% Bias with High Confidence. This suggests the law, as implemented, has a high likelihood of creating disparate impacts across different demographic groups.
The breakdown reveals specific areas of concern:
- Race: 85% Bias (High Confidence)
- Latinx (LX): 90% Bias
- Asian/Pacific Islander (AP): 80% Bias
- Age: 70% Bias (High Confidence)
- Children/Youth (CY): 65% Bias
Why such high bias scores? Requiring a citizenship indicator on identification documents can create potential avenues for discrimination. Individuals who are legal residents but not citizens (e.g., green card holders, those with temporary protected status, DACA recipients, asylum seekers) will now carry an ID that explicitly marks them as 'non-citizen'. This could lead to increased scrutiny, suspicion, or differential treatment in various interactions, from law enforcement stops to accessing services or employment, even where citizenship is not legally relevant.
The high bias score for racial minorities, particularly Latinx and Asian/Pacific Islander communities, likely reflects concerns that these groups, which include significant immigrant populations (both citizen and non-citizen), could face heightened profiling or discrimination based on the information displayed on their ID. The age bias, especially towards youth, might stem from complexities around documentation for younger individuals or specific statuses applicable to minors.
Broader Implications and Historical Context
This South Dakota law enters a complex national landscape surrounding immigration, identification, and civil rights. While states manage driver's licenses, federal laws like REAL ID set standards for identification used for federal purposes (like boarding airplanes). SB75 goes beyond current REAL ID requirements by mandating the citizenship marker itself for all state licenses and IDs, not just distinguishing between compliant and non-compliant cards.
Historically, efforts to add specific markers to identification documents often intersect with periods of heightened national security concerns or immigration debates. Critics often argue such measures can create a 'papers please' environment, disproportionately affecting minority groups and immigrants, regardless of their legal status. The explicit marking of citizenship status could inadvertently create tiers of identification, potentially stigmatizing non-citizen residents who are legally present and contributing members of the community.
The enrolled version of SB75 now clearly states under both § 32-12-17.10 (licenses/permits) and § 32-12-17.2 (nondriver IDs) that the card must bear "An indication if the holder is a United States citizen." This simple line, added through a determined legislative process largely along party lines, will soon be a tangible reality for South Dakota residents, carrying implications that extend far beyond the DMV.
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.
Related Articles
You might also be interested in these articles