The recent public release of South Dakota’s full voter registration list has ignited a significant controversy, revealing sensitive personal information, including the identities of public assistance applicants, and sparking widespread privacy concerns across the state. This unprecedented transparency, mandated by a new state law, has inadvertently exposed thousands of residents to potential scrutiny and compromised their personal data, leading to a profound reevaluation of legislative intent and the implications for individual privacy.
The legislation, enacted by a Republican-dominated Legislature and signed by Governor Larry Rhoden, aimed to make the voter list freely accessible online, diverging from its previous availability only for a substantial fee. While promoted by certain “election integrity” activists as a measure to ensure transparency, its implementation by Secretary of State Monae Johnson’s office has unveiled details far beyond what many legislators, both Republican and Democrat, claim to have intended, particularly regarding the exposure of sensitive voter information.
Upon the law’s effective date on July 1, the Secretary of State’s Office published the comprehensive list, encompassing information for 668,419 registered voters. A detailed analysis of this data by South Dakota Searchlight revealed not only names, political affiliations, and addresses but also included phone numbers and email addresses that voters had optionally provided or that were automatically integrated from other government forms, such as driver’s license applications.
A particularly alarming revelation within the published data was a column explicitly identifying where and how voters registered, including those who did so while applying for vital public assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or Women, Infants and Children (WIC). This detailed tagging led to 7,186 individuals being explicitly labeled as public assistance applicants, raising serious questions about the confidentiality of their records.
Following the initial outcry, the Secretary of State’s Office quietly updated the spreadsheet, removing the direct columns related to voter registration methods. However, the sensitive information about public assistance applicants reportedly remains subtly accessible under the “County” column for some voters, indicating an ongoing challenge in fully rectifying the data exposure and addressing the privacy implications for these vulnerable populations.
Both current and former state officials have voiced their apprehension regarding this oversight. Dan Ahlers, Executive Director of the South Dakota Democratic Party, emphasized the damage to public trust, noting that previous voter lists did not contain such identifying information about public assistance applicants. Similarly, former Secretary of State Chris Nelson, a Republican, confirmed that voter registration methods were not a searchable or sortable data item during his tenure.
Legal experts, including Samantha Chapman from the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, suggest that the state’s actions could lead to lawsuits, arguing that the public disclosure potentially forces public assistance applicants to choose between registering to vote and maintaining their privacy. This situation creates a direct conflict with federal laws protecting the confidentiality of public assistance records and a state law ensuring the confidentiality of Department of Social Services applicants.
The controversy has also prompted a response from the South Dakota Attorney General, Marty Jackley, who has assigned lawyers to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State’s Office, indicating the severity of the legal and ethical questions raised by the data release. Meanwhile, some legislators, including the main sponsor of the bill, Representative Heather Baxter, maintain that the intention was merely to make voter rolls accessible for verification, not to publicize sensitive personal details.
This episode highlights the complex interplay between government transparency, individual privacy rights, and the practical implementation of new laws. As South Dakotans react by sometimes withholding optional contact information during voter registration, the long-term impact on political campaigns and voter engagement remains to be seen, signaling a broader debate on how data exposure affects civic participation and trust in state government.
