Law360 (August 27, 2026, 9:53 PM EDT) -- A South Dakota federal judge expedited briefing for a preliminary injunction bid in a League of Women Voters lawsuit against the state ahead of absentee voting that starts Sept. 18, ruling the league can hasten its challenge of a new documentary proof of citizenship requirement.

U.S. District Judge Eric C. Schulte said in his Tuesday order granting the request by the League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Sioux Falls voter Jaysen Hill that the secretary of state and the State Board of Elections defendants must file their response by Sept. 4, and the plaintiffs must reply by Sept. 9.

"As part of plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, they ask that the court expedite the normal briefing requirements for the motion because absentee voting begins on September 18, 2026," Judge Schulte said. "Good cause appearing, this court grants plaintiffs' request for expedited briefing."

The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Hill filed the suit Monday, and it seeks to ensure the state's administration of a new voter registration requirement complies with federal law.

The bill, which was enacted in March, requires new voters to provide documentation of their U.S. citizenship when registering to vote or lose the opportunity to vote in state and local elections.

The league, which conducts registration drives at summer festivals, farmers markets and other public events, says it doesn't challenge South Dakota's decision to request documentary proof of citizenship from registrants to vote in state and local elections.

"Rather," the complaint states, "plaintiffs seek to remedy senseless inaccuracies and harmful inconsistencies created by the new provision and ensure South Dakota's administration of its new DPOC requirement complies with federal law."

The suit takes county auditors to task for their enforcement of the new law, and in its motion for a preliminary injunction, the league seeks an order requiring Secretary of State Monae Johnson to issue guidance to the auditors instructing them to provide all voters with meaningful notice, so they can avoid getting registered as "federal-only" voters who cannot vote in state and local elections.

Voters who are Native American tribal members are particularly compromised by Senate Bill 175, the suit claims, adding that the state knows voter registration rejection notice forms are inaccurate because they have not been updated since the bill passed.

Specifically, South Dakota has failed to give sufficient notice or "cure procedures" for voter registration applicants who are assigned a status as a "federal-only voter" — often meaning tribal members — due to the documentary proof of citizenship requirement, the suit says.

That failure violates the guarantee of due process under the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, the suit argues.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is one of the groups providing legal representation to the League of Women Voters of South Dakota, the new law makes voting difficult in the largely rural state, where thousands of voters register by mail, and voter registration drives to county election offices can involve round trips of more than 100 miles.

People registering to vote must provide original copies in person for the most common documentation showing proof of U.S. citizenship — Tribal IDs, driver's licenses and non-driver state IDs, the ACLU said in a Monday statement.

"And if there is an issue with the voter's documentation, the state sends a notice letter containing inaccurate information about why their registration was denied," the ACLU added.

Mel Neal, legal counsel for voting rights at the Campaign Legal Center, which is also representing the league, said federal law requires South Dakota to inform voters about documentation requirements before interfering with their right to cast a ballot in state and local elections.

"Nor can South Dakota impose immaterial requirements that make it harder for Americans to register to vote," Neal said in a Monday statement. "We are asking the court to ensure that South Dakota's new registration law is implemented in a way that complies with crucial, pro-voter provisions of federal law."

According to the complaint, many prospective voters it seeks to help register only have a driver's license, nondriver state identification card or a tribal identification card.

"LWVSD expects that some of these individuals will face significant financial and logistical hurdles to obtain another form of proof of citizenship or to appear in person at their county auditor's office to provide a physical copy of these forms of DPOC," the complaint says. "Some may not be able to do so at all."

Representatives for the South Dakota secretary of state, the State Board of Elections of South Dakota and the League of Women Voters of South Dakota did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.

The League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Jaysen Hill are represented by Matthew Tysdal and Pete Heidepriem of Heidepriem Purtell Siegel & Hinrichs LLP, Alice C.C. Huling, Dana Paikowsky, William Hancock, Melissa Neal and Daniel Brophy of the Campaign Legal Center, Andrew Malone of the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, and Jacob van Leer, William Hughes and Sophia Lin Lakin of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

Counsel information for the South Dakota Secretary of State and the members of the State Board of Elections of South Dakota was unavailable.

The case is League of Women Voters of South Dakota et al. v. Monae Johnson et al., case number 4:26-cv-04162, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.

--Editing by Kristen Becker.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.