Issue · Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice

Every criminal justice bill, vote, and legislator stance in South Dakota, automatically classified by Maddy, our AI policy reader.

Total bills
4
2026 Regular Session
Top supporter
Erik Muckey
95% support rate
Top opponent
John Carley
21% support rate
Ranked legislators
10
5 support · 5 oppose
Key legislators

Who's moving criminal justice in South Dakota

Legislators moving criminal justice in South Dakota
Legislator Party Stance Support rate Votes
Erik Muckey
Erik Muckey House · District 15
D
Strong +
95% 50
Nicole Uhre-Balk
Nicole Uhre-Balk House · District 32
D
Strong +
88% 51
Ernie Otten
Ernie Otten Senate · District 6
R
Strong +
86% 34
Jack Kolbeck
Jack Kolbeck House · District 13
R
Strong +
85% 51
Erin Healy
Erin Healy House · District 10
D
Strong +
82% 57
John Carley
John Carley Senate · District 29
R
Oppose
21% 34
Taffy Howard
Taffy Howard Senate · District 34
R
Oppose
23% 34
Phil Jensen
Phil Jensen House · District 33
R
Oppose
24% 52
Logan Manhart
Logan Manhart House · District 1
R
Oppose
24% 59
Heather Baxter
Heather Baxter House · District 34
R
Oppose
24% 59
Showing 4 of 4 bills

All criminal justice bills

signed · South Dakota · Senate Mar 10, 2026

SB 113: increase the penalty for preventing practice of religion.

This bill amends South Dakota law (§ 22-19B-4) to upgrade penalties for preventing someone from practicing their religion through threats or violence. Currently a Class 1 misdemeanor, the offense would become a Class 6 felony under this bill. It directly affects individuals who use intimidation or force to stop others from engaging in legally protected religious activities. The key change is reclassifying the penalty level in the statute, increasing the legal consequences for such conduct.
signed · South Dakota · House Mar 9, 2026

HB 1162: add certain substances to Schedule I of the controlled substances schedule.

HB 1162 adds 59 specific substances - including synthetic opioids like "W-18" and "butonitazene," as well as compounds such as "methiopropamine" - to South Dakota's Schedule I controlled substances list. This means these substances are now classified as having no medical use and a high potential for abuse under state law. The bill directly affects anyone in South Dakota who possesses, distributes, or uses these listed substances, making such actions illegal without specific exemptions. The key mechanism is the explicit inclusion of these chemical compounds (including isomers and salts) into Schedule I, closing potential legal gaps for enforcement.
passed · South Dakota · House Mar 3, 2026

HCR 6015: encouraging the Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council to form an interim legislative committee to study the role and function of county boards of mental illness.

This concurrent resolution (HCR 6015) requests the Legislative Research Council's Executive Board to form a committee to study expanding state involvement in the national instant criminal background check system. It specifically directs the committee to examine how to better identify individuals with mental health issues seeking firearms, while addressing due process rights, reporting standards, and training requirements for those handling background check information. The study will also evaluate county mental health boards' roles, existing commitment processes, and how they might interact with background check systems. The resolution does not create new law but asks for a report with findings and recommendations for future legislative action. (Note: The bill title incorrectly references "county boards of mental illness" instead of the actual focus on background checks and mental health in firearm contexts.)
passed · South Dakota · House Mar 2, 2026

HB 1065: revise the medical purpose affirmative defense in cannabis prosecution.

HB 1065 would require individuals facing cannabis-related charges to possess a registry identification card to use a legal defense claiming they are permitted to possess cannabis. Currently, South Dakota law does not mandate this card for such defenses, but the bill would amend § 34-20G-53 to make it a requirement. This change would directly affect people charged with cannabis offenses who attempt to rely on this specific defense in court. The bill creates a new condition for accessing this defense, requiring the card as a prerequisite for its use.