Scoring Details
Incumbent Legislators were scored on their voting record when possible.
New candidates were scored on their answers to a survey.
Incumbent Legislator Scoring
Life
Legislators were categorized based on their most recent score with South Dakota Right to Life.
“Strong” = 90% or above.
“Moderate” = A score between Strong & Weak.
“Weak” = 70% or below.
Note: Legislative Scorecards from SDRTL can be found at the bottom of the page.
Education
Legislators were categorized based on their votes on recent bills relating to Educational Choice.
“Good”: Voted in support of recent Educational Choice legislation
“Mixed”: Legislator casted votes both in support and opposition of recent Educational Choice legislation
“Weak”: Voted against recent Education Choice legislation
Examples: SB71 (2022), SB177 (2021), HB1204 (2020), SB159 (2016).
Marijuana
Legislators were categorized based on their score from the marijuana industry after the 2022 Legislative session. Medicinal usage of marijuana is already established in South Dakota, and many of the bills that were scored dealt with how loose/strict marijuana should be regulated as well as topics such as candy edibles, growing at home, recreational usage, and more.
“Candidate has a very strong record of voting against marijuana commercialization/expansion” = The legislator received a score lower than -20 on the marijuana industry scorecard.
“Candidate has a good record of voting against marijuana commercialization/expansion” = The legislator received a score between -1 and -20.
“Candidate has a mixed voting record on marijuana commercialization/expansion” = The legislator received a score between 0 and 30.
“Candidate has a voting record of support for marijuana commercialization/expansion” = The legislator received a score of 30 points or higher on the marijuana industry scorecard.
Student Privacy
Legislators were categorized based on how they voted on bills that would protect the privacy of students in restrooms, locker rooms or overnight sleeping accommodations.
“Voting record of protecting student privacy”
The legislator voted yes on one or more of the bills to protect student privacy.
“Mixed voting record”
The legislator has cast votes both in support of and against protecting student privacy.
“Candidate voted against protecting student privacy”
The legislator voted against one or more of the bills to protect student privacy.
Examples: HB1005 (2022), HB1008 (2016).
Note: To dive deeper and find a legislator’s voting record on all issues related to recognizing biological realities including protecting women’s sports, prohibiting genital surgery on minors, and maintaining accurate birth certificates, see previous versions of the FHA Action Legislative Scorecard.
Gambling
Legislators were categorized based on how they voted on bills that would seek to expand gambling in South Dakota. Topics include video lottery bet increases, establishing online sports betting, allowing additional games in casinos, and more.
A voting record “opposing gambling expansion.”
The legislator has voted against gambling expansions at least 75% of the time.
A “mixed” voting record.
The legislator has voted against gambling expansions between 25% and 75% of the time.
A voting record “in support of gambling expansion.”
The legislator has voted against gambling expansions less than 25% of the time.
Gambling expansion bills scored: SJR2 (2022), HB1148 (2022), HB1138 (2022), SB183 (2022), SJR2 (2019), SJR5 (2019), SJR2 (2019), SJR9 (2018), HB1048 (2016), SB57 (2015), SB139 (2015).
Cumulative Pro-Family Score:
FHA Action has published a Legislative Scorecard every year since 2015. The cumulative pro-family score is the average score received by the legislator across all years scored by FHA Action. The Legislative Scorecards can be found at the bottom of the page.
New Candidate Scoring
Candidates running for office without a voting record were sent a Voter Guide Questionnaire and were asked the following questions:
1 If you are elected, how would you vote on bills that protect unborn children?
2 If you are elected, how would you vote on bills that expand the education options available to a student?
3 If you are elected, how would you vote on bills that expand the usage of marijuana?
4 If you are elected, how would you vote on bills that restrict usage of restrooms and locker rooms to students of the same biologic sex?
5 If you are elected, how would you vote on bills that increase or expand gambling in South Dakota?
Below each question was the option to check “support” or “oppose.”
The red or green symbol in the summary for each district and the color of their answer were determined based on which box was checked. If no box was checked, no color was assigned.
Candidates were also invited to submit a comment of 25 words or less to be included in the voter guide. Comments exceeding the word limit were cut short after 25 words.
Contacting the Candidates
Uniform effort was made to contact all candidates. Each candidate was sent a questionnaire via mail. In addition, candidates with an available email address were sent a reminder email.
Diving Deeper
The following scorecards are provided for those who wish to continue researching the voting records of the incumbent legislators and previously-elected candidates.
Family Heritage Alliance Action
South Dakota Right to Life
Marijuana