More Taxpayer Money Going to Waste for an Unfunded Mandate for Precinct Interpreters
- Anthony Kathol
- Feb 21
- 11 min read
This past Thursday, I became aware that the South Dakota House State Affairs Committee had placed House Bill 1324 on its agenda to hear both proponent and opponent testimony. HB 1324 proposed abolishing the State Board of Elections and centralizing all administrative election duties within the Office of the Secretary of State, on the premise that the Secretary of State is an elected official, while members of the State Board of Elections are appointed. The bill’s prime sponsor was Representative Aaron Aylward, from District 6 in Lincoln County (1).
Under South Dakota Codified Law 12-1-5, the State Board of Elections plays a critical role in safeguarding election integrity. The board promulgates administrative rules governing election conduct, makes recommendations to the Secretary of State on election law changes, resolves complaints filed under Section 402 of the Help America Vote Act, and certifies automated ballot tabulating systems before they may be used in South Dakota. Each commissioner is appointed to a four-year term, providing continuity, institutional knowledge, and an important layer of oversight (2). After substantial debate and public testimony, the House State Affairs Committee voted unanimously to send HB 1324 to the 41st legislative day—effectively killing the bill—by a decisive 12–0 vote. Notably, District 27 Representative Liz May voted in favor of stopping the legislation (3).
What stood out most to me in HB 1324 was not merely its intent, but the specific language it sought to insert into Chapter 12-1 of the South Dakota Codified Laws. Sections 13 and 14 of the bill proposed sweeping changes that deserve close scrutiny. The bill stated:
Section 13. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 12-1:
The auditor of a county must provide an interpreter, proficient in both the local Sioux dialect and the English language, in each precinct of the county for the purposes of translating and communicating all voter instructions, if notified by the secretary of state, in accordance with section 9 of this Act, that:
(1) The county contains:
(a) Any part of an Indian reservation and more than five percent of the citizens of American Indian descent living within the reservation are members of a single language minority and have limited proficiency in the English language; or
(b) More than ten thousand voting age citizens or five percent of voting age citizens, whichever is less, who are members of a single language minority and have limited proficiency in the English language; and
(2) The illiteracy rate of the citizens in the single language minority is higher than the national illiteracy rate.
An interpreter must be paid the same amount as a precinct deputy. All expenses associated with the employment of an interpreter must be paid out of the county general fund or the appropriate fund of the political subdivision conducting the election.
If the person in charge of the election determines that a precinct does not need the assistance of an interpreter, the auditor and the state's attorney of the county must certify to the secretary of state that the precinct does not need the assistance of an interpreter. The auditor and the state's attorney must provide documentation that supports the determination as part of the certification.
The state's attorney of a county required to provide an interpreter, pursuant to this section, may file an action against the United States in the federal court, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 10503 (January 1, 2026), to exempt the entire county from the requirement to provide an interpreter.
For the purposes of 52 U.S.C. § 10503 (January 1, 2026), the Lakota, Nakota, and Dakota dialects of the Sioux language are historically unwritten languages.
Section 14. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 12-1:
The secretary of state shall promulgate rules, pursuant to chapter 1-26, to establish:
(1) The process by which the secretary notifies a county that the county meets the requirements of section 8 of this Act and must provide interpreters;
(2) The criteria for an individual to be employed as an interpreter;
(3) The process for certifying that a precinct does not need the assistance of an interpreter; and
(4) The documentation required to demonstrate that a precinct does not need the assistance of an interpreter.
These sections immediately compelled me to engage in the legislative process. I contacted the bill’s prime sponsor by email to express my opposition to the proposed language. My message stated the following:
"The inclusion of a language interpreter requirement in this bill is unnecessary and would impose additional costs and administrative burdens on county auditors in District 27. Many of our counties already struggle to recruit and retain sufficient poll workers—particularly in Bennett, Jackson, and Oglala Lakota Counties. Adding another staffing mandate only exacerbates an existing challenge.
I personally know the precinct captain in Oglala Lakota County, who has served as a poll worker throughout the entire 45-day early voting period for multiple election cycles. At no time has he indicated a need for a language interpreter at the polling place due to voter language barriers. In my experience, the people of District 27 are fully capable of reading and writing English well enough to participate in the electoral process. Moreover, the Lakota language is written. Jesuit priests have written the Bible in the Lakota language. This is a historical fact.
When voters experience confusion, it is far more often due to the way initiated measures are drafted. Ballot language is frequently written in a manner that is unnecessarily complex or deliberately misleading, which can confuse voters regardless of their primary language. Initiated Measure RL-21 (the so-called “Property Owners’ Bill of Rights”) is a clear example of this problem.
During the 2024 general election, the Department of Justice sent poll watchers to three of the four counties in District 27. One question asked by the poll watchers was whether ballots should have been written in Lakota. To my knowledge, no one present indicated that such a change would have been beneficial or necessary.
The language in this bill implies that voters in my district are unable to read or understand their ballot based on a language barrier. As an educator and former poll worker, I can state unequivocally that I have never encountered a situation in which a voter was unable to cast a ballot due to a language barrier. For these reasons, I strongly recommend that this language be removed from the bill."
Proponents of the bill argued that the language in Section 13 was necessary to comply with current federal law. To evaluate that claim, I reviewed the statute cited by the bill’s author and prime sponsor—52 U.S.C. § 10503, which establishes bilingual election requirements. This provision was originally enacted on June 22, 1970, and later amended on June 29, 1982. As amended, the law is intended to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments by requiring bilingual voting materials in covered jurisdictions with high rates of illiteracy among language-minority populations (4) (5).
I understand the intent of the author of HB 1324; however, any proposal of this magnitude must be evaluated pragmatically and grounded in on-the-ground realities. Currently, there are four precincts in Bennett County, nine precincts in Oglala Lakota County, and six of the eight precincts in Jackson County—those located south of the White River and forming the exterior boundary of the Pine Ridge Reservation. In total, nineteen precincts would be required to have language interpreters available at polling locations on election day.
This unfunded mandate would require each of the three counties to hire a Lakota interpreter who must be available throughout the 45-day early voting period preceding both the June primary and the November general elections at polling centers in Pine Ridge, Allen, and Wanblee. This would impose a significant additional cost on county taxpayers. It is also reasonable to assume that this requirement would extend to municipal and school board elections held within District 27, further increasing the financial and administrative burden.
After considerable reflection, I chose to consult a trusted local tribal elder to gain perspective on whether the language proposed in this bill is truly necessary. Gwen Ward is a resident of Martin and a member of my local parish community. She attended a Catholic boarding school in Chadron, Nebraska, at a young age and is now approaching 91 years old, with a sharp and lucid memory. I visited with Gwen to better understand the claimed language barrier referenced in HB 1324.
During our conversation, Gwen shared that her father served as one of the first Bennett County Commissioners and that the Lakota language was spoken around her while growing up on her family’s ranch. She told me she can speak, read, write, and understand the Lakota language. When I asked her opinion of the alleged language barrier cited in the bill, she responded bluntly: “It is bull%$#@!”
I then asked whether she—or anyone she knew—had ever experienced difficulty reading a ballot due to an inability to read English. She replied, “Hell No!” I asked whether she had ever cast a tribal election ballot written in Lakota; again, her answer was “No!” Finally, I asked whether her classmates were proficient in English. Gwen explained that instruction at the boarding school was conducted in English and that the use of the Lakota language was discouraged as part of the assimilation policies of that era.
After thanking Gwen for her time, I left the conversation convinced that the claimed language barrier referenced in HB 1324 does not exist in practice within District 27.
I then conducted additional research and found further evidence indicating that literacy rates on the reservation are significantly higher than often portrayed by policymakers in Washington, calling into question the asserted need for mandatory interpreters. Before proceeding further, it is important to define key terms as they are used under federal law:
The term “limited-English proficient” means unable to speak or understand English adequately enough to participate in the electoral process.
The term “illiteracy” means the failure to complete the 5th primary grade.
The term “voting materials” means registration or voting notices, forms, instructions, assistance, or other materials or information relating to the electoral process, including ballots.
The term "language minorities" or "language minority group" means persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaska Natives, or of Spanish heritage.
As part of my research, I reviewed the Oglala Sioux Tribe Election Code, Ordinance No. 25-40, which was adopted by the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council on November 25, 2025. Nowhere in the election code is there any requirement for the use of language interpreters in tribal elections.
I found this particularly noteworthy, as the tribe’s election ordinance is well written and, in many respects, more thorough and structured than many state or federal election laws and statutes I have reviewed. The code requires all candidates for tribal office to undergo background checks and drug testing. Election monitors must be at least 25 years of age and may not be related to any candidate. Campaign signage must be placed a minimum of 400 feet from any polling site or voting booth.
The election code also limits voting eligibility to tribal members residing within the exterior boundaries of the reservation, with exceptions for stationed members of the armed services and college students, who are permitted to vote absentee. Absentee ballots must be requested in writing no later than 20 days before the election and must be received on or before election day to be counted.
The complete OST Election Code can be viewed here: https://pdflink.to/e4e82a31/
One can also reasonably argue that the Oglala Sioux Tribe conducts its official business primarily in English. The Tribe posts its Tribal Council agendas and meeting minutes in English, and even the President of the Tribe routinely shares public notices on his Facebook page written exclusively in English, with no Lakota language included in this posted flyer, for example. See below:
During my tenure at the Martin Field Office of the Indian Health Service, I regularly attended Tribal Council meetings as well as HHS committee meetings. At no point during these meetings did I observe the use of, or the need for, an interpreter to conduct official business.
While the Lakota language is often described as a historically unwritten language, one could reasonably argue that it is now a written language—particularly with the advent of modern technology and artificial intelligence. As part of my research, I conducted a brief Google search and found an English-to-Lakota online dictionary and translation application. I was impressed by the level of detail and accuracy provided in the translations. See below:
To further illustrate why this alleged language barrier is unnecessary, I reviewed literacy rates in South Dakota compared to the rest of the United States and uncovered several statistics worth sharing.
Did you know that South Dakota ranks fifth in the nation with the highest literacy rate, according to one source? See below:
States with the Highest Literacy Rates
1. New Hampshire
New Hampshire has the lowest percentage (5.8%) of adults lacking basic prose literacy skills, making New Hampshire’s literacy rate of 94.2%. About 36.6% of adults in New Hampshire have a Bachelor’s degree or higher, the seventh-highest rate in the country, and 60.8% of the population are registered library users, also the seventh-highest in the country.
2. Minnesota
Minnesota has the second-highest literacy rate of 94.0%, with only 6% of adults lacking basic prose literacy skills. About 69.9% of Minnesota residents are registered library users, the second-highest in the country.
3. North Dakota
North Dakota has the third-highest literacy rate of 93.7%, with 6.3% of adults lacking basic prose literacy skills. North Dakota, however, has the lowest percentage of registered library users of 35.9%.
4. Vermont
Vermont has the fourth-highest literacy rate of 93.4%, with 6.6% of adults lacking basic prose literacy skills. Vermont is also the fourth-most educated state in the U.S.. Vermont has the highest number of libraries per 100,000 people of 29.8 and has the eighth-highest Bachelor’s degree or higher attainment of 36.4%.
5. South Dakota
South Dakota has the fifth-highest literacy rate of 93.0%, with 7.0% of adults lacking basic prose literacy skills. South Dakota has 16.4 public libraries per 100,000 residents, the fifth-highest in the country.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about four out of five U.S. adults (79%) have medium to high English literacy skills. These literacy levels are sufficient to compare and contrast information, paraphrase, and make low-level inferences. This means that about one in five U.S. adults (21%) have low literacy skills, translating to about 43.0 million adults.
Of those who have low English literacy skills, 35% are White, 2% of whom are born outside of the U.S.; 23% are Black, 3% of whom are born outside of the U.S.; 34% are Hispanic, 24% of whom are born outside of the U.S.; 8% are of other races/ethnicities. Non-U.S.-born adults comprise 34% of the U.S. population with low literacy skills.
Historical and contemporary data suggest that the so-called language barrier among Native Americans in South Dakota may be overstated. Literacy rates among Native Americans increased significantly between the early 1800s and the early 1900s, reflecting a long-term trend toward English-language proficiency (see figure below).
This historical literacy pattern is further supported by more recent data. According to a 2006 table comparing literacy and language proficiency across racial and ethnic groups, only 2.8% of American Indian and Alaska Native individuals reported speaking a language other than English and experiencing difficulty with English. By comparison, the percentages were much higher among Hispanics (18.4%) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (16.7%). Reference Table below:
It is important to note, however, that this data is nearly twenty years old and may not fully reflect current language-use patterns. Given generational shifts, increased access to education, and widespread use of English among younger Native Americans, the proportion of individuals who primarily speak a native language today is likely even lower. Together, both historical and more recent evidence suggest that the need for mandated interpreters in District 27 polling locations may be limited.
Based on the evidence, it is clear that the need for bilingual voting materials and Lakota translators at our election precincts is largely unnecessary. Tribal members within District 27 are fully capable of reading ballots in English and are not disenfranchised or restricted from exercising their right to vote under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. To assume that American Indians on the Pine Ridge Reservation have a literacy rate below the national average—or that most voting-age adults are unable to read, write, or speak English at a fifth-grade level—is inaccurate and misleading.
Most Native Americans I know are fully capable of texting on a cell phone, writing social media posts in English, and engaging in conversations in English in business, government, education, and healthcare settings. The language in HB 1324 undermines their capabilities and echoes outdated arguments suggesting that minority communities are inherently incapable of navigating basic civic responsibilities. As a comparison, some have claimed that Black Americans cannot obtain an ID due to socio-economic factors—yet with accessible information online, this is demonstrably not true (see this YouTube video: https://youtu.be/22G6y5OG6MI).
While the intentions behind HB 1324 may have been well-meaning, the bill overreaches by broadly assuming that Native Americans in District 27 require interpreter assistance to vote on English-language ballots. I have far more confidence in our tribal members than in bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., or Pierre. Tribal voters are fully capable of selecting their candidates without the aid of a Lakota translator, and mandating one would impose an unnecessary, unfunded expense on our county taxpayers.
Sources for this article:
Comments