Law360 (September 18, 2026, 5:49 PM EDT) -- A South Dakota federal judge on Friday denied as moot a League of Women Voters bid to force state election officials to correct inaccurate notices sent to new registrants limited to voting in federal elections, finding that the secretary of state adopted every change the challengers requested and is unlikely to reverse course before the November election.

U.S. District Judge Eric C. Schulte denied the preliminary injunction request without prejudice, leaving the League of Women Voters of South Dakota and Sioux Falls voter Jaysen Hill free to renew it if Secretary of State Monae Johnson abandons the changes. Their due process claims seeking permanent relief also remain pending.

"Because the secretary of state has made all of the changes plaintiffs requested in their motion for preliminary injunction and cannot reasonably be expected to return to prior conduct, plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is denied as moot," Judge Schulte said.

The league and Hill sued Johnson and members of the South Dakota State Board of Elections in August over the implementation of Senate Bill 175, which requires new voter registration applicants to submit documentary proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in state and local elections.

Applicants who do not provide acceptable documentation are registered as "federal voters," meaning they may vote for presidential electors, a U.S. senator and a U.S. representative, but not in state or local races.

According to the lawsuit, the state's voter registration system sent some applicants inaccurate letters telling them they had received federal-only status because they used a commercial mail service, mail-forwarding service or post office box as their residential address. The same letter was sent to applicants who had provided a valid residential address but had not submitted the required proof of citizenship.

Hill, who registered in May using his residential apartment address and a photocopy of a South Dakota identification card issued Jan. 23, 2025, received a letter saying he had used a commercial address, according to the order. The law recognizes qualifying South Dakota identification issued after July 1, 2025, as documentary proof of citizenship.

Believing that the notice had been sent in error, Hill threw it away. He did not understand that he had been classified as a federal-only voter for failing to provide acceptable proof of citizenship and was unable to vote in state and local races held in June, the order said.

The league sought an injunction barring officials from enforcing the citizenship-document requirement without giving affected voters accurate notice and an opportunity to fix their registrations. It also asked the court to require Johnson to issue uniform guidance to county auditors.

Judge Schulte held an initial hearing Sept. 11. Three days later, Johnson's office contacted the vendor operating the state's TotalVote registration system and had it disable the feature that automatically generated the inaccurate letter, according to the order.

The secretary's office replaced that letter with two templates: one for applicants who failed to provide a compliant residential address and another for applicants who submitted inadequate or missing proof of citizenship.

It also instructed county auditors to send the citizenship-document letter to affected applicants, including federal-only voters who had previously received the inaccurate address notice and had not yet obtained full voting status.

At a second hearing Sept. 15, counsel for the league and Hill acknowledged that those changes, if implemented, supplied the relief requested in their injunction motion. The plaintiffs nevertheless maintained that an injunction remained necessary because the secretary's voluntary policy change was not binding and could be withdrawn before the election.

Judge Schulte disagreed, finding that Johnson had met the "formidable burden" imposed on a defendant claiming that its voluntary cessation of challenged conduct has rendered a dispute moot.

Unlike the "sparse declaration" the U.S. Supreme Court found insufficient in a 2024 case involving the federal no-fly list, Johnson submitted two declarations documenting the new letters, the guidance sent to county auditors and the disabling of the automatic notice, according to the order.

Johnson also declared under penalty of perjury that, absent a change in the law, she had no present or future intention of restoring the old automatic letter or revoking the Sept. 14 guidance.

"With only thirty-one days from the voter registration deadline for the upcoming election and forty-six days from the election, the secretary of state cannot, in this court's judgment, reasonably be expected to backtrack and return to prior allegedly illegal conduct," Judge Schulte said.

The judge declined to address the merits of the plaintiffs' constitutional claims or the defendants' challenge to their standing, finding that the court could not issue an advisory opinion after the requested preliminary relief became moot.

Judge Schulte emphasized, however, that the broader case remains alive and that the injunction ruling could be revisited if officials fail to follow through.

The court said it would approach the remaining dispute with two principles in mind: "voting is a fundamental right that is the cornerstone of our democracy" and "prospective voters should be told the truth about their voting status."

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

Johnson and the State Board of Elections members are represented by Drew Driesen and James E. Moore of Woods Fuller Shultz & Smith PC.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond Friday to requests for comment.

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 Linda Voorhis.

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