The Recruitment Trap: How “Friendly” Candidates Are Replacing “Neighborly” Governance

When the South Dakota Legislature passed SDCL 31-12A in 1977, they had a specific vision: neighbors coming together at a kitchen table or a local garage to solve local problems. The intent was a “boots on the ground” democracy where the people who drive the roads every day are the ones who manage the budget.

But in recent years, we have been seeing a cynical corruption of that intent. We are seeing the rise of the “Recruited Board”—a strategy where current trustees seek out-of-state candidates specifically because they don’t know the road, don’t know the neighbors, and won’t ask questions.

The “Friendly” Candidate Loophole

Under SDCL 31-12A-1.1, road districts with fewer than 100 voters have a massive residency loophole: trustees don’t actually have to live here. They just have to own a piece of dirt.

“Closed Loop” boards are now weaponizing this loophole. When a local resident—someone who actually pays the taxes and drives the gravel roads—steps up to run for office, the board views them as a threat. Why? Because a local resident wants to discuss the thousands in unauthorized fees or the secret ‘ministerial’ meetings.

To block this accountability, the board recruits out-of-state “friendly” candidates. These recruits are the perfect “silent partners”:

• They are a buffer: They fill a seat that would otherwise be held by a local who might demand an audit, or at the very least, basic accountability.

Governance by Exclusion

This isn’t just “politics as usual.” It is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise the people who actually live in the district. By filling the board with people who live hundreds of miles away, the “Closed Loop” ensures that:

1. Discussion is Chilled: There is no debate when the majority of the board is recruited specifically to agree.
2. Transparency is Buried: Out-of-state trustees are more likely to approve “Electronic Meetings” and often lack the experience of board leadership that would prompt them to question whether the meetings should be open to the public.
3. Accountability is Avoided: When a local resident has a problem, they can’t find their trustee at the local grocery store. Their “representative” is a name on a deed in another state.

The 1977 Promise vs. The current Reality

The 1977 Legislature never intended for road districts to be run by “absentee landlords” recruited to protect a secret budget. They intended for the people who use the roads to choose the board.

By using the lack of absentee voting (law since 1977 and confirmed by AG Opinion 23-01) as a shield, these boards know that if they can just get their out-of-state “friend” onto the ballot, the local residents—who have to show up in person to vote—are often out-maneuvered by a board that controls the meeting time and the candidate list.

The Call to Action

It is time to close the “Recruitment Loophole.” In the 2026 Legislative Session, we must demand:

• Mandatory Residency: If you want to tax South Dakotans, you should have to live among the people you are taxing.
• Full Disclosure: Candidates should be required to disclose if they were recruited by current board members.
• End the “Good Standing” Gag: Stop letting boards use bylaws to disqualify local candidates who ask too many questions.

A road district should be a neighborhood service, not a private club for out-of-state proxies. It’s time to bring our government back home.