South Dakota's ESA documentation bill died after a 6-6 tie
South Dakota's ESA documentation bill died after a 6-6 tie
2026-09-19 · South Dakota · Legislation · Did not pass
South Dakota came within one committee vote of the tightest assistance-animal documentation standard it has ever had, and then tabled it. House Bill 1231 of the 2026 session, “An Act to clarify documentation requirements for assistance animals in rental dwelling units,” was introduced by Representative Matt Roby as sole sponsor.1
Its path was short and unusually close:
First read in the House on January 29, 2026 and referred to Commerce and Energy. On February 6 the committee moved to amend and then deadlocked: Do Pass Amended failed on a 6-6 tie, with one member excused. It deferred the bill to another day, 10-2. On February 11 it tabled the bill, 10-1, with two excused. That was final action.
What it would have required
The bill rewrote three sections — SDCL 43-32-33, 43-32-34 and 43-32-35. Section 1 replaced South Dakota's umbrella “service animal” term with a defined “assistance animal”:
“(1) ‘Assistance animal,’ any animal that serves a role for an individual with a disability as an emotional support, service, or therapy animal, in a manner that is necessary for the health of an individual; and (2) ‘Disability,’ a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of an individual.”
Note what that keeps: emotional support animals stay inside the definition. The bill was not an exclusion bill. It was a proof bill.
The documentation standard, which is the heart of it
Section 3 set out what reliable supporting documentation would have had to be:
“(1) Must confirm the tenant's disability and the relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested accommodation; (2) Must be issued no more than one year before the date of the request for accommodation, unless the disability or disability-related need is readily apparent, permanent, or ongoing; (3) Must originate from a licensed health care provider who: (a) Is acting within the scope of the provider's licensure; (b) Has personal knowledge of the tenant through a professional provider-patient relationship; (c) Conducted an individualized assessment of the tenant; and (d) Is familiar with the tenant's disability and functional limitations; (4) Must be on the provider's official letterhead, containing the provider's contact information and medical lice[nse]” — the extracted text truncates at that point.
Every element there is aimed at the same target: the online letter, bought in minutes from a provider who has never met the applicant. A recency requirement, a treatment-relationship requirement, an individualised-assessment requirement and a letterhead-and-licence requirement together describe a document that a letter mill cannot produce.
Three new grounds for refusal
Section 2 would have added grounds on which an accommodation need not be granted:
“(1) The rental dwelling unit is in an owner-occupied building with four or fewer units; (2) The rental dwelling unit is a single-family home, which the owner is attempting to sell or rent, without the assistance of a real estate agent or broker, provided the owner does not own more than three single-family homes; or (3) The specific animal poses a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals or would cause substantial physical damage to the property of others, which may not be eliminated or reduced by reasonable modifications, based on an individualized assessment of the animal's actual conduct and not on assumptions about the animal's breed, size, or type.”
The first two track the Fair Housing Act's own small-landlord exemptions. The third is the conventional direct-threat test, and its final clause — actual conduct rather than breed, size or type — is a limit on the refusal, not an expansion of it.
What the failure preserves
SDCL 43-32-33 to 43-32-36 stand unamended. The documentation test remains the 2018 language: documentation must confirm the disability and the relationship between the disability and the need, and must “originate from a licensed health care provider who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals.”
That is a real provision, and it is narrower than what HB 1231 proposed in three respects. There is no recency requirement, so a letter of any age qualifies. There is no treatment-relationship requirement, so a provider who conducted a single online intake satisfies it. And the letter-mill exclusion reaches only providers who operate in this state solely for that purpose — which is an odd fit for a service delivered from anywhere.
How this reaches an association, and how it does not
Directly, it does not. SDCL chapter 43-32 governs landlords and tenants of rental dwelling units. A South Dakota association reviewing an owner's request is operating under the federal Fair Housing Act, which supplies the obligation and no documentation standard of its own.
Indirectly, it matters a great deal, because the state chapter is the only South Dakota text on what proof looks like, and because it moves in the opposite direction from HUD's 2026 enforcement shift. HUD has narrowed its charging standard to animals individually trained to perform a disability-related task. South Dakota's statute defines an emotional support animal as a service animal. Those two propositions now sit side by side in the same state.
Our pet restrictions page covers what a covenant can and cannot do around that.
Two enacted animal bills that are not this one
The 2026 session did pass SB 81 and SB 82, strengthening service-animal protections and criminalising misrepresentation of an animal as a service animal. Those concern service animals in public accommodations. They are not a housing documentation standard and do not substitute for what HB 1231 would have done.
What to watch next
A 6-6 committee tie is the closest a bill gets to passing without passing, and sole-sponsored bills that deadlock frequently return. The 2027 session convenes in January; pre-filed bills generally become visible around December 1. Whether a reintroduced version tracks HUD's new training-based line, or keeps HB 1231's approach of admitting ESAs but demanding real proof, is the question to watch — they are materially different bills.
Related South Dakota HOA Topics
Stay on top of South Dakota HOA law
Every week: new South Dakota legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.