South Dakota HOA Political Signs

1. Overview: How political signs are regulated in South Dakota HOAs

South Dakota has no statute protecting political signs, so display rights are governed by each community's recorded declaration rather than by any state political-sign protection. The two bodies of law that reach community associations, the South Dakota Condominium Law (SDCL Chapter 43-15A) and the South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act (SDCL §§ 47-22-1 et seq.), are both silent on political signs, and South Dakota has no planned-community statute of any kind: the chapter sometimes cited as a "Planned Community Act," SDCL Chapter 43-15B, is in fact the state's Time-Share Estates chapter.^1,2,3 The federal First Amendment doesn't constrain an association's sign rules, because an association is a private entity created by contract, not a state actor. South Dakota does have a flag-display statute (SDCL 11-5-7) that protects the United States flag, the state flag, and certain military and POW/MIA flags against covenant restriction, but that statute concerns flags, not political signs, and no South Dakota court has applied the free-speech clause of the state constitution to a private association's sign restrictions.^4,5 This places South Dakota in the CC&R-primary category for this topic, distinct from protective-statute states such as California, Nevada, Maryland, and Montana that forbid associations from banning political signs. The sections that follow set out the legal framework, the operational rules that flow from it, recent activity, and where South Dakota sits nationally.

2. The legal framework for political signs

2A. A condominium statute, the planned-community question, and silence on signs

South Dakota has enacted no political-sign protection for association residents. Two statutes reach community associations, and neither addresses signs. The South Dakota Condominium Law, SDCL Chapter 43-15A, governs condominiums, and it applies only to projects that elect in: a condominium comes into existence when a developer or owners expressly declare, through recordation of a master deed or lease, their desire to submit the property to the chapter.⁶ The chapter runs from definitions through recording requirements, Real Estate Commission filings, escrow of deposits, developer conduct, and liens, and contains no provision on political signs, campaign signs, or noncommercial signage of any kind.¹ The South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act, SDCL Chapters 47-22 through 47-28, governs the corporate structure and procedure of associations organized as nonprofit corporations, and it's likewise silent on signs.²

On the planned-community question, verification against the South Dakota Codified Laws resolves a conflict in secondary sources. One aggregator asserts that South Dakota has a "Planned Community Act" at SDCL Chapter 43-15B and has adopted portions of the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. That's incorrect. SDCL Chapter 43-15B is titled "Time-Share Estates," and South Dakota has no standalone planned-community or general HOA act.³ Non-condominium homeowners' associations run on their recorded covenants and, where incorporated, the Nonprofit Corporation Act. Either way, no South Dakota statute protects political signs. The Condominium Law governs condominiums that elect in and doesn't govern non-condominium HOAs.

Flags are separate from signs. The United States flag is protected against association restriction by the federal Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, and South Dakota has its own flag-display statute; neither protects political signs.^7,4 For contrast, a protective-statute state bars associations from prohibiting political signs by statute. California, for example, provides that governing documents may not prohibit the posting of noncommercial signs on a member's separate interest, subject to reasonable size limits (Cal. Civ. Code § 4710).⁸ South Dakota has no equivalent.

2B. The First Amendment and the state constitution

The federal First Amendment limits government, not private parties. Its protections are triggered only by state action, meaning conduct fairly attributable to a government actor. A homeowners' association or condominium association is a private entity created by contract among owners, and enforcement of a recorded covenant is private contractual action, not state action. As a result, the First Amendment doesn't apply to an association's sign rules, and an owner can't defeat a covenant restriction by invoking federal free-speech guarantees.

This is the single most common error in lay and law-firm-blog coverage of the topic. Owners frequently assert that a sign restriction violates their First Amendment rights, and boards sometimes assume the same. The correct rule is that a private association may restrict or even prohibit political signs through its governing documents without implicating the First Amendment, subject to the contract-law and enforcement limits described below.

Government sign regulation is a different question governed by different cases. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015), and City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising, 596 U.S. 61 (2022), address content-neutrality requirements for municipal sign codes. They constrain city and county governments, not associations, and they supply no basis for challenging an association's sign rules.

A small minority of states read their state constitution's free-speech clause to reach private community associations. New Jersey is the leading example: in Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Ass'n v. Khan, 210 N.J. 482 (2012), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a near-total ban on residential signs violated the free-speech clause of the New Jersey Constitution as applied to a homeowner's political sign.⁹ The South Dakota Constitution contains a free-speech clause (Article VI, Section 5), but no South Dakota decision has applied that clause to a private association's sign restrictions.⁵ Absent such authority, the federal state-action principle controls, and South Dakota covenants are enforced as private contracts.

2C. The role of CC&Rs and permissible restrictions

Because South Dakota has no sign statute, the recorded declaration is the operative rulebook for political signs in a South Dakota community. The order of precedence runs: any applicable statute (none protecting political signs in South Dakota), then the recorded declaration, then the bylaws, then board rules. Where South Dakota statute is silent, as it is on political signs, the governing documents fill the gap.

South Dakota courts treat a restrictive covenant as a contract. In Countryside South Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Nedved, 2007 S.D. 70, 737 N.W.2d 280, the South Dakota Supreme Court described a covenant as "a contract between the governing authority and individual lot owners," interpreted using ordinary rules of contract construction. Covenants are generally enforceable, but enforcement depends on valid adoption and consistent application. In Hood v. Straatmeyer, 2025 S.D. 12, 18 N.W.3d 649, the South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed that a restrictive covenant can become unenforceable through waiver or acquiescence where owners have tolerated widespread violations, making selective enforcement inequitable.¹⁰

Within those limits, a South Dakota association may typically regulate political signs through its declaration or validly adopted rules: placement on a lot or unit versus common areas, size, number, and duration windows, and, where the declaration so provides, a total ban. Even though South Dakota imposes no statutory sign standard, content-neutral drafting and consistent enforcement reduce the risk that a restriction is later held unenforceable or discriminatory. The operational takeaway: in South Dakota the answer to whether a sign may be posted is found in the community's recorded declaration, read against the Condominium Law for a condominium or against the covenants and the Nonprofit Corporation Act for a non-condominium HOA.

3. Operational rules for South Dakota associations

Because South Dakota has no political-sign statute, the rules below flow from the recorded declaration and the governing statute, not from a sign-specific protection.

A. What an association may not do

An association may not enforce a sign restriction that wasn't validly adopted under its declaration and, for an incorporated association, the Nonprofit Corporation Act; authority must exist in the governing documents.² It may not enforce a sign covenant selectively or discriminatorily, a limit drawn from general covenant-enforcement law rather than any sign statute.¹⁰ Separately, and applicable to both condominiums and non-condominium HOAs, an association may not prohibit a homeowner from displaying one portable, removable United States flag, the South Dakota state flag, or a listed military or POW/MIA flag, which SDCL 11-5-7 protects "regardless of any private covenants, restrictions, bylaws, rules, or requirements"; that protection concerns flags, not political signs.⁴ South Dakota imposes no statutory prohibition on banning or restricting political signs, so the floor is the declaration plus general law.

B. What an association may regulate

Where the declaration or validly adopted rules so provide, an association may regulate the placement, size, number, and duration of political signs, and may impose a total ban, for both condominiums (under the recorded declaration read with SDCL Chapter 43-15A) and non-condominium HOAs (under the recorded covenants read with the Nonprofit Corporation Act).^1,2 No South Dakota statute caps or floors these restrictions, so their scope is set by the governing documents.

C. Enforcement and fining constraints

Before enforcing a sign rule, an incorporated association should follow the procedures in its governing documents and observe the corporate formalities of the Nonprofit Corporation Act, including proper notice and, where the documents require it, an opportunity to be heard.² South Dakota imposes no statutory fine cap for associations, so any authority to fine, and any limit on the amount, comes from the declaration and bylaws rather than statute. Selective enforcement is a live risk: a covenant tolerated in the breach may be held unenforceable.¹⁰ Self-help removal of a sign should track the documents, because an association's remedies are contractual.

D. Rule adoption and disclosure

To be enforceable, a sign rule must rest on authority in the recorded declaration and be adopted through the process the documents and, for a corporation, the Nonprofit Corporation Act require. Incorporated associations must also keep the records that SDCL Chapter 47-24 requires, including meeting minutes and membership records, which are subject to member inspection for a proper purpose.¹¹ Sound practice is to adopt sign rules in writing, keep minutes of their adoption, and distribute them to owners, so the association can show valid adoption and consistent application if a restriction is challenged.

4. Recent legislative and judicial activity

A. Recent bills

No South Dakota bill in the past 24 months has created or affected political-sign rules for community associations. South Dakota's framework is light-touch, and the Legislature hasn't taken up association political signs. Notably, the chapter where the Legislature has placed several covenant-related protections (SDCL Chapter 11-5, which includes the flag-display provision at SDCL 11-5-7) contains no political-sign provision.⁴ The topic remains governed by recorded declarations.

B. Recent rulings

No published South Dakota Supreme Court decision in the past 36 months has addressed HOA political signs specifically. The most relevant recent decision on covenant enforcement is Hood v. Straatmeyer, which bears on how sign covenants would be treated even though it didn't involve a political sign.

Because South Dakota has no intermediate appellate court, any appellate decision on this topic would come from the South Dakota Supreme Court after trial in the Circuit Court.

C. Active legislative debates

No active South Dakota proposal would create a political-sign protection for community associations.

5. National positioning and related coverage

South Dakota sits in the CC&R-primary category on political signs, where the declaration controls because no statute speaks to the question. Three broad approaches exist nationally. First, protective-statute states forbid associations from prohibiting political signs while allowing reasonable time, place, and manner rules, including California (Cal. Civ. Code § 4710), Nevada (NRS 116.325), Maryland (Md. Code, Real Property §§ 11-111.2 and 11B-111.2), and Montana (Mont. Code Ann. § 70-1-522).^8,12,13,14 Second, one state reaches associations through its constitution: New Jersey, via Mazdabrook.⁹ Third, CC&R-primary states have no political-sign statute, and the declaration governs; this group includes South Dakota, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. South Dakota is a light-touch state whose condominium and corporate statutes are silent on political signs, so the question turns on the declaration. Owners and boards commonly raise the First Amendment, but it doesn't apply to a private association, and it supplies no basis to challenge an association's sign rules.

HOA Weekly's South Dakota Political Signs coverage updates quarterly as the Legislature and the South Dakota Supreme Court act. Federal frameworks (FHA, ADA, FDCPA, SCRA, OTARD) apply to South Dakota associations regardless of the state framework, while the federal First Amendment doesn't supply a basis to challenge an association's sign rules.

Footnotes

1. SDCL Chapter 43-15A, Condominiums (South Dakota Codified Laws) ↩
2. SDCL Chapter 47-22 et seq., South Dakota Nonprofit Corporation Act (cited at SDCL 47-22-78) ↩
3. SDCL Chapter 43-15B, Time-Share Estates (South Dakota Codified Laws) ↩
4. SDCL 11-5-7, Flag—Display (added by S.L. 2021, ch. 57, § 1) ↩
5. S.D. Const. art. VI, § 5, Freedom of speech (South Dakota Constitution) ↩
6. SDCL 43-15A-3, Establishment of condominium project—Master deed or lease (see also 43-15A-4) ↩
7. Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-243, 120 Stat. 572 ↩
8. Cal. Civ. Code § 4710 (California Legislative Information) ↩
9. Mazdabrook Commons Homeowners' Ass'n v. Khan, 210 N.J. 482 (2012) ↩
10. Hood v. Straatmeyer, 2025 S.D. 12 (No. 30180) (South Dakota Unified Judicial System) ↩
11. SDCL Chapter 47-24, Nonprofit Corporations—Records, Fiscal Affairs and Reports ↩
12. NRS 116.325 (Nevada Real Estate Division, Common-Interest Communities reference) ↩
13. Md. Code, Real Property § 11B-111.2 (Maryland General Assembly) ↩
14. Mont. Code Ann. § 70-1-522 (Montana Code Annotated) ↩