Category: Uncategorized

2 new candidates have filed Statements of Organizations to run for the South Dakota Legislature this week.

JR Anderson of Sioux Falls has filed paperwork to run for the House in District 12 for the seats currently held by incumbent Republicans Amber Arlint and Greg Jamison.  While no immediate information is available, it appears from his social media that Anderson is likely to run as a Democrat.

Erik Muckey of Sioux Falls has also filed a statement of organization to run, specifically in District 15. Muckey’s campaign chair is former D15 State Rep and Gubernatorial Candidate Jamie Smith, if we’re to take that as an indication of his party affiliation.

 

Representative Bethany Soye to seek re-election to District 9 House

Sioux Falls, SD – Representative Bethany Soye has announced her intention to seek re-election to the South Dakota House in District 9. Soye is an attorney and full-time mom living in Northwest Sioux Falls. She was first elected in 2020 and has served on the House Judiciary, Education, and Redistricting Committees. Soye received her bachelor’s degree from North Central University and holds a J.D. and master’s in public policy from the College of William & Mary.

In addition to sponsoring and passing pro-life and pro-family legislation during her tenure in the House, Soye has helped school districts recruit quality candidates by offering signing bonuses, advocated for uninterrupted nursing home visitation, and reformed the civil asset forfeiture process. Last year she was the House Prime Sponsor of the state’s Help Not Harm legislation.

“It has been an honor for me to serve the people of District 9 for four years. I appreciate the trust you have placed in me and I will continue to work hard to earn your support in 2024 as I stand boldly for truth and conservative principles,” said Soye.

For more information visit bethanysoye.com.

SD Residents Launch South Dakota Ag Alliance

(Pierre, SD) Today, Jason Glodt and Rob Skjonsberg announced the formation of South Dakota Ag Alliance, a non-profit organization designed to mediate and advocate for reasonable solutions to difficult ag and rural development issues, such as the controversial CO2 pipeline proposal.

In regard to CO2 pipelines, the organization will urge the legislature to establish landowner guardrails that include 1) land survey reform; 2) liability protection; 3) minimum depth of carbon-capture pipelines; and 4) additional recurring compensation for landowners. In exchange for these concessions, they will also support improving legal and regulatory certainty for businesses.

South Dakota Ag Alliance is not associated with any company. The sole purpose is to discuss and propose reasonable guardrails for both South Dakota residents and prospective developers. Glodt and Skjonsberg are long-time friends and business partners who disagreed on the value of CO2 pipelines in South Dakota.

Skjonsberg, is a cow-calf producer in Jones and Stanley Counties and is a founding board member of the South Dakota Landowner & Outfitter Alliance. Skjonsberg doesn’t disagree with the value to corn ethanol that carbon sequestration will provide, but disliked the manner in which South Dakota landowners were being treated and the lack of certainty for landowners and developers alike.

“There’s a manner in which we do business in South Dakota. If you try to run over us, you won’t like the response. And, I think that’s what’s happened here. On one hand, I’m proud of the way landowners have banded together. On the other hand, if we don’t provide certainty for how these projects are going to work, we’ll be fighting these fights for the next 50 years. I think it’d be much wiser, to set the tone and create guardrails for landowners and certainty for investors in these types of projects. There’s precedent for handling these big projects.  We just need to be able to communicate.” stated Skjonsberg.

Glodt, an attorney from Pierre who also specializes in government relations and previously worked for the Navigator project said, “Our state’s ag economy took a big punch to the gut recently when Navigator CO2 Ventures announced the end of its Heartland Greenway CO2 sequestration project. That project was essential to keeping our ethanol industry viable. The project would have generated millions of annual property tax revenue for counties while increasing net farm income for South Dakota farmers.”

“Now that our state has lost the Navigator project and biofuel companies are re-evaluating their future investments in the state, we cannot afford to lose the Summit Project so we have to find a path forward,” said Glodt. “Unless South Dakota ethanol plants and, consequently South Dakota corn growers, have access to carbon sequestration opportunities, these South Dakota plants will not be able to compete with other states around us and we will be at risk of losing our ethanol industry- which would be devastating for our state’s economy.”

The opposing viewpoints is what led the two to create South Dakota Ag Alliance. “Jason and I were on entirely opposite sides when this fight erupted. Neither of us were interested in what the other had to say, and then over lunch we agreed – what this deal is lacking is certainty and a referee,” said Skjonsberg. “In hindsight, somebody should have put everyone in a room and said, ‘listen, this is how this is going to work, or it’s not going to work at all.  We have thousands of miles of pipelines in South Dakota, wind turbines and processing facilities – it’s not like we haven’t worked through those issues before.”

The mission of South Dakota Ag Alliance is to support landowner rights along with reasonable ag and rural development. The two believe that regulatory certainty can be obtained that prevents these types of fights from continually erupting and plan to discuss their proposal with stakeholders in the near future and hope to collectively agree on a solution for the legislature to consider. “We don’t expect either side to fully endorse what we’re proposing. But, if both sides put a little skin in the game and both sides have certainty, we’d like to see a workable environment for everyone,” said Glodt.  Skjonsberg added, “That starts with updated landowner protections and subsequently, the pipeline companies will have their certainty.”

South Dakota Ag Alliance will next announce an advisory committee comprised of South Dakota residents involved in farming and ranching operations. Long-time South Dakota ag advocate Lorin Pankratz will serve as the chair of the advisory committee.

###

Gov. Noem Endorses Rep. Dusty Johnson’s Bill to Block State Investments in Communist China

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Congressman Dusty Johnson (R-SD) introduced legislation to allow states to prohibit state funds from bankrolling the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP); Governor Kristi Noem endorsed the legislation.

“I am grateful that Congressman Johnson sees the national security threat that China poses,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “Protecting South Dakota from nations that hate America has been a priority of mine as Governor, and I am glad that he is doing the same in Congress.”

Throughout the summer, Governor Noem and Congressman Johnson held several conversations about this legislation and how it would benefit both South Dakota and the nation. In December 2022, Governor Noem wrote to congressional leadership calling for legislation like what Congressman Johnson is introducing.

“America should not help advance the CCP agenda, especially with state funds,” said Johnson. “My bill empowers states to divest their investment dollars from CCP-backed linked companies. South Dakota understands the threat of the CCP, and I am grateful for Governor Noem’s leadership and partnership to protect our state from their communist regime.”

The PRC Accountability and Divestment Act of 2023 allows states to make the decisions to divest taxpayer funds from China. Specifically, this bill:

• Provides state and local governments with the authority to divest assets from and prohibit investments within the People’s Republic of China (PRC);
• Provides state and local governments with a safe harbor for changes of investment policies related to the PRC; and,
• States a fiduciary of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan may divest plan assets from the PRC.

Congress has previously passed similar legislation supporting state and local actions to divest from states that are a threat to the United States or committing human rights atrocities. In 2010, Congress passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. In 2007, Congress passed the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act.

###

Johnson Leads Bill to Block State Investments in Communist China 

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) introduced legislation to allow states to prohibit state funds from bankrolling the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP); Governor Kristi Noem endorsed the legislation.

“America should not help advance the CCP agenda, especially with state funds,” said Johnson. “My bill empowers states to divest their investment dollars from CCP-linked companies. South Dakota understands the threat of the CCP, and I am grateful for Governor Noem’s leadership and partnership to protect our state from their communist regime.”

Throughout the summer, Governor Noem and Congressman Johnson held several conversations about this legislation and how it would benefit both South Dakota and the nation. In December 2022, Governor Noem wrote to congressional leadership calling for legislation like what Congressman Johnson is introducing.

“I am grateful that Congressman Johnson sees the national security threat that China poses,” said Governor Kristi Noem. “Protecting South Dakota from nations that hate America has been a priority of mine as Governor, and I am glad that he is doing the same in Congress.”

The PRC Accountability and Divestment Act of 2023 is cosponsored by U.S. Representatives John Moolenaar (R-MI), Rob Wittman (R-VA), Ashley Hinson (R-IA), Carlos Giménez (R-FL).

The PRC Accountability and Divestment Act of 2023 allows states to make the decisions to divest taxpayer funds from China. Specifically, this bill:

• Provides State and local governments with the authority to divest assets from and prohibit investments within the People’s Republic of China (PRC);
• Provides State and local governments with a safe harbor for changes of investment policies related to the PRC; and,
• States a fiduciary of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan may divest plan assets from the PRC.

Congress has previously passed similar legislation supporting state and local actions to divest from states that are a threat to the United States or committing human rights atrocities. In 2010, Congress passed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act. In 2007, Congress passed the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act.

Read full bill text here.

###

As we’re down to little more than 30 days before candidates can start circulating petitions to run for office, many politicos are watching who might be filing statements of candidacy with the Secretary of State and preparing to launch their campaign for office, as a number of them have been filed in recent weeks.

But there have been other committees being filed as they plan to start operations during the campaign season. A number of new Political Action Committees have been popping up out of nowhere as well. And given who has their name attached to them, it’s clear that there’s an effort from the far-right thinking they have found a magic pot of gold to raise additional funds, or that they feel the need to create an astroturf buffer to separate themselves from attacks they plan to launch.

While not an all-inclusive list, here’s a sampling of the new state Political Action Committees that have formed in recent months:

Know the Voting Truth formed by Heather DeVries and Gretchen Weible on 4/2/23

HeatherDV PAC by Pat Powers on Scribd

Heather DeVries of Madison, who was utterly crushed by Casey Crabtree in the last District 8 Senate Primary (79-21%), and Gretchen Weible of Elkton, who served as Secretary of State Monae Johnson’s self-styled campaign manager.. until Johnson distanced herself from the Weibles, formed a political action committee in April of 2023 with the declared purpose of forming a “PAC to score voting records on candidates.”‘

It’s unknown whether this group will be raising money independently, rather it appears to be laying the groundwork as an astroturf group which will create scorecards to make their favored candidates look good, or to try to cherry-pick votes that make their targets look bad.

Given that both reside in District 8, it’s of note that Gretchen Weible’s husband Rick has announced he is running for the House in D8 against incumbent Representative Tim Reisch. So, don’t be surprised if this group is cranking out postcards for that purpose.

 

Under God the People Rule PAC formed by Matthew Monfore on 9/30/2023

Monfore PAC Sdcfdisclosure by Pat Powers on Scribd

Goofball religious scold Matthew Monfore who has announced his candidacy for District 30 House seems to think he can help his campaign for office by forming his own political action committee. Or maybe God told him to do so.   On September 30, Monfore formed his group with the stated Purpose or Goals to Promote and Support Christian Constitutional Laws, Accountability, Education, and Candidates.

Kind of at a loss for why Monfore would do that.  A political action committee is a mechanism where a PAC supporting a candidate can receive funds beyond what an individual legislator can accept from any one person during a campaign cycle. I can’t imagine ANYONE hitting their maximum donation with Monfore as a candidate, much less going beyond to the point they’d need to donate to Monfore’s PAC.

And if it’s for the purpose of supporting his brand of Christianity, which got him kicked off the reservation for inferring they were engaged in demon-idolatry, I think an endorsement by his PAC would be more of a liability than provide an assist.

 

Friends of Erica Douglas formed by Erica Douglas on 10/27/23

Erica Douglas Sdcfdisclosure by Pat Powers on Scribd

Do you need a Political Action Committee to tell people who your friends are?  Apparently Erica Douglas of Belle Fourche does.  Douglas, who is president of the Republican Women of Lawrence County, which should not be confused with the actual Lawrence County Republican Women’s group (Northern Hills Republican Women), now apparently needs a PAC in addition to her own Republican Women’s group. Her fake group was a group that arose in the last year to vex the local GOP for actually supporting Republicans, because Douglas and her followers are more interested in attacking elected officials and promoting election denial.

As per the filing, Douglas felt the need to form a PAC whose goal and purpose was to “spread liberty.”  Does one really need a PAC for that, especially when it’s dedicated to a person’s own name?

—

One of the newest PAC’s on the block comes from last election’s candidate who spent so much time trying to avoid votes she thought might hurt her that she skipped 14% of the job she was elected to do.. including weighing in on impeachment.  That’s right – none other than Taffy Howard has formed a PAC:

Conservatives in Action formed by Taffy Howard on 11/14/23

TAFFYPAC_sdcfdisclosure by Pat Powers on Scribd

Given the source, shouldn’t it be Conservatives Inaction?

Taffy Howard formed this Political Action Committee in the last couple of weeks, coming almost 4 months to the day she filed her Congressional Committee termination report showing that everything in her campaign kitty had been disbursed. The PAC has the stated purpose that she intends to “Raise funds for strong conservative candidates and causes.”

Interesting that she states this as her goal, coming from the new State Chair for U.S. Term Limits, as she stated in her announcement back in April that “will work tirelessly in her role as South Dakota State Chair to see that South Dakota adopts a resolution for term limits.”

Because setting herself up first as a lobbyist and now as a bundler of campaign funds to leverage them into electing candidates favorable to her positions, it seems that she’s spending her time trying to cash in and become a power broker. Contrary to her complaint about people in politics setting themselves up for “a lucrative lifelong job rather than a public service.”

Stay tuned, as we see how much these PACs can gobble up for their favored candidates.

Clear regulatory frameworks for blockchain can mitigate risks and instill confidence in field
by Barry Shaw Sackett

While South Dakota is known to many for its rolling prairies, Mount Rushmore, and the Badlands National Park, the state is on the leading edge of some of the world’s latest technologies.

South Dakota’s pro-business atmosphere is part of why the state is attracting the new frontier in digital assets and blockchain technology. For a long time, the state has been committed to promoting healthy competition. For a long time, the state has created an environment where businesses can thrive based on merit and innovation. This approach has benefited local companies and enhanced the state’s overall economic resilience. As the workforce continues to change, our state needs to as well. This change comes in the form of blockchain technology and digital assets.

Admittedly, blockchain technology and digital assets are a bit of a mystery for many Americans. However, these revolutionary developments in digital transactions and record-keeping have been in place since 2008 and are widely implemented by various industries. In fact, the global digital assets market cap is currently over $1 trillion. Nearly 20% of Americans own digital assets, and more than 67% hope to use digital assets on “trusted, secured platforms.”

The advantages of blockchain technology and digital assets are numerous. These innovations could revolutionize a wide range of industries, including supply chain management, healthcare, and identity verification. Furthermore, the blockchain and digital asset sectors provide new areas for job growth while simultaneously integrating into bedrock industries like manufacturing, agriculture, and energy.

Blockchain technology and digital assets will continue to diversify not only South Dakota’s economy but also the American economy for generations to come. However, federal regulation of this rapidly evolving industry is crucial to weed out bad actors and block malicious use of the technologies. In July, policymakers voted in favor of FIT21 and the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act. Both bills were designed to deliver clarity for crypto firms, including establishing the differences in jurisdiction between securities and commodities regulators. These bills represent critical first steps to ensure the responsible and secure integration of these innovations in the American economic framework.

While Congress is expected to discuss federal regulation of blockchain technology and the digital asset industry this upcoming year, South Dakota leaders such as Sen. Rounds can play an important role in ushering in an era of greater federal regulation of the digital innovations industry. Clear regulatory frameworks can mitigate risks and instill confidence in investors. This will lead to more jobs in South Dakota and a more diversified American economy. Lawmakers have the opportunity to strike a balance between innovation and protection during this session. If done correctly, the full potential of these new technologies will be unlocked and lead to progress for generations to come.

—

Barry Sackett is an attorney and serves as chairman of the South Dakota Blockchain Institute and a member of the US Blockchain Association.

John Hult at South Dakota Searchlight has an article which came out today noting Secretary of State Monae Johnson is urging South Dakotans to trust election officials.  After an election where she might not have exactly walked that walk herself.

The South Dakota brochure is tied to an educational push from the National Association of Secretaries of State dubbed #TrustedInfo2024. The national website says the campaign is meant to bolster the importance of state-level election officials as “trusted sources of election information during the 2024 election cycle and beyond.”

Johnson’s news release includes a nod to her role as that information source in South Dakota.

“My number one job as Chief Election Officer is to ensure that we conduct fair and accurate elections for the citizens of South Dakota,” the release says. “Our office will continue to focus our resources on the protection of our election systems and overall election security.”

and..

In South Dakota, Johnson’s rise to the state’s top election post was fueled in part by promises to protect elections. Her campaign materials leaned into election integrity language, citing opposition to voter fraud, online voting and online voter registration, and she refused to affirm the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election when questioned by reporters.

Read the entire story here.

It’s good to see that Secretary of State Johnson might be coming around to the realization that South Dakota isn’t exactly a hotbed of election fraud.

Now if she can only convince the people who literally ran her campaign & put her in office.

Driving Drunk in South Dakota
by Sen. Brent “B.R.” Hoffman

One of the many great things about glorious South Dakota is that we don’t rest upon our greatness.  We’re proud of our state, yet we recognize it can always be better.  Which brings me to the uncomfortable topic of drunk driving.

You may have read recent reports ranking South Dakota #1 in the nation for drunk driving fatalities over Thanksgiving weekend, but you probably didn’t read that our state also tops the nation on most other weekends.  According to Forbes, our state has the highest DUI arrest rate and the sixth-highest number of drunk drivers under age 21 involved in fatal crashes.  Zutobi ranks our state #2 (behind only Montana) in road fatalities and DUI arrests.  In 2021, more than 35% of road fatalities in our state were linked to impaired driving.

 While most drunk driving isn’t considered a violent crime, it’s certainly a preventable crime of choice and consequence.  It cuts innocent lives short and destroys families.  The college student killed on his birthday.  The teenage girl who will never graduate from high school.  The young man who will never walk again. Heartbreaking examples like these are not isolated incidents, but part of a system or culture that doesn’t demand accountability.

This lack of accountability stems from our state sentencing laws.  South Dakota has the most lenient DUI sentencing laws in the nation, as reported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  Almost all states require an interlock device for multiple DUI convictions, but South Dakota is not one of them.  Any DUI can result in damage or death, but it’s the multiple offenses that are most concerning.  A few months ago, two men in Sioux Falls were each charged for their 8th DUI.  A few weeks ago, a woman in Spearfish was convicted of her 7th DUI.  She received one day in jail and a suspended sentence. 

If South Dakota is to get serious about drunk driving, a good place to start would be a complete repeal of the so-called look-back provisions.  In short, the state law only allows prosecutors to “look-back” 10 years to determine the number of offenses.  So if an offender had three DUI convictions from 2000-2010, the sentencing clock would be reset with the next conviction after 2020, and it would be charged as a first offense rather than a fourth offense. Many citizens, even lawyers and judges, agree it complicates sentencing and undermines accountability.

This next session, we’ll consider a bill to repeal the look-back statute, and we’re hopeful it will be an important step forward in our state’s approach to drunk driving.  This bill, “An Act to improve accountability for driving under the influence,” has been developed and coordinated with attorneys, law enforcement, legislators and victim’s rights groups.  It will simplify sentencing, improve accountability, encourage deterrence and bring South Dakota laws in line with many other states.  We believe it will make our great state even better, and we ask for your support.

 —

The author served a career in the military, surviving the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.  He’s a published author, occasional newspaper columnist and currently serves as a state senator for District 9 in glorious South Dakota.

In a decision released earlier this month, it looks like the South Dakota Supreme Court – like much of South Dakota – is not aligned with the thinking of the the Rapid City group, Citizens for Liberty.

By way of explanation, referring back to an article published when the controversy came in front of the Supreme Court in November of 2022…

The opposing parties agree that state law requires a public forum at regularly scheduled school board meetings. But they disagree on how to define the term “regularly scheduled.”

The attorney for the school district said by law, regularly scheduled meetings are set annually on the second Monday in July. Emily Smoragiewicz told justices that other meetings are special meetings, and the district is not required to invite comment at an open forum.

Read that here.

With that as the primary issue, based on subsequent changes in law, the decision issued on November 1st of this year held up that… they weren’t going to touch that, because the legislature rendered it a moot point.

We hold that the issue regarding the interpretation of “regularly scheduled official meeting” as used in SDCL 1-25-1 is moot and, therefore, nonjusticiable. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s decision interpreting the statute.

But the more important issue that was decided, one that has implications for those contesting whether an open meeting was held properly, was an issue not really even discussed in the prior article – WHO has the right to make the final say about what is and is not proper for open meetings. Because the Supreme Court decided that the Open Meetings Commission, not they, are the final arbiter of open meetings complaints, as they addressed the other controversy that came up as part of the court action:

The circuit court also ruled on two other, more peripheral issues. Referring to the “specter” of an open meeting violation, the court stated it did not view “the Declaratory Judgment statutes [as] the appropriate remedy for . . . allegations . . . concerning open meetings.” The court noted the statutory procedure for pursuing an open meeting violation allegation contemplates a role for state’s attorneys and for the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission, but not the court. See SDCL 1-25-6 to -7 (establishing the procedure for determining allegations of open meeting law violations). [¶26.] In addition, the circuit court rejected RCAS’s argument that Citizens could not obtain an interpretation of SDCL 1-25-1 as a request for declaratory relief but, instead, was relegated to an administrative complaint to the Board and, ultimately, an appeal under SDCL 13-46-1. The court noted that RCAS’s argument had “some allure to it,” but the procedure outlined by RCAS “doesn’t preclude the plaintiffs . . . from requesting a Declaratory Judgment as to the meaning of statutes[.]”

…

“An appeal from the action of public officers or boards to the circuit court must be invoked in the manner prescribed by statute.” Middle Creek Sch. Dist. v. Butte Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 83 S.D. 107, 111, 155 N.W.2d 450, 452 (1968) (citation omitted). SDCL chapter 1-25, as presently written, does not provide a route for judicial review of a state’s attorney’s determination that a complaint has no merit.

and..

Because the statute does not prescribe a manner through which a complainant may seek review of the state’s attorney’s decision, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter judgment declaring an open meeting violation. Consequently, this Court also lacks jurisdiction to grant Citizens’ requested relief.

and..

We also determine that SDCL chapter 1-25 does not confer jurisdiction upon circuit courts to review the actions of a state’s attorney taken under SDCL 1- 25-6. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s decision to not review the State’s Attorney’s determination.

Read that as part of the decision below. 

Because the Open Meetings law and complaint process doesn’t provide a mechanism for appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that courts have no basis to take that on. So if a State’s Attorney says “meh,” and does not move a complaint forward, or someone doesn’t like the decision of the Open Meetings Commission, that’s that.

The remaining question would be whether or not legislators decide they want to re-open the issue and inject a mechanism for appeal into current law.

Given that source of this issue is Citizens for Liberty, I’m not sure they will view that as a problem. If it was a group of citizens who have been genuinely wronged, versus those who just want a venue to rant, it might be a different matter. But sometimes the messenger can kill the message.

Read the decision issued November 1 for yourself: 

SD Supreme Court Decision on Citizens for Liberty by Pat Powers on Scribd