From today’s Rapid City Journal’s 2-cents worth column:
“Now that Libertyland has been defeated, maybe the people in charge of responsible growth will focus on doing things for the people who already live here and with future growth in mind. We are in desperate need of need of grocery stores, retail and restaurants.”
If I could point to one description of the proposed development that voters decided they didn’t want to support:
Commercial tenants will include restaurants, retail and experience-led businesses, creating a curated mix of independently operated venues within the Libertyland framework.
Adopting a format similar to open-air entertainment districts such as Disney Springs or Universal CityWalk, the development positions itself as a tourism enhancer for Rapid City and the Black Hills region, targeting visitors and locals.
When people are grousing they want more retail and restaurants, If you’ve ever been to developments like this.. the main thing they are comprised of are retail and restaurants!
In those kinds of shopping districts, you might also find a Whole Foods or other type of grocery. Brookings is developing a minor shopping complex area (with a TIF’s assistance), and our Aldi is already up and running with a Target under construction.
If the Liberty Land developers want to put up a 50 acre site with retail and restaurants, I’m sure they could find communities more hospitable than Rapid City which instead of saying yes to more tax revenue and actively seeking out development, want to take jobs & development, shut it in a box, call it unwelcome, and dance around the ashes after they light the box on fire. (Seriously! Bring it to Brookings, and I’m sure we can find room for more restaurants and retail.)
The NIMBY’s and BANANA’s won their pyrrhic victory in Rapid City this week. As their children set their sights to pack up to move to Denver, Minneapolis, Omaha and Kansas City. Short-sightedness was in ample supply.
Rapid City should be careful of what they wish for when they seek to keep development, jobs and people out. They will certainly have their dreams come true.
Terry Sabers Announces Candidacy for South Dakota House of Representatives, District 20
Mitchell, S.D. — Fifty year Mitchell resident, businessman, and community servant Terry Sabers today announced his candidacy for the South Dakota House of Representatives, District 20, citing a lifetime of service and a deep desire to ensure South Dakota remains a place where his children and grandchildren can build their futures.
Born in 1955 at St. Joseph Hospital in Mitchell and raised on a farm west of Salem, Sabers learned early the values that still guide him today: faith, family, hard work, and service to others. Those values led him to Mitchell Vo-Tech, now Mitchell Technical College, where he earned a degree in Accounting and Business Management, an experience that shaped his lifelong advocacy for technical education and workforce development.
“I’m running because I want my kids and grandkids to have the same opportunities I had right here in South Dakota,” Sabers said. “I want them to be able to build careers, start businesses, raise families, and succeed not because they had to leave the state, but because South Dakota’s leadership and policies made it possible to stay and be successful here.”
Sabers spent 45 years at Muth Electric, starting part-time while attending technical school and ultimately serving as Co-President before retiring in 2019. During that time, the company grew from approximately 10 employees to more than 400 across 10 locations, providing stable, good-paying jobs to South Dakota families.
He has also helped start several small businesses, an entrepreneurship training program, managed assisted living facilities, and founded the non-profit Mitchell Area Housing Inc. in 2022 to address workforce housing needs in Mitchell. His work has always centered on one principle: strong communities begin with opportunity and accountability.
“Good policy matters,” Sabers said. “When government stays focused on fiscal responsibility, local control, and common sense, families and businesses can thrive.”
Sabers has devoted decades to serving Mitchell, District 20, and South Dakota through extensive volunteer and civic leadership, including:
Youth, Civic & Service Organizations
Boy Scouts of America: Scoutmaster, Troop 72 (10 years); 25 years more as volunteer and President, Sioux Council – Boy Scouts
Jaycees Organization — Mitchell President up to SD Jaycees State President
Mitchell Rotary — 15 year Current member
Education & Workforce Development
South Dakota Board of Education — (2008-2016) appointed by Governor Mike Rounds)
South Dakota Board of Technical Education — Original board member; Secretary
Build Dakota Scholarship Board
Mitchell Technical College Foundation Board — Current member
Holy Family School Board — Long-term member
Faith-Based Service
Holy Family Church — Volunteer & Properties
St. John Paul II School — Volunteer
Knights of Columbus – Life member and Treasurer
Sioux Falls Diocese — Bishop’s Pastoral Council member
Local Government & Economic Development
Mitchell Airport Board — 12 years of service
Mitchell Area Development Corporation — Multiple leadership roles, including President
Community & Nonprofit Leadership
United Way of Mitchell: Board member (12 years), Campaign Chair, President
Mitchell Area Housing Inc. — 2022 Founder & President
Throughout his life, Sabers has been guided by his Catholic faith and a belief that leadership means serving others, especially the next generation.
As a Republican candidate, Sabers is focused on protecting the South Dakota way of life, supporting families, strengthening technical and workforce education, respecting taxpayers, and ensuring young people have real opportunities to stay and succeed here.
“For too long, too many young people feel they have to leave to get ahead,” Sabers said. “I want South Dakota to remain a place where our sons and daughters and our grandchildren choose to stay because the opportunities are here. We must slow the Brain Drain that occurs when young people leave SD for a perceived advancement”
Terry has been married to his wife Deb for 50 years. They have two sons, Eric and Blake, both raising their families in Mitchell, and Terry and Deb are proud grandparents to five grandchildren.
“Everything I do comes back to family,” Sabers said. “I want to make sure South Dakota remains strong not just for us today, but for the generations coming behind us. That’s a tradition worth protecting.”
Sabers is running for the South Dakota House of Representatives to bring steady, conservative leadership, grounded in real-world experience and a lifetime of service, to Pierre, focused not on politics, but on people.
For more information or to get involved, contact the campaign at
South Dakota is laser focused on being the middle of the pack in the race to be the best place in the country to start a business, according to the WalletHub website:
According to the study, conducted in December of 2025:
In order to determine the best and worst states to start a business, WalletHub compared the 50 states across three key dimensions: 1) Business Environment, 2) Access to Resources and 3) Business Costs.
We evaluated those dimensions using 25 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the most favorable conditions for new-business creation.
Finally, we determined each state’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample.
Now, Forbes magazine liked South Dakota better than WalletHub in 2024, ranking the state 4th at the time. But many would argue that our economic star isn’t as bright and shiny as it used to be.
And we might need to work at it a bit harder than we had to do during COVID, when freedom was more attractive than worrying about whether you had a WalMart within 50 miles.
$891,088.63 raised. $199,200.82 spent. $969,539.28 cash on hand. Congressman Dusty Johnson, in his pursuit of becoming South Dakota’s next Governor, isn’t messing around. And in one of the first reports posted for the year end 2025 state reports, Johnson’s political action committee may be dwarfing some of his competitors in what the side committee reports raising, versus their main committees.
I would venture this will blow the doors off of what Toby Doeden is able to raise, since he’s self-funding. And the most unlikeable candidate ever to run for office. And the PAC coming in with nearly a million is likely to dwarf what Jon Hansen pulled out of Pizza Ranch, unless Karla Lems starts selling some land. Governor Rhoden might be the most competitive, but getting into the race later than expected might have his fundraising lagging in the contest, but we’ll see.
Nearly 1 million cash on hand in this side PAC, with well over 2/3 coming from South Dakotans. That’s a pretty strong report.
The Liberty Land destination district in Rapid City, which promised to bring millions of new dollars in sales tax revenue to South Dakota’s second largest city, will not have access to Tax Increment Financing after the city ordinance approving the measure was struck down at the ballot box on a nearly 2-1 basis.
And odd bedfellows are sometimes made as members of the ultra-right snuggled right up with Rapid City Democrats to defeat this opportunity for economic development for the community, as related in the Rapid City Journal:
The “no” vote won the Destination District TIF vote on Tuesday, Jan. 20. The “no” side received 7,965 votes, compared to 3,415 “yes” votes.
Voter turnout was 22.32% — of the city’s 50,995 registered voters, 11,385 cast a ballot.
and..
The project will not go forward.
“Absolutely not,” said Joel Brannan, project leader for Libertyland USA and chairman of Citizens for Responsible Growth, which spearheaded the “yes” campaign. “The community spoke loud and clear, they don’t want this project, and so we’ll honor that. We’ll move on with our lives. And I wish everyone here the best, but I’m very disappointed with this outcome.”
and..
According to its respective communication expenditure reports: Citizens Action political action committee spent $1,468 on radio ads promoting a “no” vote, the Pennington County Democratic Party spent $2,358 on advertising in favor of a “no” vote and (Toby Doeden’s) Dakota First Action political action committee spent $2,750 to advocate for a “no” vote.
Not sure if this should shock anyone, as this new Democrat coalition has been forming for some time now with members of the ultra right and democrat organizations. Such as the anti-pipeline movement including the left-leaning Dakota Rural Action in their amalgamation of howls for NIMBY as they draw funding from groups affiliated with the Jane Fonda Climate PAC.
This is what Republicans are up against in South Dakota; Far-right populists colluding with far-left activists to choke off the new tax dollars that comes from new industries and development.
Leaving the rest of the people in the middle wondering why their taxes go higher and higher with no relief in sight.
Thomas E. Simmons is a professor at the University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law in Vermillion. His views are his own and not the views of USD, its administrators, or the South Dakota Board of Regents. The opinions expressed above are merely those of private citizen.
Guest Column: Lies Pt. 2 – Cops Lying to Citizens Thomas E. Simmons
(This is part 2 of a 2-part series on lies. Part 1 can be found here.)
The case of Frazier v. Cupp (U.S. 1969) stands for the proposition that cops may utilize deception, mislead, and be untruthful in conducting investigations. Cops can and do lie. The badge, the uniform, and the impressively equipped squad car might suggest an unfailing dedication to the truth. Weirdly, it does, but officers may utilize untruth in order to uncover the truth. The ends – at least in this context – justify the means.
As explained by attorney Alexander Ransom, police officers may lawfully:
Verbalize falsehoods concerning the evidence;
Momentarily lie about the seriousness of an offense;
Make unfulfilled promises of leniency in exchange for waivers of rights; and
Lie about what others may have told them.
In the U.S. Supreme Court decision authorizing such tactics, a man named Frazier was identified as a murder suspect, along with his cousin, Rawls. When Frazier was initially questioned at police headquarters, he admitted to being with Rawls on the night that the victim was slain, but denied being with any third person.
The questioning became more vigorous, but Frazier stuck to his story. Then a police officer told him – falsely – that Rawls had been separately brought to headquarter and that he had confessed to the crime. Still, Frazier maintained that he had not been near the victim on the night of the murder, but before long he lost his nerve and confessed. The jury was allowed to hear his confession and he was convicted of second-degree murder.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court, Frazier argued that the cop’s lie concerning Rawls’ confession rendered his own confession involuntary, and therefore inadmissible. Justice Thurgood Marshall authored the decision which rejected his argument. Marshall explained: “The fact that the police misrepresented the statements that Rawls had made is, while relevant, insufficient in our view to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible.”
The other eight justices agreed. Not a one dissented. Frazier v. Cupp remains good law today.
A popular urban myth asserts that if an undercover officer is directly asked whether he or she is, in fact, a police officer, they must answer truthfully. This is hogwash. Undercover officers are practiced in the art of deception. They adopt a false identify, a fictional name, a concocted motive, and a made-up background. Nothing requires them to be truthful about these deceits, even if they are asked point blank. They may deny the fact that they are an officer of the law.
The fact that the Supreme Court has held that police deception does not in and of itself render a confession induced thereby inadmissible does not preclude lawmakers from providing additional protections for those accused of crimes if they should choose to. About ten states (beginning with Illinois) have recently enacted statutes prohibiting police from deceiving juvenile suspects. But police are still permitted to lie to adults in all fifty states. The same is true in China and Israel, though not in England or Japan.
The argument in favor of the use of deception in interrogations is premised on the claim that it generates far more truthful confessions than false ones. Some research psychologists disagree. But police maintain that the use of subterfuge is a valuable investigative technique. I have personally seen Sioux Falls police straight-out lying to witnesses in an attempt to pry more useful information from them. Police may lie to witnesses as well as suspects.
So, if you are ever questioned by the police and they tell you that you failed a polygraph, that the murder weapon was found in your home covered in your prints, or that your friend just ratted you out, don’t assume that you’re not being lied to. Don’t assume that a badge signifies that its wearer may not lawfully deceive you. It doesn’t signify that at all.
Thomas E. Simmons
University of South Dakota School of Law
Vermillion, SD
—
All of the views and opinions Professor Simmons expresses here on are his as an individual and do not reflect the views of the Board of Regents, the University of South Dakota, its School of Law, their employees, faculty or administrators. The foregoing editoral represents only his views as a private citizen.
State Representative Phil Jensen found out from House Leadership today what happens when people grow weary of your antics. It was announced that he has been removed from House Education Committee.
What Federal Cannabis Rescheduling Means and Why South Dakota’s Medical Cannabis Law Remains Essential for Patients and Public Safety By Emmett Reistroffer
Emmett Reistroffer is the Director of Government Relations for Genesis Farms, based in Box Elder, SD and is a Republican candidate for the South Dakota House of Representatives, District 35
President Trump’s recent executive order directing the rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act is a significant and historic step toward potential federal reform. But it is only that—a first step. Any actual change will unfold through a lengthy, uncertain process that could take years before it produces meaningful, on-the-ground effects.
Still, the announcement has understandably sparked (pun intended) widespread interest and confusion, particularly among the more than 18,000 South Dakotans who currently rely on our state’s voter-approved medical cannabis program for safe and lawful access. Questions are fair. Misinformation is not.
As someone who has spent years advocating for safe medical cannabis access—and who now works daily with patients, caregivers, regulators, local governments, and licensed operators across South Dakota—I believe it is important to set the record straight. Patients, providers, and community leaders deserve clarity. Unfortunately, some politicians appear eager to exploit uncertainty as an opportunity to undo progress backed by an overwhelming majority of voters.
South Dakota’s medical cannabis law — now SDCL 34-20G — was built deliberately, carefully, and democratically. It provides patient protections, oversight by physicians and other medical providers, controlled licensing, product testing, and strict regulatory enforcement. It is not a loophole, a commercialization scheme, the wild west, or a policy accident. It is a medical framework supported by veterans, chronic-pain patients, cancer survivors, families, and healthcare professionals who support a safer alternative to opioids and criminalization.
The claim that federal rescheduling somehow makes South Dakota’s voter-approved medical cannabis program unnecessary misunderstands both what rescheduling is and what it actually changes in practice.
First – Why Did President Trump Take Action?
The opening section of President Trump’s executive order clearly states the policy rationale behind directing federal agencies to reconsider marijuana’s classification.
“Chronic pain affects nearly 1 in 4 United States adults and more than 1 in 3 United States seniors, and 6 in 10 people who use medical marijuana report doing so to manage pain. Forty States plus the District of Columbia have State- or locally-sanctioned, regulated medical marijuana programs. Yet decades of Federal drug control policy have neglected marijuana’s medical uses. That oversight has limited the ability of scientists and manufacturers to complete the necessary research on safety and efficacy to inform doctors and patients.”
In short, the executive order recognizes a reality that patients, physicians, and states have already confronted: federal policy has failed to keep pace with medical evidence and real-human experience.
This action reflects Donald Trump’s populist governing approach—addressing issues directly, grounding policy in observable facts, and prioritizing the lived experiences of Americans over outdated assumptions. It does not legalize marijuana, nor does it dismantle state authority. Instead, it acknowledges medical use, encourages research, and begins correcting a long-standing federal and state conflict.
That context matters—because the executive order was not issued to replace state medical cannabis programs like South Dakota’s, but to begin aligning federal policy with what the American people want and what most U.S. states have worked on for decades.
What Federal Rescheduling Really Means — and What It Doesn’t
The shift toward moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III is meaningful — but it is not federal legalization, and it is not a replacement for state medical cannabis programs. It’s also not a guarantee that anything will change – it simply allows a pathway to change.
Rescheduling happens through formal DEA rulemaking process that includes scientific review, public comment, and final rule publication. The process is further affected by other agency involvement and input and even Congressional action. This will take, at least, several months — but more likely, years — and potentially longer if litigation occurs. Until rescheduling is final, cannabis remains Schedule I under federal law.
Even if rescheduling is finalized, marijuana will still be a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. It will not become broadly available as a federally prescribed medication unless and until there is full FDA approval to be dispensed in pharmacies.
Physicians in South Dakota issue medical certifications, not federal prescriptions — and rescheduling does not convert our program into a federal prescription system.
In practical terms, rescheduling does three important things:
It formally acknowledges legitimate medical use
It reduces research barriers to legitimate scientific research
It allows relief from the punitive IRS 280E tax restriction on state-licensed medical cannabis businesses
Those are positive steps — and a long list of various organizations and the vast majority of Americans, including Veterans, patients, medical providers and researchers support rescheduling because it strengthens and stabilizes state medical cannabis programs — not because it replaces them.
What Rescheduling Does Not Fix
Rescheduling alone does not resolve the core conflicts between federal and state law.
Congress would still need to act to:
harmonize federal criminal statutes with state-regulated systems
address interstate transport and commerce rules
modernize banking and financial protections
establish an appropriate federal framework for medical cannabis access
preserve state regulatory authority
South Dakota’s medical cannabis program remains essential until these issues are addressed and safe access for patients is guaranteed.
If South Dakota repealed SDCL 34-20G today, there would be:
no federal replacement structure ready
no federal prescription access available
no legal framework protecting patients
no oversight system for quality, safety, or testing
Repeal would not “defer to federal law.”
Ultimately, repeal would simply remove patient protections and re-criminalize sick and dying South Dakotans – whom 70% of voters decided deserve compassion, dignity, safe access and legal protection.
A small group of newly elected lawmakers, led by a vocal anti-marijuana activist, are calling to return South Dakota back to a time when sick and dying patients had to get cannabis from street dealers and risk jail or prison time, just to find relief and manage paint – folks with chronic pain, seizures, or PTSD among many others.
I believe a more reasonable, conservative and compassionate approach is to respect the will of the voters and focus on program improvements instead – working together to ensure safe access to medical cannabis with proper oversight.
South Dakota’s Program Reflects This Approach.
Maintaining the voter-approved medical cannabis program means:
regulated rather than chaotic
physician-guided rather than street-driven
tested and tracked rather than unmonitored
accountable to state agencies rather than cartels or illicit suppliers
Our Department of Health, local governments, and licensed operators have invested years and millions of dollars into building a secure, compliant system — one that prioritizes safety, product integrity, and an overall responsible approach to handling medical cannabis.
Repealing the voter-approved law and current program would:
destabilize communities
endanger patients and create unnecessary risks for them and their families
embolden street dealers and make the black market more lucrative
and undo the will of South Dakota voters
Federal reform should support and complement South Dakota’s voter-approved and state-regulated medical cannabis program — not erase it.
The Responsible Path Forward
Rescheduling is progress — but it is not a finish line.
The responsible and principled approach is to:
maintain the voter-approved medical cannabis law (SDCL 34-20G
continue improving the program to ensure every patient who qualifies has the option for safe access to medical cannabis
work with regulators and stakeholders to ensure regulations are reasonable and fair
align where appropriate with evolving federal policy
advocate for Congressional action that respects state sovereignty
South Dakotans support a program rooted in compassion and common-sense oversight. We should not abandon that work — but steward it wisely as federal policy finally begins to catch up. While President Trump’s executive order is a positive step in the right direction, South Dakota is ultimately better positioned to deliver on the needs and desires of our own people and should remain in control of our own medical cannabis policy — rather than rely and wait on Washington bureaucracy.
—
Emmett Reistroffer is the Director of Government Relations for Genesis Farms, based in Box Elder, SD and is a Republican candidate for the South Dakota House of Representatives, District 35
Mitchell, S.D. — Fifty year Mitchell resident, businessman, and community servant Terry Sabers today announced his candidacy for the South Dakota House of Representatives, District 20, citing a lifetime of service and a deep desire to ensure South Dakota remains a place where his children and grandchildren can build their futures.
As a Republican candidate, Sabers is focused on protecting the South Dakota way of life, supporting families, strengthening technical and workforce education, respecting taxpayers, and ensuring young people have real opportunities to stay and succeed here.
