Representative Amber Arlint Announces Reelection Campaign for District 12 House
Sioux Falls, S.D. – Today, Representative Amber Arlint announced that she is running for re-election to the South Dakota House of Representatives in District 12, reaffirming her commitment to serving her constituents by improving education, keeping neighborhoods safe, and supporting an economy that rewards hard work and creates opportunity here at home.
“I am running for re-election because I believe in our community and the future of South Dakota,” said Arlint. “That means protecting taxpayers, strengthening public safety, improving education, and making sure South Dakota remains a place where you can live, work, and raise a family.”
First elected in 2022, Arlint has championed legislation to grow South Dakota’s workforce through technical education, modernize community safety zones to include domestic violence shelters, and strengthen the state’s long-term financial stability. She has also supported public safety measures, including expanding access to forensic medical exam kits, increasing penalties for impaired boating, and strengthening laws to combat human trafficking.
In the Legislature, Arlint serves on influential committees shaping education and transportation policy, where she has consistently defended local decision-making and pushed back against policies that place new requirements on schools and communities without the resources to meet them. She has also led and supported legislation to expand health care training capacity at Southeast Technical College, addressing workforce shortages through targeted, one-time investments.
Arlint is a wife, mother, and small business owner in the Sioux Falls metro area. Together, she and her husband are raising their two children in the community she serves, bringing her family and business experience to her service in the Legislature.
District 12 includes portions of Sioux Falls in Minnehaha and Lincoln counties.
Absentee voting begins April 17, 2026 and the Republican primary election will be held on June 2, 2026.
To learn more about Representative Arlint’s re-election campaign, visit AmberArlintSD.com or follow her on Facebook.
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. 1 – Citizens Lying to Cops by Thomas E. Simmons
Not everyone knows a fairly basic fact about what’s illegal: lying to a cop can be a crime. Specifically, lying to law enforcement is a class 1 misdemeanor. (Class 1 misdemeanors are punishable by one year’s imprisonment per South Dakota Codified Law 22-6-2(1).)
This fact was underscored by a recent South Dakota Supreme Court decision, South Dakota v. Biteler (SD 2025), a case which arose out of Lincoln County and was decided in December.
First, let’s look at the statute which criminalizes lying to cops. It a crime whenever someone:
Makes a report or intentionally causes the transmission of a report to law enforcement authorities which furnishes information relating to an offense or other incident within their official concern, knowing that such information is false.
The statute was initially enacted in 1975, but initially it only penalized the false reporting of a crime. It has since been expanded – as one can see from the text above – to include a false report (1) “relating to an offense” and; (2) to any “other incident within” an officer’s “official concern.” Lies “relating to an offense” would include misleading an officer about the whereabouts of a suspect. Penalizing lies relating to an “incident within” a cop’s “official concern” is broader still.
That’s all well and good, but the word “report” makes it sound like the only thing to avoid is filing some official formal paperwork with the police that contains knowingly false information. What is a “report,” exactly? That was the issue presented to our state supreme court in the Biteler decision.
Amanda Biteler was originally charged with a second-offense DUI a few years ago and sentenced to parole rather than incarceration. As part of her sentence, she was required to submit what is known as “24/7” breath monitoring to check for alcohol consumption. Eventually, she was permitting to submit “remote breath” tests using a portable device with a straw and a camera lens. She was instructed how to use it.
As the court explained, “When a remote breath enrollee submits a breath test, the testing device takes their photograph. One of Biteler’s test photographs was flagged because it did not appear that she was the person who blew into the testing device.” She was charged with making a false report.
The court had to determine whether a breath test and a picture amounted to a “report.” Biteler argued the breath data and photograph didn’t amount to a report because rather than affirmatively communicating to law enforcement, she was simply complying (or rather, failing to comply) with the conditions of her parole. Moreover, there were no words contained within the breath data and photograph.
The statute itself does not define “report.” So, the court turned to ordinary definitions of the word. (Note that the word here is being used as a noun – as in making a report – and not as a verb – for example, reporting something to someone.) The county circuit court had located this definition of report: “a formal oral or written presentation” and it had dismissed the charges against Biteler since the breath test coupled with the photograph didn’t meet that definition.
The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, adopting a broader definition of “report.” It concluded that a report means “a communication which furnishes information.” Biteler had falsified her breath test by having someone else blow into the unit while Biteler’s face pointed at the camera. The breath test accompanied by the photograph amounted to a report insofar as they represented a communication which furnished information. False information, it turns out.
Biteler essentially conceded that she had been noncompliant with the conditions of her parole because she had misused the portable unit, but she resisted the prosecutor’s assertion that she had committed a crime. She had been noncompliant, certainly, but had she attempted to deceive law enforcement with a false communication – a false “report?” Indeed, she had, the court concluded.
On that basis, her conviction was reinstated.
Lying to cops is illegal. In fairness, I expect that a lot of lies to law enforcement go uncharged and unpunished. If, for example, back when Amanda Biteler was driving under the influence and stopped, the officer may have asked her if she’d been drinking. If she denied that she had had a few, this would have been a lie. Indeed, it would have been a report (a “communication which furnishes information”).
Better to refuse to answer a question than to answer it falsely. Falsehoods and untruthfulness can get you in trouble. Lying to cops is rightfully categorized as a claim because it impedes the functions of law enforcement.
The foregoing has been “part I” of a 2-part series on lying. Here, in Part I, we considered citizens lying to cops. In Part II, we’ll consider cops lying to citizens.
Thomas E. Simmons University of South Dakota Knudson 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 editorial represents only his views as a private citizen.
Representative Keri Weems Announces Re-Election Campaign for District 11 House
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — Today, Representative Keri Weems announced her campaign for re-election to the South Dakota House of Representatives in District 11, citing her commitment to public service, proven legislative experience, and record of delivering for her constituents.
“I’m running for re-election because District 11 deserves experienced leadership that listens, shows up, and delivers,” said Weems. “Our best days are still ahead, and I’m ready to keep working for you.”
Weems previously served three terms in the State House from 2003 to 2008 and brings a strong record of service. Her legislative work has focused on keeping taxes low, making government more efficient, supporting local decision authority, strengthening public education, improving public safety, and investing in infrastructure that keeps communities connected and growing.
Her professional background includes leadership roles in both the private and nonprofit sectors, where she has earned a reputation for integrity, collaboration, and steady leadership in difficult situations. She has worked closely with local organizations, small businesses, and families to strengthen economic opportunity, expand access to essential services, and support initiatives that improve quality of life.
Weems lives in Sioux Falls with her husband, Jay. Together, they have three adult children. As a wife, mother, and grandmother, she remains deeply engaged in her community by volunteering her time and supporting local organizations and causes.
District 11 includes the west side of Sioux Falls, stretching from I-29 nearly to Tea-Ellis Road, and from 57th Street north to 12th Street.
Absentee voting begins on April 17, 2026, and the Republican Primary Election will be held on June 2, 2026.
To learn more about Representative Weems’s re-election campaign, visit KeriWeems.com or follow her on Facebook and X. An official photo of Representative Weems can be found here.
The 2026 Legislative session kicked off in Pierre, and improving South Dakota’s economy needs to be the top issue for my colleagues and I, otherwise our economy will fall behind our neighbors, our kids will leave the state, and everyday South Dakotans will hurt. Getting South Dakota back on track requires bold leadership and vision, because the time is now to make an impact.
Moody’s has flagged South Dakota as a state in or near a recession. At home, sales tax revenue fell 0.6% last fiscal year—only the third time in 30 years for South Dakota. Families feel it. Roughly one in five South Dakotans is delinquent on a credit card payment. People are buying fewer groceries and cutting back. When South Dakotans are asked what matters most, inflation and affordability top the list.
That’s the backdrop for every debate in Pierre. Serious problems demand serious legislators and serious solutions.
Driving home through whiteout conditions Friday, I kept thinking about my kids and their future. I don’t want a South Dakota where the next generation has to leave to build a life because they can’t find opportunities here. We like to say we’re “open for opportunity” in South Dakota, but it can’t be just a slogan. It has to be a commitment shared by the governor, the Legislature, local leaders, and every South Dakotan. The status quo won’t keep our towns alive. Closing our doors won’t either.
That’s why I’ve been in the middle of the big fights—housing and infrastructure funding to keep housing costs low, standing up for biofuels so our farm families can compete globally, and pushing for opportunities that make a real impact across our state. I don’t shy away from a fight because it’s hard. I’d rather stand strong with courage on a hill than be found hiding in a bunker in fear.
The big fight of 2026 is economic development and data centers. South Dakota needs to strengthen its economy, and we can do so in a thoughtful way that benefits hard-working South Dakotans and carefully balances concerns. Data centers play a pivotal role in our national security, provide new high-paying jobs, generate a steady stream of property and sales tax revenue, diversify our economy, and give the state and local communities a more reliable, predictable revenue base. This will increase property tax revenue that can fund our schools and roads in the future and keep more money in your pockets. This discussion is taking place at the federal level as well, with President Trump championing these data centers, while folks like Bernie Sanders lead the opposition.
America First means securing our energy, building critical infrastructure here, and competing to win. South Dakota Always means doing it with clear rules, strong oversight, and built-in local benefits—no blank checks, no sweetheart deals, and no cost-shifting onto local families. If we get it right, we bring investment, expand the tax base, and create high-paying jobs for electricians, plumbers, HVAC workers, and cybersecurity grads who can live in places like Agar, Toronto, Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and communities across the entire state.
As I always say: the best solutions aren’t found in Pierre, they come from folks at home that tackle real challenges every day. So, reach out with your ideas and solutions. If you’ll be in Pierre, let me know, I’d love to visit and recognize you on the Senate floor. Thank you. It’s an honor to serve District 8.
While we have *10 days* to wait for the 2025 year end reports to see how fundraising went for the statewide candidates, Governor Larry Rhoden already has an event announced to add to his total this Friday in Watertown at the Redlin Art Center:
Remember last April when there was a pledge and a facebook page enlisting legislators to join them for a call to shoot down planes that people thought were spreading (the mythical) chemtrails?
There were legislators who just couldn’t wait to sign on to “taking military action” after the group’s call to arms against our friendly skies:
Yet here we are a week into session, and we’re just getting crickets. It seems that these legislators might be slow-rolling their call to shoot down planes. I mean, a pledge is a promise, isn’t it? Even considering the fact that chemtrails are a conspiracy-fueled internet myth, these legislators said they’d be on the front lines for calling out the National Guard for “military action.”
But when the rubber hits the tarmac, I just don’t think we’ve seen their commitment. All keyboard cowboys, and no tinfoil hat.
Kind of “fair-weather” conspiracy kooks, if you ask me.
This disclaimer-less ad started hitting facebook this afternoon.
The South Dakota Freedom Caucus (aka, the free-dumb caucus) – the group which has to hide many of it’s members – is having an event in early February in Sioux Falls featuring former legislator Steve Haugaard. And if you’ve forgotten, Haugaard has been rumored over the past few months to be possibly seeking the office of Attorney General in the 2026 election:
If Steve Haugaard is Phil Jensen, California Carley, Heather Baxter & Dylan Jordan’s choice for Attorney General, it really becomes a hard pass for a lot of Republicans.
South Dakota Republican House Majority Leader Scott Odenbach has posted his update for the first week of the legislative session with a message critical of South Dakota’s education system, going after the people that lobby in Pierre for schools as well as declaring that catering “to the bottom portion of the behavioral spectrum” has gone on long enough:
SCHOOL DISCIPLINE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL LOBBYING
Finally, a word on public school discipline and lobbying. This week we began to also hear bills in committees. The education committee heard testimony and voted on HB1017, a much-needed bill brought by our Department of Education meant to address the behavior crisis faced by too many of our classroom teachers and students. I attended, and testified in favor as a proponent. After hearing much opposing testimony, the committee ended up voting to defer the matter to another day for more discussion.
The essence of the bill states: “A school board may assign a student to receive instruction in an alternative setting for aggressive or violent behaviors that disrupt the school or that affects the health or safety factor of the school or its program.” Simple common sense, right? Well not so fast.
As a former school board member, concerned taxpayer, state representative and someone who cares about applying common sense to enhance the welfare of our teachers and students, I was shocked listening to the opposing testimony by the public school lobbyists purporting to represent school administrators and large schools.
Their testimony was basically that we cannot address the crisis in classroom behavior until we first spend untold millions of additional dollars on everything from new student treatment centers to cater to the troublemakers, to new programs that provide “training to parents.” Their vision for the size and scope of the “education” system puts them totally outside their lane, essentially wanting lawmakers to spend taxpayers into oblivion on side-projects before addressing an issue that is having immediate and ongoing negative impacts on the classroom experience of so many of our kids who do want to learn, and on the overworked teachers tasked with making it happen.
What message does it send to young people in the classroom when we go to superhuman lengths to cater to the bottom portion of the behavioral spectrum while ignoring the unique needs of all others in the process? This has gone on long enough.
Informed citizens and taxpayers need to wake up and be aware of what kinds of things are being said in Pierre by those claiming to speak on your behalf. The positions taken on most issues by the public school lobbyists leads one to conclude they think the “system” would do a better job raising your kids then you would – if only we’d fully fund it. Their efforts too often frustrate the ability of policy makers to address major problems – such as HB1017, which sought to finally address violent school behaviors that are literally putting kids and teachers in danger.
It seems like we’ve gone from the goals of the federal “No Child Left Behind” act in 2001, which increased focus on achievement gaps, especially for minority and low-income students, to asking ourselves “which kids is it ok to skip because they’re a tough kid?” As the parent of a child who from very early on has been a participant in special education services in my school district, I’m not sure I care much for a conversation that seems to say that more challenging kids, most definitely including those who have a disability, are somehow are less deserving of receiving an education.
For those legislators who have taken an oath of office to follow the constitution, let me point out a passage from the South Dakota State Constitution:
ARTICLE VIII
§ 1. Uniform system of free public schools. The stability of a republican form of government depending on the morality and intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all; and to adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.
Equally open to all. I’d place particular emphasis on one specific word here – ALL. The easy kids are those who can learn in any environment, whether you have in-class instruction, or try to do it over the computer in a classroom remotely, or as we suffered through during COVID, force them to learn remotely at home.
It would be great if all kids were easy. I wish all my kids were easy. But they’re not. Life intervenes. Some kids have behavioral issues, Some kids suffer from physical or mental illness. Some have disabilities. And you have some who lost badly in the lottery of life, and they have parents with their own problems including just plain old poverty, criminal behavior, mental illness, drug addiction, etcetera. And parent’s issues sometimes get dumped on the kid who might go to school in unclean clothes, or as happens all too often, they go to school hungry, and any food they get at school might be the only meal they get that day.
That’s the reality schools are forced to deal with. They get to be teachers paid on average at some of the lowest rates in the entirety of the United States. They also get to be disciplinarians, social workers, and mental health advocates, and any number of other professions just in an attempt to deliver an education as required under the constitution to the easy kids, the kids who might have challenges and even those who have behavioral issues. If the legislature has a problem with the requests from the education lobby, and laments that the state is forced to go to “superhuman lengths to cater to the bottom portion of the behavioral spectrum,” then maybe the answer is to change the South Dakota Constitution and exchange the word “all” with “easy kids,” or another phrase to clarify which of our children are worthy of an education and which are not?
If they want to clarify which of our children it’s ok to leave behind, it would make it a lot easier for schools to tailor their requests to the legislature for needs and funding. Until then, whether legislators like it or not, schools are going to send their representatives to Pierre in January seeking assistance, clarification, and a way to pay for all is being demanded of them on how to best deal with the societal challenges they are forced to face just by virtue of doing their jobs.
Return to Sender: Common Sense By Rep. Dusty Johnson January 16, 2065
The United States Postal Service (USPS) is not meeting the needs of South Dakotans. I hear almost every day about a lost package, delayed mail resulting in late fees, medication delays, and the questionable routing of mail. USPS delivery times continue to get worse, and it’s having a real impact on individuals and businesses. The data shows USPS service performance data has trended downward in every measurable category for every type of postage for the last four years.
At the end of December, I surveyed South Dakotans about their Postal Service experiences. I received more than 4,200 responses. More than 50% of these folks said their service is poor or very poor. More than 3,000 people shared their stories of difficulties with the Postal Service.
I heard from folks like Susan from Faulkton who incurred a $2,700 late fee because her check took 25 days to get to Sioux Falls. There’s a business in Bath whose customers often don’t receive their checks or get them two months late. And some people like Mary bought Christmas presents early, only to have them travel to nine different states before being delivered to Huron – 10 days late, and after Christmas.
Mary’s package delivery route
I held a roundtable in Sioux Falls to allow constituents to share their USPS story. I was joined by my colleague, Congressman Pete Sessions who chairs the House subcommittee that oversees the U.S. Postal Service, so he could hear directly from South Dakotans.
During the roundtable, we heard about how the unreliable delivery of mail is delaying critical medications, messages between family and friends, and is costing our small businesses money. In Sioux Falls, the closing of several retail counters has caused even longer lines and worsened the customer experience.
Following these discussions, it’s clear the issue with the Postal Service is often not with the individual carriers who deliver the mail. The issue is mostly with the Postal Service leadership whose decisions have decreased the quality of service the USPS provides in South Dakota.
I’m grateful to all who shared their stories with me. While the U.S. Postal Service was unable to attend the roundtable, I’ll be sending them a full report displaying the impact of their service decisions in South Dakota.
Johnson listens to Postal Service concerns during roundtable in Sioux Falls
Sioux Falls, S.D. – Today, Representative Amber Arlint announced that she is running for re-election to the South Dakota House of Representatives in District 12, reaffirming her commitment to serving her constituents by improving education, keeping neighborhoods safe, and supporting an economy that rewards hard work and creates opportunity here at home.
