Small State, Big Impact
By Rep. Kristi Noem

The swearing-in ceremony on January 3 marks the official start of the 115th Congress, but our work to prepare for these next two years has been ongoing for months.

Last summer, House Republicans introduced a once-in-a-generation blueprint for the reforms we feel are necessary to move this country forward. In late December after most of Congress had gone home for the holidays, I – along with just 23 other members of the House Ways and Means Committee – came back to Washington to hammer out two critical sections of this blueprint: tax reform and healthcare reform.

On tax reform, we worked on a framework for a simpler, flatter and fairer tax code. Coming from a state that has zero income tax, I wanted to share a real-world example of the economic benefits of a lower tax rate. As a busy mom, I wanted to speak to the importance of a simpler tax return – one that may even be simple enough to fit on a postcard. As an experienced small business owner, farmer and rancher, I wanted the tax code to incentivize growth in the American economy. And as a taxpayer, I wanted the loopholes to be closed and the IRS to be held accountable. Our work continues, but I’m glad we were able to communicate this vision from the onset.

On healthcare reform, we plan to take immediate steps to repeal Obamacare. While we’re still navigating the best legislative path from that point, we are committed to protecting the healthcare needs of all Americans. At our meeting in December, we worked through a number of ideas for creating a system that no longer relies on mandates, but instead ensures affordable access so families can choose what works best for them. This plan would deliver unprecedented freedom, empowering Americans to purchase the healthcare plan of their choice, manage how they spend their healthcare dollars, and access their electronic health records. Moreover, it would include tools that drive down the actual cost for delivering healthcare, an expense that is higher per person in the U.S. than almost any nation in the world. The only way health insurance is going to be affordable is if the delivery of healthcare becomes less expensive too.

With so much at stake, it was important to get a seat at the table for South Dakota during these debates. After all, there are challenges that come with having just one representative in the House. Places like Texas, for instance, have dozens of congressmen who can represent the state’s interests on any given issue. A state like South Dakota, however, occupies just one of 435 seats, so making our perspective known requires a deliberate effort. Getting in on these types of conversations is one of the reasons I fought for a seat on the House Ways and Means Committee last Congress.

Our state might be small, but we’ve already had a major impact on what’s expected to be an aggressive 2017 agenda. What’s more, those contributions have helped establish the tone for the 115th Congress and set the legislative branch up to hit the ground running on Day 1.

###

The Importance of South Dakota’s Animal Health Laboratory
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

For a state like South Dakota, with five times as many cattle and twice as many hogs and chickens as we have citizens, livestock health is a big deal. We all know the tremendous impact the livestock sector has on our state’s economy, but it’s easy to forget the connection between livestock health and human health.

Livestock disease control techniques have advanced rapidly in recent years in response to worldwide disease epidemics. Since 2013, South Dakota has seen outbreaks of four new diseases not previously seen in the United States.

The state, our agriculture industry and South Dakota State University work together to fund the Animal Disease Research and Diagnostic Laboratory, which serves as our state animal health laboratory. The current facility was built in 1967 and remodeled in 1993. It is out-of-date and needs to be modernized to correct aging infrastructure, accommodate new technologies, and meet current and future standards. That’s why I’m working with the Legislature and agriculture industry to upgrade and expand the lab.

The lab provides critical research and diagnostic support to protect our citizens and livestock industry from disease outbreaks. The scientists who work there conduct tests to identify diseases, distinguish unique strains, and develop vaccines and other treatments to assist veterinarians, ranchers, farmers, pet owners, wildlife managers, public health officials, and state and federal agencies.

Each year the lab tests hundreds of thousands of samples in nine specialized areas. When the lab was last upgraded, molecular diagnostic tests, which analyze genetic code to determine irregularities, had not yet been developed as a cost effective diagnostic tool. Now the lab conducts more than 200,000 such tests annually.

More new technologies are coming and further space is needed to accommodate them. We have to be cutting edge; we are not testing for yesterday’s diseases, we’re testing for the diseases of today and tomorrow.

Politicians talk about public-private partnerships all the time – it’s almost a catchphrase. But in South Dakota we take action. It’s going to be a lean budget year and the agriculture sector is not as strong as it has been. Although this is a difficult time to make investments in our core infrastructure, a strong animal health lab is essential to the long-term security of our number one industry and the citizens of our state.

We all know the cost of doing nothing. When disease outbreaks risk the production of our food and the health of our citizens, a timely, accurate diagnosis of the cause is essential. I look forward to working with the Legislature, agriculture industry, and SDSU to sustain this public-private partnership and upgrade and expand South Dakota’s animal health laboratory.

– 30 –

In case you were looking for the pre-filed legislation, it began appearing today on the South Dakota Legislative Research Council’s website:

House Bills

Senate Bills

Currently, it all appears to be related to interim study committees, but that will change as we get closer to the legislative session.

You’ve read the lower five of the top ten – now here are what I viewed as the top five state political issues for 2016:

5. South Dakota legislature increases teacher pay.

The issue of teacher pay has been swirling around in South Dakota politics longer than the 28 years I’ve been around. But in recent years, it was brought to a higher profile with a failed lawsuit against the state, and more importantly, a study which showed how far behind South Dakota was as it competed with its neighboring states.

That, coupled with an ever increasing inability to place certified educators in classrooms moved the South Dakota State Legislature as well as the Governor to move past the study phase into a plan of action which had the support of a majority of legislators. And that was not without it’s controversy.

Warring over the pay increase for teachers had Majority Leader Brian Gosch going after Rep Roger Solum (a tech school employee), which earned him the ire of State Representative Lee Schoenbeck, who verbally scolded him. In turn, Gosch had Schoenbeck removed from caucus, which contributed to Schoenbeck considering an early departure from the legislature.  This battle died down somewhat, but the war continued to rage.

The issue of the passed and signed into law teacher pay increase continued to rage, especially in the legislative primaries. Among those where the new teacher pay law played a factor, in District 30, State Representative Lance Russell, who opposed the plan, challenged State Senator Bruce Rampelberg who supported it. With District 30 largely consisting of districts which lost teachers over the newly minted plan, it was a major factor in Rampelberg’s 41% to 59% defeat.

Legislative study co-chair Representative Jacqueline Sly who was term limited in running for the house took the passage of the education legislation as fuel to take on controversial State Senator Phil Jensen. However, in this hotly contested race, anticipated support for her candidacy from the educational community did not materialize, and Jensen captured the office for another term.

And this still was not the end of teacher pay legislation controversy. During the fall election, some legislators were criticized for standing in opposition to the teacher pay increase plan during session, but campaigning on the basis of their support for education and teacher pay.  Needless to say, some people disagreed.

Ultimately, pay in many instances has increased in some degree for teachers across the state, moving South Dakota from 51st to 43rd in the nation. It remains to be seen what legislation may be brought to adjust these figures, or to change the sales tax funding mechanism for the increase in 2017.

4. Attorney General Marty Jackley and a series of high profile prosecutions.

Marty Jackley was a busy man this past year.  Not that he lounges around otherwise, but 2016 brought some of the highest profile politically involved cases.

As was long suspected (except by Democrats trying to use it for political hay), after completing their investigation, the state boiled the by now infamous “EB-5 investigation” down to the alleged actions of a pair of bad actors. One who was deceased, and one who the A.G.’s office brought charges against and is currently prosecuting for five counts of “Unauthorized Disposal of Personal Property Subject to Security Interest.”

A second set of high profile prosecutions came about as a result of the “Gear Up” Federal Grant case, where gross financial mismanagement of federal grant funds was discovered as a result of the state shutting down the flow of funds to an educational co-operative who couldn’t provide straight financial records to the state, no matter how much the state attempted to assist them with getting their act together.

And as we were soon to discover, they couldn’t provide straight records, because the spending wasn’t very straight.   Notice of funds being shut off triggered the person who was thought to be the mastermind of the financial scheme to take his and his family’s lives. A subsequent investigation into the matter uncovered alleged criminal activity on the part of others including…

Phelps, 42, and Guericke, 58, have each been indicted on charges of Class 5 and Class 6 felonies including falsification of evidence and conspiracy to offer forged or fraudulent evidence. The charges each carry punishments of up to two years imprisonment, $4,000 fines or both.

Hubers, 44, won’t be as likely to avoid jail time as she was indicted on Class 4 felony charges, one count of grand theft, two counts of grand theft by deception, or three alternative counts of receiving stolen property.

Read that here.

These investigations were long and arduous considering the financial complexity both involved, limited legal remedies in cases of state level financial fraud, as well as the continual drumbeat of publicity in both.

The Gear Up investigations and prosecutions have caused the Attorney General to propose changes to state law for the upcoming legislative session in how financial prosecutions can be penalized, as it was recently indicated that in some instances in this case, the only tools available involved charging people with misdemeanors.

These cases were also capitalized on by others who sought to exploit them for promoting anti-corruption ballot measures at the statewide level, whether they accurately reflected areas of legal deficiency or not.  Given that they involve death(s) and ill-gotten gains, the media found the EB-5 and Gear-Up cases irresistible to sensationalize.

They were dominant news items in 2015 and 2016, and now that the cases have finally became ripe for prosecution, there’s no chance of that abating.

3. South Dakota Democrats continue their downward momentum.

After the impossibly low-water mark South Dakota Democrats set in the 2014 election cycle, where they held no statewide office and continued record low legislative offices held, it was thought that Dems could sink no lower.

Enter new chairwoman Ann Tornberg, a former legislative candidate and area Teacher’s Union Boss. Winning a 4-year term to the chairperson’s seat, Tornberg managed to defy expectations that they could sink no lower, and managed to steer the state’s minority party further into the abyss

Under Tornberg’s leadership, the party managed to field Paula Hawks, a legislative candidate who had
won her seat by only 9 votes, for Congress against Congresswoman Kristi Noem. And after months of an inability to field a candidate against US Senate John Thune, they announced Jay Williams, who had run unsuccessfully for the legislature, would assume that task.

While staff-heavy with up to 4-5 staff members reportedly on the party’s payroll, Democrat fortunes continued to sour in the state as their voter registration numbers were continually reported to diminish. In addition, Democrats spent significant funds earlier in the cycle promoting ballot measures… which did not provide them any benefit by association.

Democrats continued a tradition of running placeholder candidates with no intention of running who withdrew or were replaced. In fact, in the state senate, they conceded 1/4-1/3 of races by not running candidates.  And later in the cycle, for those candidates who remained to contest Republicans, Democrat state party finances did not provide the basis to support candidates in any significant way.

Ultimately derelict in the elections, and not just failing to gain numbers but adding to the decay by shedding 2 more legislators in the process, 2016 literally represented the lowest point for State Democrats in 52 years in the State of South Dakota.

A series of post-election meetings across the state noted that Democrats ended the campaign sitting on $100,000 that was unspent during this time of record losses.

With two years to go in Ann Tornberg’s term of office, we ask the question “How low can they go?” By 2018, we might have a good answer.

2. The 2016 South Dakota Ballot Measure wars. 

Whether you were in favor or against, millions of dollars poured into South Dakota from out of state to promote ballot measures from outside interests. Whether payday lending, Initiated Measure 22, Amendment V, or even the victims rights measure Marsy’s Law, a lot of money was spent because people wanted to get their way. And in a few cases, such as Initiated Measure 22, Amendment V and others, often the truth was stretched, if not entirely damned.

The airwaves this fall were not dominated by political candidates in South Dakota, but by those very same ballot issues who prosecuted the message they wanted to deliver.

As a result of the money pouring in as well as abuses of the ballot and initiative process, calls have been renewed to make it tougher to get measures on the ballot, as noted by more than one recent news story:

State lawmakers worry South Dakota’s first-in-the-nation ballot initiative process could fall victim to outside groups if they don’t bring legislation creating additional hurdles. An array of proposals are now being floated, and legislative leaders say the conversation will be a top priority during the 2017 legislative session.

“For me, doing nothing is not an option as far as the South Dakota Constitution is concerned,” said state Sen. Jim Bolin, R-Canton. “The rules of the game have totally changed with all of this outside money that floods in. People came in here with a bushel basket full of money and bought an election.”

and…

Bolin said he hoped that requiring a broader sample of voter support and increasing the requirements for lawmakers to refer issues would help prevent efforts to approve laws that originate outside the state’s boundaries.

Rep. Don Haggar, R-Sioux Falls, said he’s considering legislation that would increase the number of approved petition signatures to reflect 5 percent of registered voters in the state rather than 5 percent of those who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election.

Read it here.

The Attorney General and the Secretary of State are also lining up with legislators for reforms to the ballot and initiative process.

Coming after a year when voters had to slog through ten ballot measures, including one 33 page measure where the sponsors were warned up front that it was unconstitutional but chose to send to to the voters anyway, you can expect ballot measure reform in 2017 isn’t just a possibility, but almost a certainty.

And, the South Dakota War College’s top political stories of 2016 is……

1.  2018

It might seem odd on it’s surface, but the #1 story in 2016 is actually the 2018 election.

All year we heard speculation as to who was going to run for what. Attorney General Marty Jackley and Speaker Pro Temp Mark Mickelson spoke at Lincoln Day Dinners and began amassing campaign funds for the 2018 Gubernatorial race.

And rumors would pop up from time to time about Congresswoman Kristi Noem who was embroiled in a race for her Congressional seat. There was talk leaking out from various friends and relations that she had an interest too.

Jackley’s and Mickelson’s interest in the race continued through the summer and early fall, and was definitely known at the State Republican Convention. But then as the election rolled around, the math abruptly changed.  On November 10th, a story came out noting that Mickelson ultimately decided to take a pass:

Mark Mickelson, the Sioux Falls lawmaker who has been considered a favorite to be the state’s next governor, says he has decided not to run for the job when it’s open in 2018.

Mickelson, 50, had raised about $1 million for a campaign against potential GOP primary rivals, two of whom confirmed their interest in the job Thursday. Congresswoman Kristi Noem said she was giving a run for governor “serious consideration,” while Attorney General Marty Jackley said he was “preparing to run.”

For Mickelson, the commitment it takes to run a large statewide race was taking him away from his wife and three boys, who range in age from 17 to 13. During opening weekend for pheasant hunting, Mickelson said he was not able to enjoy himself because he was constantly worrying about running for governor.

“I guess I was miserable,” he said.

“I wasn’t enjoying myself,” he added. “I was thinking of all the things I needed to be doing.”

Read it here.

For a few short days, Jackley had the race to himself until the math – specifically financial math – changed the race again. As announced in media outlets, including the SDWC, Congresswoman Kristi Noem, fresh off her congressional victory, had her own announcement:

Congresswoman Noem’s interest in the 2018 Gubernatorial race had been rumored for months, and likely would have remained rumor for a while longer – had the ballot measure known as IM22 passed, which wildly changed the rules of how money could be transferred between political committees.

Immediately prior to the ballot measure taking effect, Noem and Jackley transferred funds into Gubernatorial campaign accounts; actions that would certainly be noted. While Jackley was already running, Noem had to make a rather historic announcement to the state that she was “all in.”

Noem’s announcement had a cascade effect, triggering others’ interest in the race for her seat.  There is speculation that Neal Tapio may make an immediate attempt to jump into a run for the office after his election to the State Senate. And Secretary of State Shantel Krebs, who is ending her second year of a four-year term in office is also rumored to be engaging consultants as she prepares a campaign for the office.

While some are still in the murky territory of rumor, shortly after Noem’s announcement, Dusty Johnson, a former Public Utilities Commissioner and Chief of Staff for Governor Daugaard, made official his intended bid for Noem’s Congressional seat.

More rumors abound on constitutional office seekers in 2018, and arguably all of the 2018 activity may be related to item #3 on our list – the decline of the South Dakota Democrat Party.

With no viable candidates at the statewide level in 2016, the years’ races were a foregone conclusion, providing little excitement because of an uncertain outcome. We all knew that John Thune would be US Senator, and Kristi Noem would be our Congresswoman. It was a done deal back when the candidate petition filings were complete.

Whereas 2018 offers battles where no one knows who the victor may be.  And that’s a lot more interesting thing to ponder.

Historians say that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Which is a great introduction into our top ten political stories of 2016!  There’s plenty there that might serve as a cautionary tale for the future.  There’s also some great stories of triumph, and as always with my top ten list – most all of these set the stage for the future.

So, if you’re unhappy with the news of the day (Seriously, Carrie Fischer AND her mother Debbie Reynolds? Not funny, God.), take a moment and review what we saw as the top political stories for 2016.

#10 – Associated School Boards of South Dakota’s Insurance bomb finally goes off. 

This story didn’t receive much attention, but I place it in the top ten political stories because of the fiscal impact it makes.

And really, who would have imagined that the ASBSD could have cocked up their self-funded insurance pool so badly to have to finally admit publicly that they’re insolvent to the point they’re over $13 million dollars in the hole.

There had been rumors of questionable health of the plan for years.  In fact, it had hit the media in 2015 in an Argus Leader report:

Harrisburg and 58 other districts in the self-funded insurance pool managed by the Associated School Boards of South Dakota faced a financial shortfall of nearly $10 million. Counting claims not yet processed — known in insurance lingo as “the tail” — the total liability for the protective trust that uses Avera Health as a vendor is estimated at $14 million.

School districts planning to leave the pool would be responsible for their share of the debt, putting taxpayers in the line of fire. For Harrisburg and other area schools such as Canistota, Canton, Dell Rapids, Mitchell and Sioux Valley, that reality arrived like a smack in the face.

Read it here.

ASBSD was making a few efforts to fix their mess as reported in 2015.  And in fact, a bill was passed in the legislature unanimously in 2016 – HB1060 – to require certain statements and audits concerning insurance pooling arrangements to be filed with the Department of Legislative Audit.

But, wait a minute. What’s this report on KELO TV in October of this year?  Apparently, despite the steps in 2015 at school insurance fund austerity, it’s time to pay the piper:

So now the 53 member districts are being asked to kick in their portion of the debt, depending on how many people they have getting insurance through the fund.

For example, Mitchell owes the most at $1.4 million.  Harrisburg owes $1.1 million.  Todd County owes more nearly $1 million.  Smaller districts owe less. Lead-Deadwood more than half a million. Wagner owes just about half a million and Dell Rapids owes just over $300,000.

“$1.1 million is nothing to laugh about or think it’s not that big, but in a large district when we have so many people on the plan and if you divide it out, it’s going to be one of those things we should be able to handle and handle quite handily,” Holbeck said.

School Districts have two options. They can either pay the money back over the course of four years, plus interest, or pay it in one lump sum by next August.

Read it here.

Does anyone think those school districts have that kind of money on hand? Watch for this issue to possibly show it’s head in the legislature, or at school board meetings in the form of tax increases.  It’s an expensive mess, and someone is going to have to fix it.

#9 – Reynold Nesiba and “You don’t need those pants.”

Reynold Nesiba was just coming off of the dual win of a State Senate seat, as well as part of the team that convinced South Dakotans to pass a ballot measure limiting rates on certain types of loans to the point where they were no longer affordable for businesses to offer.  So it came as a shuddering shock that in September he may have had unwanted sexual contact with a woman he met on Facebook.

Salacious details were released including…

After asking Nesiba to leave, the victim found him naked in her bedroom. He repeatedly tried to undress her and, at one point picked her up, put her against the wall in a rough manner, carried her to the bedroom, and placed her on the bed. The victim said she felt pain in her ribs.

Nesiba told the victim,” You don’t need those pants,” and began to unbuckle the victim’s pants, court documents say.

Read that here.

When questioned about it, it was reported that now Democrat Senator-Elect Nesiba even went so far as to claim that he thought the victim “was playing hard to get.”

The fallout from this has spun up other actions – Democrats preemptively evicted Nesiba from their caucus of 6 State Senators. Questions have been raised as to whether the Senate will seat Nesiba while his case for unwanted sexual contact is pending.  And one of his partners in the payday ballot measure, Steve Hickey, went so far as to question whether the accuser was an evil agent of the payday lenders.

It might be a quiet thing in the media at the moment, but this salacious tale of the college professor who wouldn’t take no for an answer isn’t over yet.

#8 – R.I.P. Medicaid Expansion

Medicaid expansion has been a hot topic for the last several years now. It was a major plank in the platform for the last losing Democrat for Governor (who lost by record margins), and Governor Daugaard saw it as a possible path forward to convince the federal government to pay it’s long overdue share of the bill for Indian Health Services that they are obligated to pay by treaty.   As one news story explained it:

His plan calls for the federal government to pay the entire bill for Native Americans receiving care outside the Indian Health Service. In turn, the state – which currently covers half the amount for those patients’ care – would use the freed-up dollars to expand Medicaid for another 50,000-55,000 South Dakotans.

Medicaid expansion would cost the state an estimated $57 million by 2021, the governor said. The $57 million price tag would eat up the state’s projected revenue growth factor of $59 million, leaving little or nothing for current or new programs, he said.

And that’s where shifting all Native American health costs to the federal government comes into play, he said. The state paid $67 million for Native American health care last year, so freeing up those dollars would make Medicaid expansion affordable for South Dakota, he said.

“We’re just asking the federal government to honor its treaty obligations (for providing Native Americans with health care),” Daugaard said.

Read that here.

It made fiscal sense if the figures held. In fact, as projected, it could possibly have resulted in a net gain.  But there were always those nagging concerns.

Nagging concerns such as “The Federal Government always pays as promised, doesn’t it??”  And “why are we putting 50,000 able bodies working people on public assistance?”  And lest we forget, Medicaid expansion did have aspects of Obamacare tied to it.

It was too big of a pill to swallow for the 2016 legislature, especially without a promise from the federal government who was dragging out approval.  So it went dormant.  In fact, it went dormant long enough for two things to happen – a much more conservative State Senate to be elected, and the election of Donald Trump with a Republican Congress.

The more conservative State Senate spelled doom on the home front, and with a promised dismantling of Obamacare at the Federal level, the nails were being driven in the coffin. As noted at the Modern Healthcare website:

South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s decision to abandon plans to seek Medicaid expansion could be because Vice President-elect Mike Pence cast doubt over the future of federal matching funds through the Affordable Care Act.

On Tuesday, Daugaard, a Republican who had been supportive of expanding Medicaid eligibility in his state, said he would not recommend it to the state’s Legislature this year after hearing the incoming administration’s plans for repealing or reforming the ACA.

Daugaard’s office had not responded to a request for comment before deadline.

Brian Blase, senior research fellow at the conservative Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Virginia said Daugaard may believe that consistent with campaign promises, Congress will repeal the federal match for expansion population.

and…

Others agreed with Horton. “Given the current uncertainty, Medicaid expansion could be premature or a waste of time for a state,” said Dean Clancy, a tea party-aligned former White House and congressional aide, and current partner at Adams Auld, a consulting firm.

“The real question right now is not whether Medicaid will be reformed, but how dramatically.”

Read that all here.

As far as South Dakota is concerned, it looks like that ship has sailed.

#7 – US Senator John Thune returns for another 6 year term of office.  Was there an opponent?

South Dakota’s Senior US Senator easily and handily sailed to victory in his second election since his initial defeat of US Senator Tom Daschle. Not that he had an election last time, with Democrats choosing to give the Senator a bye.

In 2016, it appeared that Democrats might just have provided the Senator a bye again, with Dem Chair Ann Tornburg spending all of 2015 failing miserably in her mission to find someone to take on Thune for the opposition party.

It was not looking good for her at all, until a rumor that had been floating around in the background – about a Democrat party member who had allegedly announced at a Democrat meeting that “If no one else will do it, I will” – came to fruition. And the Democrats had an opponent for Thune. Albeit, a really, really bad one.

As noted when Williams announced in February:

The road to Washington D.C. might not be easy for a candidate with little name recognition.

“He’s also challenged in that he’s run twice as I understand it for legislative seats in Yankton and not won. If you can’t win on the local level, it’s probably really challenging to win on a statewide basis, in a race packed with money from the other side,” Brown said.

Read it here.

“Challenging to win” is probably an understatement for the quixotic Jay Williams. He campaigned on a platform that we need to pay more in taxes, we need to end fossil fuel use, legalize pot. And the list goes on. Williams was literally one of the worst candidates that Democrats have ever fielded in the state… and he let his freak flag fly. He was a hard core liberal democrat representing for his party, and didn’t care who knew.

Thune reported around 11 Million raised for his race, and truth be told, he probably dedicated more money and effort into electing Republicans around the country than he probably did in his own race. Because he didn’t need to.

Thune has always been popular in South Dakota. Because he’s a genuine, affable person. You can’t help but like him, because he’s a good guy.  And it shows that Democrats recognize this by either giving him a pass – which was highly unusual – or by putting up the quality of candidate that they did in Jay Williams.

Thune crushed Williams 72% to 28% – on an almost 3-1 basis.

Clearly, Senator Thune is not going anywhere anytime soon. Not that the Democrats have anything to say about it.

#6 – The opening salvo in the battle over Same-Sex School Bathrooms & Showers.

Former School Board member & Watertown-area Chiropractor Fred Deutsch is about one of the nicest people you’d ever meet. He’s a devout Catholic, and a son of a holocaust survivor. Truly a salt-of-the-earth person who just spent the last two years in his first legislative session after being elected to office.  You can’t help but like Fred. He’s good people.

Having been chair of the pro-life group South Dakota Right-to-Life, Fred wasn’t one to shy away from tougher issues, such as pro-life advocacy that might be contested a bit, because it was about doing the right thing.

And in the second year of his first term of office, Fred dropped a bill in the legislative hopper which was assigned the number House Bill 1008 – A measure to restrict access to certain restrooms and locker rooms in public schools.  And from there, the first legislative measure of it’s nature in the nation took off like a rocket in terms of public attention and publicity.

This wasn’t a measure which generated a spark of media notice. It was more like a nuclear blast on an issue which coincided with a hot button national debate on gender identity, only 6 months after Olympian Bruce Jenner publicly announced he was now a woman named Caitlyn.

As noted in the act after it had been amended a couple of times,

ENTITLED, An Act to restrict access to certain restrooms and locker rooms in public schools.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 13-24 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

    The term, biological sex, as used in this Act, means the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person’s chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth.
Section 2. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

    Every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school that is designated for student use and is accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex. In addition, any public school student participating in a school sponsored activity off school premises which includes being in a state of undress in the presence of other students shall use those rooms designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex.
Section 3. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

    If any student asserts that the student’s gender is different from the student’s biological sex, and if the student’s parent or guardian consents to that assertion in writing to a public school administrator, or if the student is an adult or an emancipated minor and makes the assertion in writing to a public school administrator, the student shall be provided with a reasonable accommodation. A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impose an undue hardship on a school district. A reasonable accommodation may not include the use of student restrooms, locker rooms, or shower rooms designated for use by students of the opposite biological sex if students of the opposite biological sex are present or could be present. A reasonable accommodation may include a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom, or the controlled use of a restroom, locker room, or shower room that is designated for use by faculty. The requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation pursuant to this section does not apply to any nonpublic school entity.

Read it here.

The act provided that bathrooms were for those who were of the appropriate biological sex, and if a person disagreed with the law, that reasonable accommodations would be made.

And in taking on the issue in Schools, South Dakota kicked off a battlefront in what might be one of the biggest cultural wars of our time.

This measure sailed through the legislature with little to no opposition. But when it hit the Governor’s Desk, the firestorm grew to national levels with Time Magazine, CNN, The New York Times, USA Today, NPR, and many, many more all coving the measure.

South Dakota became a focus of lobbying from both sides of the measure (on a national basis) which went on for several days until the Governor’s veto of the measure on the basis of it being a local concern, and not something that rose to the level of State Concern:

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives,

I respectfully return to you House Bill 1008, with my VETO.

House Bill 1008 does not address any pressing issue concerning the school districts of South Dakota. As policymakers in South Dakota, we often recite that the best government is the government closest to the people. Local school districts can, and have, made necessary restroom and locker room accommodations that serve the best interests of all students, regardless of biological sex or gender identity.

This bill seeks to impose statewide standards on “every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school.” It removes the ability of local school districts to determine the most appropriate accommodations for their individual students and replaces that flexibility with a state mandate.

If and when these rare situations arise, I believe local school officials are best positioned to address them. Instead of encouraging local solutions, this bill broadly regulates in a manner that invites conflict and litigation, diverting energy and resources from the education of the children of this state.

Preserving local control is particularly important because this bill would place every school district in the difficult position of following state law while knowing it openly invites federal litigation. Although there have been promises by an outside entity to provide legal defense to a school district, this provision is not memorialized in the bill. Nor would such defense eliminate the need for school or state legal counsel, nor avoid expenses relating to expert witnesses, depositions and travel, or other defense costs. Nor does the commitment extend to coverage over settlement or damage expenses. This law will create a certain liability for school districts and the state in an area where no such liability exists today.

For these reasons, I oppose this bill and ask that you sustain my veto.

Respectfully submitted,
Dennis Daugaard
Governor

Read that here.

Within weeks, Other states announced their own measures, such as Tennessee and North Carolina. And the Obama administration entered the fray a few short months later in may by directing schools across the nation to provide transgender students with access to facilities — including bathrooms and locker rooms — that match their chosen gender identity.

The battle ignited in part in South Dakota continues to rage across the nation with more proposals, threats and legal actions.  Within the state, proposals for a new transgender bathroom bill have already been noted as coming in the 2017 legislative session. And, a “student privacy” ballot measure submitted for review which could be circulated for signature in the coming months.

Biology and bathrooms was a big issue in South Dakota this past year. And will continue to be so in 2017.

(Stay Tuned for Part 2!)

I think I’ve got my list of top ten political stories for 2016 set.

But I’m also faced with the conundrum of the ones I’m leaving off. There were just so darned many good stories this past political year.

The Argus upheaval & Lalley firing? Nope. Not on the list.  The facepalm heard around the state? Meh.  Dump Trump? Close, but you’ve got to draw the line somewhere.  I was also looking strongly at the ever dysfunctional Pennington County Commission with Deb Hadcock’s secret pay increases and George Ferebee’s battles.

But there are just too many political issues that had a big impact in 2016, and will set the stage for continued activity in 2017.

If we look back at 2015’s year end list (Part 1, Part 2), we see some things that sound awfully familiar, and a few that dropped off the map:

1. Annette Bosworth
2. Petition Madness
3. Blue Ribbon Task Force/Education funding
4. John Thune preparing to cruise to another unopposed victory.
5. The long downhill slide of the SDDP
6. Kristi Noem in Washington
7. Medicaid Expansion
8. Presidential politics
9. Legislative departures
10. The Westerhuis Murder investigation.

At this point in 2016, we’re almost ready to thankfully start saying “Annette who?” Almost. In 2016, her case was in appeals, and her husband quickly and quietly copped a plea, thankfully leaving us mostly to our own devices. Legislative departures continue to happen, but with a much lower profile than those of 2015, where the Senate Majority Leader, and assistant Majority Leaders went on to greener pastures.

Presidential politics are always bug, but not so much in South Dakota. As noted, the Dump Trump movement of South Dakota Leaders was arguably the biggest story, but narrowly missed being in the top ten.

As for the rest of 2015? Wait for this years’ list. You may see some of these continuing on in one form or another.

There are days when it is confirmed that your youth has slipped away. This is one of them.

Rest In Peace, Carrie Fisher. pic.twitter.com/fTy7fgj1gH

— 20th Century Fox (@20thcenturyfox) December 27, 2016

Last night brought a surprise, with my youngest daughter informing us she had the flu by “ralphing” in her bed early in the evening. And what a generous child – she was nice enough to pass on the flu to me this AM!

As I’m working on my recovery, it did give me a few free moments to contemplate the annual exercise of what our top ten political stories of the year are. Could they include the death of Medicaid expansion in South Dakota? Noem in for Governor, while Mickelson took a pass? The continued crumbling of the Democrat Party?

I’d love to hear your suggestions. You know where the comment section is – Sound off, and let me know as I page through the year’s posts and work in the list myself.

Rounds Urges Attorney General Pruitt to Restore Order at EPA

Asks Trump’s EPA Pick to Respect State and Local Input, Use Sound Science, and Roll Back Current Administration’s Overly Burdensome Regulations

PIERRE—U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today wrote to Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President-elect Trump’s intended nominee to be the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, urging him to correct many of the current administration’s damaging protocols at the EPA. Rounds is a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee and Chairman of the EPW Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight, which has oversight of the EPA.

In the 114th Congress, both the EPW Committee and Rounds’ subcommittee have uncovered troubling practices by the EPA, including failing to take state and local concerns into consideration when making decisions, skewing facts to support its agenda and circumventing Congress to impose burdensome, costly regulations on the American people. 

“I am hopeful the incoming administration will takes steps to improve the federal regulatory process to make certain federal regulations are promulgated in a transparent and open manner, underpinned by the best scientific evidence available, and with adequate public participation,” wrote Rounds. “I am concerned that  [the] flaws in the current administration’s EPA regulatory process have led to overly-burdensome EPA regulations that are based on incorrect assumptions and do not adequately realize the impacts these regulations have on state and local governments, and American businesses and taxpayers.”

Full text of the letter is below: 

Dear Attorney General Pruitt –

I would like to extend my congratulations to you on your nomination to serve as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). I commend you for the work you have done as Oklahoma Attorney General to reinforce states’ rights and reign in an overly-expansive EPA, and I am encouraged that your background working in state government will allow us to show renewed focus on the importance of state and local government experience and input in the EPA regulatory process. I look forward to working with you and supporting you throughout the confirmation process.‎ 

I am hopeful the incoming administration will takes steps to improve the federal regulatory process to make certain federal regulations are promulgated in a transparent and open manner, underpinned by the best scientific evidence available, and with adequate public participation. 

In the 114th Congress, I served as Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management, and Regulatory Oversight. One of my main goals as chairman has been to conduct a thorough and systematic review of the regulatory process focusing on the impacts of EPA regulations on citizens and businesses, as well as solutions to these problems. 

To that end, I would like to share with you some of the lessons we have learned on the subcommittee throughout our oversight of the current administration in the 114th Congress.  I would be interested in your thoughts on these issues and am looking forward to the opportunity to discuss them with you in person.

·         Under the current administration, the EPA’s process for considering scientific information is flawed and unbalanced. There is a lack of balanced expertise, geographic diversity, and state, local and tribal representation on EPA advisory panels such as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the Science Advisory Board (SAB). There has also been a lack of member turnover, meaningful public participation and transparency on these advisory panels.   

·         The EPA’s regulatory approach is inefficient and disregards small businesses. The EPA has exploited ambiguities in the Regulatory Flexibility Act to impose overly burdensome regulations on American small businesses with little regard to the real-world consequences of the regulations. 

·         For the past eight years, the EPA has not upheld the principle of cooperative federalism and regularly violates the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by imposing costly unfunded mandates on state, local and tribal governments without adequately taking into consideration the impact these regulations have on smaller governmental entities.  Further, the EPA circumvents consultation requirements and does not adequately consider public comments that aim to explain how EPA regulations will impact state and local governments and American taxpayers. 

·         The EPA does not conduct a robust economic analysis of the impact of regulations, particularly the effects of regulation on employment; nor does the agency take into consideration the cumulative impacts of multiple layers of regulations that are imposed on states, American citizens and businesses.

I am concerned that these flaws in the current administration’s EPA regulatory process have led to overly-burdensome EPA regulations that are based on incorrect assumptions and do not adequately realize the impacts these regulations have on state and local governments, and American businesses and taxpayers. As we enter the 115th Congress and welcome a new administration, it is my hope that regulatory reform will be a cornerstone of the legislative agenda moving forward.

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to discussing these issues with you. 

Sincerely, 

###