Noncitizens Removed from South Dakota Voter Roll 

 PIERRE, S.D. – Today, 273 noncitizens are being removed from the South Dakota voter roll. The removal is being executed by the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office (SOS). This discovery was part of a review to ensure the integrity of South Dakota’s elections and safeguard against improper voter registration. 

The South Dakota Department of Public Safety (DPS) discovered the need for this correction and worked with the South Dakota Bureau of Information and Telecommunications to implement a fix and ensure election integrity. 

“Ensuring the integrity of our elections is our highest priority,” said South Dakota Secretary of State Monae Johnson. “We are proud of the thorough work done to safeguard South Dakota’s voter rolls. We worked closely with DPS to resolve this issue, and we’re constantly working to make sure that only eligible citizens are participating in our elections.” 

There are 682,031 total registered voters in South Dakota, and 617,396 are considered active voters by the SOS. 

### 

 

Interesting data being released in a report by the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisors. Especially when it comes to South Dakota’s farm economy:

Furthermore, the experts said a few indicators in the recent state report should be watched closely, as they carry potential warning signs for the future.

Chief among those concerning indicators:

• • A somewhat stark drop in overall farm income since 2022 that can cause negative ripple effects across the entire state economy.
  • Lower-than-expected state sales tax collections in June and July, which could portend a crisis if that trend continues – especially if voters decide in November to end the sales tax on consumable goods.

Read that story here.

With far right groups joining the far left in opposing pipelines to support ethanol production in South Dakota, if RL21 – The Landowner Bill of Rights – doesn’t pass in November, and the next legislative session continues to attack the ethanol industry in the state, it could contribute greatly to an already declining trend in farm income in South Dakota.

Imagine ethanol production shifting out of state because they can’t sell what they make in South Dakota. Imagine the billion dollar jet-fuel production plant not being built. And imagine all the corn they won’t be buying in the state.  It does not take a wild imagination to believe in the market forces of supply and demand and how it affects what they pay.

If the demand isn’t there, it’s South Dakota’s ag producers who will feel the pain.

Good gosh. First we have to worry about Watertown being in a kill zone, the state being overrun by meth and fentanyl, and now we have to worry about being eaten by sharks:

Colleen Monfore, 68, from South Dakota, USA, was enjoying a diving trip with six friends around the Pulau Reong island off the coast of the country’s Southwest Maluku Regency when tragedy struck.

and..

The fisherman described the disturbing moment he found a body. He said: “The shark was caught but it was not in normal health. I thought it had swallowed plastic or a fishing net. It was cut open to find the problem and inside there were the remains of a woman.”

Read that story here.

The leaders of the South Dakota State Legislature have issued a letter today to Initiated Measure 28 sponsor Rick Weiland about mischaracterizations he’s making to the media about the South Dakota Legislative Research Council supposedly approving language he used in the measure – when it couldn’t be farther from fact. In a letter from Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck and Speaker of the House Hugh Bartels:

Letter to Weiland Re IM 28 by Pat Powers on Scribd

In several interactions with the media and public on IM 28, you have attributed your proposed language to being based on LRC recommendations contained in the LRC’s review from December 2, 2022. Most recently, you stated that the “human consumption” language came “on advice from the South Dakota Legislative Research Council.” You have also been quoted in another article stating that same thing.

and..

The second reason we are asking you to refrain from stating that the LRC advised you to use the phrase “anything sold for human consumption” is because the LRC did not recommend using that language. In fact, the LRC recommended something entirely different than the language you are sponsoring and that will be on the November ballot.

Not a lot of ambiguity there.

Read the entire letter to make a call for yourself as to the degree of untruth and misinformation contained in the IM28 Ballot Measure advertising.

The South Dakota Municipal Association’s latest monthly newsletter has the group coming out hard against Initiated Measure 28, the ballot measure that’s going to stick up with an income tax if it passes, because there’s no other way to make up the massive amount of revenue that will be lost.

Sara Rankin, the Executive Director of the Municipal League, penned this editorial explaining the impact the passage of this ballot measure would have on our communities:

As South Dakotans head to the polls next month, a critical ballot measure, IM-28, promises to reshape our state’s tax landscape. While its proponents argue it will simplify tax collection and provide relief for consumers, the hidden cost of this measure is a potential $51.5 million blow to municipalities across South Dakota.

IM-28 proposes to alter the current taxation framework by removing state level sales tax on II anything sold for human consumption. On the surface, this might seem like a win for consumers, however, this measure is in direct conflict with South Dakota Codified Law (SDCL) 10-52-2, which allows cities and towns to impose a sales tax of up to 2% on the same items taxed at the state level. If the state stops collecting tax on these items, municipalities would be forced to follow suit, effectively cutting off a crucial revenue stream.

The Attorney General 1s opinion on IM-28 underscores the gravity of this issue. According to the opinion, the measure “may affect the state’s obligations under the tobacco master settlement agreement and the streamlined sales tax agreement.“

Furthermore, the vague language of “human consumption” in IM-28 opens the door for broader implications. This terminology could lead to the repeal of sales tax on various everyday items beyond just food and beverages, including tobacco, candy, soda, and medicines.

Should IM-28 pass, municipalities stand to lose an estimated $51.5 million in revenue. This figure is not just a statistic but a reflection of the vital services and infrastructure that would be jeopardized. The financial shortfall could cripple efforts to fix streets, update aging infrastructure, and maintain city facilities such as libraries and swimming pools. Parks, which offer essential recreational spaces and community gathering spots, could face reductions in maintenance and programming.

IM-28 undermines the financial stability of local governments, placing an undue strain on municipal budgets and forcing cities to find alternative revenue sources or cut essential services. Such a scenario would likely lead to higher property taxes or other local fees, placing additional financial pressure on residents already grappling with economic challenges.

It is essential to recognize that while IM-28 may offer short-term relief for some, the long-term consequences for South Dakota’s municipalities are severe.

In making an informed decision about IM-28, South Dakotans must weigh the immediate benefits against the substantial costs. The health of our municipalities, the upkeep of our infrastructure, and the quality of our local services are all at stake. Before casting a vote, it is crucial to consider whether the suggested benefits of IM-28 outweigh the very real and potentially devastating impacts it could have on our local communities.

Sincerely, Sara Rankin
SDML Executive Director

And realistically, how can a city like Hot Springs or Spearfish lose between 20% to 60% of their annual budget, and still perform those tasks such as road maintenance, snow removal, or provide a police force?

You know the answer. They can’t.

Well intentioned or not, this measure might be the scariest thing on the ballot this halloween season.

Much like the RL21 anti-ethanol pipeline opponents, the Initiated Measure 29 opponents are on tv pushing a message that we’re all going to die if South Dakota votes to further legalize marijuana. …even though we’re all still here as the state, counties and municipalities has managed to do a pretty good job in putting the framework in place and regulating medical cannabis use.

Here’s their doomer & gloomer for the boomer commercial against 29:

You can all go duck & cover now.

I had this sent over to me by a reader. And people wonder why I think the anti-ethanol people are a pack of crackpots?  As they post a billboard claiming “Watertown: YOU are in the KILL ZONE!”

Seriously? Why don’t they claim that it may cause a pack of wild dingoes to steal people’s babies? Because it makes as much sense. It’s like Trent Loos claiming that 100 people are killed every year by CO2 canisters as part of this debate.

Well, 500 people are killed annually by hippopotamuses. But that doesn’t stop us from finding them irresistible.

Deadlier than alleged C02 accidents they claim, but we just can’t get enough.

But getting back to the point – the billboard is just ridiculous. And an example why we can’t take these clowns seriously about anything. (But that baby hippo is a cute little spud).

*UPDATE*

I forgot to mention that the billboard does not seem to have a disclaimer, in violation of South Dakota law.

Just got ahold of this commercial, which I first noticed on TV this last weekend. Probably one of the better ads running this cycle. This one being ran by an independent political action committee in favor of amendment H:

This ad is being ran by the Unite America PAC

From the courtroom, Senator Randy Deibert apparently gets to relive his primary election again and again as his opponent keeps filing goofy election truther lawsuits.

Crowley v Deibert DISMISSED by Pat Powers on Scribd

You know what you’re in for when the first line in the decision from the court reads “This case is the fourth of five filed by Kate Crowley Johnson, in relation to her unsuccessful candidacy in the June 4, 2024, Republican Party primary for South Dakota Senate District 31. All five cases are premised, at least in part, on Crowley Johnson’s concerns with the automatic tabulating systems used by Lawrence County during the primary election..”

The court decision predictably closes on a note of “the only allegations Crowley Johnson has raised which could be construed as voting irregularities are observations that she received similar support across multiple precincts”   Which goes to show you that there’s always a few people who make bad decisions in every precinct.. but that does not mean there is a conspiracy.

…why am I moving to D31, again..? For my wife’s employment. Yes, that’s it. Definitely not for the political scene.

Rick Weiland seems a bit befuddled why so many groups are against his poorly written legislation that will cause property taxes to skyrocket, and trigger the state to create an income tax:

Venhuizen said nurses, labor unions, schools and others have united to oppose IM 28 because the state will need to cut its budget if IM 28 passes. He said IM 28 is poorly written because it doesn’t include a plan to make-up the lost sales tax revenue.

“When Governor Noem proposed the sales tax cut for food, she had a plan to pay for it,” Venhuizen said. “The sponsors this year do not.”

and..

Weiland said he’s not sure why so many groups are against IM 28.

Read the entire story here.