Supporting the Need for a New Prison in South Dakota
By Casey Murschel, Sioux Falls

The South Dakota Legislature is considering House Bill 1025, a crucial step in transferring funds to help build a much-needed new prison. This project is essential for our state’s future, addressing key issues such as rehabilitation, public safety, and fiscal responsibility.

Rehabilitation and Education

A new prison will provide significantly better opportunities for rehabilitation and education. Currently, the men’s prison is operating at 182% of capacity, making it incredibly difficult to run effective education, rehabilitation, and treatment programs. Overcrowding also poses significant safety risks for both staff and inmates.

The new prison will be designed with programming and treatment options in mind, ensuring that inmates have access to substance abuse treatment, mental health support, and vocational training. The new women’s prison is being built to provide a therapeutic community where substance abuse treatment and other rehabilitative services can be effectively administered. We can replicate this model in the men’s prison, but we are currently severely limited by space constraints. A properly designed facility will enable better rehabilitation outcomes, reducing recidivism and preparing inmates for successful reintegration into society with valuable skills and employment opportunities.

A Thorough, Three-Year Process

The decision to build a new prison is not rushed—it has been in the works since 2022, with summer studies, task forces, and at least seven legislative reviews. Expert consultants have recommended constructing a new men’s prison expandable to 1,516 beds on 160 acres near Sioux Falls. While no community is eager to host a prison, this location aligns with best practices seen nationwide. Furthermore, this initiative is strongly supported by police chiefs, sheriffs’, and state’s attorney organizations, recognizing the necessity for a modern, efficient facility.

The Fiscally Responsible Choice

South Dakota has an opportunity to build this prison at a guaranteed price of $825 million, but this offer expires on March 31, 2025. Delaying the project could lead to an additional $40 million or more in costs. Constructing a modern, secure facility made of steel and concrete is expensive but not extravagant—it is a responsible investment in public safety and state infrastructure. Any change in location would only drive up costs and disrupt communities further.

Additionally, South Dakota is using the Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) model, the same approach successfully used for other state building projects over the past 10 years. There is a common misunderstanding of this process. Under the CMAR model, the construction manager solicits multiple bids on various components of the project, including precast, plumbing, electrical, security, and other critical elements. They then compile the best subcontractors offering the greatest value for the project. This process ensures that the state is protected from cost overruns, as the construction manager guarantees a final price, providing financial predictability and accountability.

South Dakota has a long history of fiscal responsibility, with balanced budgets, a strong state retirement system, and low taxes. Approving House Bill 1025 ensures we replace a 100-year-old facility with a modern, 100-year solution, securing safety and efficiency for generations to come. The 100th session of the Legislature has the chance to make the right decision—let’s move forward with this essential project.

—

Casey Murschel is a former Republican state legislator, Sioux Falls city council member, and in her younger years was a probation officer for the UJS Second Circuit.

Elections are over for the South Dakota Republican Party, and the new leadership for 2025-2026 is finalized.

Here’s what it looks like for the South Dakota Republican Party:

• Jim Eschenbaum, Chairman
• Janet Jensen, Vice-Chair
• Tina Mullally, Treasurer
• Starla Russell, Secretary

Well, Starla will do a nice job.

*Update*

Dakota Scout hung around long enough to pick up the people who were elected to the executive board:

Rounding out the regional advisory board for the party was: Tom Pischke in District 1, Ben Krohmer in District 2, Doug Post in District 3, Rich Hilgemann in District 4, Tom Bruner in District 5, and Ezra Hays in District 6.

Read that here.

Show of hands for those who are all excited now to donate money to the Republican Party?

My thoughts exactly.

Hot off my texts from party insiders – on ballot 2 at the Central Committee meeting, Ezra Hayes received 94 votes, and anti-pipeline activist Jim Eschenbaum received 103, making him the new chair of the SDGOP.

We’ll see how long this lasts. The job is a lot more than claiming you hate pipelines.

Next up will be a Vice-chair race between anti-pipeliner Sara Steever and Janet Jensen, infamous State Rep Phil Jensen’s wife.

(His first action as chair is to allow the Meade County chair to continue to running the elections. Way to take command, Mr. Chairman!)

Slightly good news on the GOP Chair race, Qualm was dropped on the first SDGOP Chair ballot.

Eschenbaum 94. Hayes 54. Qualm 49. Run off between Eschenbaum & Hayes. Needed 100 to win.

Round 2 is in process…

From the Central Committee meeting, it sounds as if the SDGOP is in the process of candidate nominations at the moment, and trying to figure out how they will vote for chair, so it will be a bit before we have results.

But, I did have an insider send me a resolution one group has on all the tables and will be pushing today:

Because the SDGOP that many of the people there want it to be is not a party of electing candidates, but one of standing on a soapbox.

Unfortunately, there’s too many of them who just don’t get what the purpose of a political party is.  It’s not to pass toothless resolutions that no one gives a flying f*rt about.

I have the feeling it’s going to be a painful couple of years.

Unfortunate ordering in the twitter feed, perhaps?

House Bill 1071 keeps the focus on patient-centered care
by Dr. Curtis Liedtke, DO Rapid City, South Dakota

It is no secret our state is facing a healthcare workforce shortage at all levels. To meet the needs of patients, we must have all available healthcare workers providing the care they are trained, educated, and qualified to provide to the fullest extent of that training and education. Allowing each healthcare provider to provide the care they are trained to deliver, without unnecessary regulation or red tape barriers, uses the limited workforce resources of our healthcare system most efficiently.

Physician assistants are advanced practice professionals like nurse practitioners, certified registered nurse anesthetists and certified professional midwives. Physician assistants are masters prepared providers. They complete their education at an accredited physician assistant program – one of which is at the University of South Dakota – which includes 1,200 hours of didactic classroom training and 2,000 hours of hands-on clinical experience. Physician assistants pass a national certification examination to become licensed and recertify their education on an ongoing basis.

Physician assistants are the only advanced practice providers still required to have a written supervision agreement with a physician before they can provide the care they are educated and competent to provide. This piece of paper does not require in-person, hands-on supervision by the physician. This piece of paper does not require the physician to be involved in the direct care of a patient. In fact, many physician assistants provide quality healthcare without having a physician in the same facility, the same city or even the same state.

A written supervision agreement does not translate to better healthcare outcomes, increased access to care or reduced healthcare costs. Instead, the supervision agreement causes barriers to licensure and employment for physician assistants and creates challenges for communities and facilities by limiting flexibility in setting up the healthcare team needed to meet patient needs in communities across our state.

HB 1071 allows a physician assistant to practice without a written supervision agreement like other advanced practice professionals in South Dakota. The bill also puts the scope of practice for physician assistants into statute so their role and responsibilities on the healthcare team are transparent to the patient and to the members of the healthcare team. House Bill 1071 specifically requires physician assistants to collaborate with all members of the healthcare team as the standard of care, reflecting how physician assistants practice today as part of our healthcare teams.

As a physician with 45 years of experience training and working with PAs, I know firsthand that a patient-centered healthcare team allows professionals from various disciplines to work collaboratively, within their unique roles (or “lanes”), to deliver coordinated, high-value, and patient-centered healthcare consistent with each professions training, education, and qualifications. This healthcare team model allows us to maximize the limited workforce resources of our healthcare system most efficiently.

House Bill 1071 allows physician assistants to do what they are educated and competent to do “in their lane” as part of the healthcare team. House Bill 1071 does not widen the lane on the healthcare highway for physician assistants– it establishes that lane and removes unnecessary red tape. Our healthcare workforce needs are growing. House Bill 1071 helps address that need and keeps the focus on patient-centered care.

From Facebook, South Dakota Republican Party Executive Director Reggie Rhoden is announcing tonight that he is leaving his position as ED for the SDGOP. In part…

I’ve always been intentional about avoiding direct employment under my father. I don’t care at all for the word ‘nepotism’. That’s why I’ve always been diligent to earn my own way, build my own relationships, and stand on my own merit. Titles and opportunities should be based on hard work and ability, not last names. But with my own father becoming the 34th Governor of South Dakota in the middle of the term, I find myself in a rather unprecedented position.

The SDGOP will elect a new Chairman this Saturday. Typically, someone in my position would work closely with the Chair and Governor to help shape that decision. However, with the Governor being my own father, I believe it would resemble a conflict of interest for me to take on that role. It also wouldn’t be fair to the party that has been so good to me and my family for so many years.

This is why I wanted to use this post to announce that I’ll be stepping down from my position as Executive Director of the South Dakota Republican party. While I’ve made the decision to no longer fill the job, I do intend to finish it. Regardless of who the next Chairman is, I will remain so long as it takes to ensure the party undergoes a smooth and transparent transition. I have been diligent not to show favoritism or public support for any Chairman candidate, and hope to serve as an example for future politicians in positions like mine.

I’ve greatly enjoyed my time as ED, and I’ll remember it as a highlight, but equally optimistically, I’m looking forward to what the future has to offer. Thank you to all of you who have donated to the party, volunteered at events, served on your local GOP, or just passed on a kind word about us. A kind word has a lot of potential. Thank you, Chairman Wiik for allowing me this opportunity to serve the SDGOP alongside you for the past year. Thank you Vice-Chair Fitzgerald for everything you’ve done and the hours of labor you put in for the party and for our family. Treasurer Koenecke, for your sound advice and wealth of knowledge. Secretary Oakes, for your comradery and compassion during the difficult times.

It’s been an honor to serve the South Dakota Republican Party.

Reggie, thank you for your time and effort for the South Dakota Republican Party.

From the Wall Street Journal, former SDGOP Executive Director Madison Sheahan is reported to be headed to a senior role in ICE:

The acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Caleb Vitello, was removed from his post, administration officials and other people familiar with the matter said, amid frustration in the Trump administration that deportations haven’t accelerated faster.

The administration is shaking up the leadership at ICE and is soon expected to announce a new acting director, one of the administration officials said.

and…

Officials are expected to hire Madison Sheahan, the Louisiana Secretary for Wildlife and Fisheries, in a senior role at ICE, people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear who the next director of the agency would be. A spokeswoman for Sheahan declined to comment.

Read the entire story here.

In case you haven’t seen the latest stupid idea coming out of Pierre..

As noted in the Dakota Scout in an article posted a few minutes ago:

Dell Rapids Republican Sen. Tom Pischke thinks their money should stay in federal races. Federal candidates have a broader base to raise money, giving them a fundraising advantage.

and..

While he also supported the measure, Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre, questioned whether the bill would affect the state Republican and Democratic parties. Both receive funding from their national parties. Pischke said he didn’t think it did, but he wasn’t sure.

Read that here.

When asked if it would affect the state’s political parties, Tom’s response was literally  uuuuhhhhh… I dunno.  I’m guessing he didn’t bother to read his bill?  Because a lot of this is basic campaign finance.

The bill proposes that committees organized under 12-27 may not accept federal contributions as defined in 52 U.S.C. § 30101.   12-27 is the entire campaign finance chapter, which includes PAC’s, legislative candidates, political parties, etc.  The Federal code also includes the local chapters of national political parties (like SDGOP…SDDP)

This bill seems to be poorly written (of course, because it’s a stupid Tom Pischke idea), but if it’s being applied to candidate committees on this basis, it’s applying to political parties.

Guess what? Political parties operate with both State and Federal Accounts.  They do this because some expenses are federal, and some are state. Some are mixed.  Look at the FEC filing I just posted, and go page 12.   In effect Tom’s idiotic bill would ban the state Republican and Democrat parties from moving money between their state and federal accounts to pay bills.

And it doesn’t stop there. Have you ever heard of a joint fundraising committee as governed by the FEC?  South Dakota has them and uses them with the State Republican Party and both state and federal officeholders… and I would almost guarantee this measure would cause problems with how funds are allocated. And it would be useless, since Tom’s bill would prevent the funds raised with a nationally filed committee from being used via the state account.

Oh! Don’t forget this wouldn’t just affect Dusty Johnson or Mike Rounds if they ran for State Office.  It affects legislative candidates just like this poor sap:

Unlike Tom Pischke of 2025 who says “In essence, it’s my opinion money raised at the federal level should be spent on federal races, and money raised in the state should be spent on state races,” The Tom Pischke of 2022 was happy to take Federal PAC money. But if his legislation moves forward, new Tom would be barred from taking the dirty tainted federal money that old Tom happily accepted from National Shooting Sports group.

(I’m adding this, as I was noting it to a legislator – this part is also big)  It doesn’t just stop there. It also prevents national fundraising platforms from being used. For example, if someone wants to donate to a campaign through ACTBlue (dems) or Winred (GOP), the entity that takes that money is a federal FEC filing entity. They would normally cut a check from there to the legislative recipient.  SB201 would ban that money being transferred to the South Dakota legislative candidate, because SB201 shuts down those transfers.

To summarize, If Tom’s bill would pass, he’s going to shut down both political parties (at least until someone sues), and ban legislators like himself from accepting donations from federally filed PACs.

The next time Tom Pischke tries to bring legislation, he might bother trying to actually read what the bill is going to do first.