As a small businessman, I have the ability to generally pick what legal products I want to sell, and how I want to sell them.

But today, yet another group of big government legislators think they know better than I do about how I should conduct my business, and want to tell me that based on their whim, they want to demand by the force of law that I accept cash.

In part…

House Bill 1048

An Act to require that cash be accepted for certain transactions.

Sponsors:   Representatives Sjaarda (prime), Ismay, Jensen (Phil), and Mulally and Senators Peterson (Sue) (prime) and Perry

Section 1. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 37-24:

Except as provided in section 2 of this Act, aperson must accept cash as a form of payment for any goods or services sold to a consumer if:

(1) The sale and payment for the goods or services occurs in person;

(2) The person selling the goods or services, or an individual employed by the person selling the goods or services, is physically present at the time of the sale to accept a cash payment; and

(3) The purchaser of the goods or services chooses to pay the purchase price using cash.

For purposes of this section, “cash” means physical coin, currency, or note that is designed as legal tender by federal law.

Read that all here.

So, even though I might have a my own business where I want to have an electronic record of my sales, and I choose to conduct my business through electronic transactions, the state is telling me I now have to have a cash box, go to the bank to load up on cash to be able to make change, and do cash deposits?  Some businesses would have to come up with a safe, as well.  Oh! And what about larger bills, which has small businesses having to identify counterfeit bills and train employees to do the same?

Thanks, anti-business legislators, for introducing anti-business legislation that NO ONE has asked for.

I would point out that, quoting the US Currency Education Program, “there is no federal law that requires a private business, person, or organization to accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services. While private businesses are free to develop their own policies, there may be state or local laws that specify a requirement to accept cash within certain jurisdictions.”

Key point – “private businesses are free to develop their own policies.”  Yet we have a group of big government legislators who want to go BEYOND what the federal government requires.

Remember that South Dakota is Open for Business. That is, at least until the South Dakota Legislature meets.

This afternoon the Brookings School District posted their agenda for the Monday School Board meeting, which includes this item on the agenda indicating they will be voting on resolution to register their objection to “the proposed school voucher program.”

While the School Board has not indicated the language of their resolution at this time, we might have an indication as to the form the resolution will take, as the Associated School Boards of South Dakota organization has provided sample language for their member school boards to consider:

The Brookings School Board is scheduled to meet on Monday at 5:15pm at Dakota Prairie Elementary School in Brookings.

On their website today, the national Home School Legal Defense Association has issued a legislative action center alert to it’s membership in opposition to South Dakota’s House Bill 1020, noting their desire to “Keep Alternative Instruction Free.”

Noting their position, the organization stands in opposition to the ESA/Voucher bill because:

WHAT’S HSLDA’S POSITION ON H.B. 1020?

HSLDA opposes H.B. 1020 for the following reasons.

First, we oppose the idea that alternative instruction is a qualifying school for purposes of government funding. If the South Dakota legislature wanted to create an ESA, they can (and should) do so in a way that creates a separate compulsory attendance category and does not overlap with the existing alternative instruction law. Several states, including Arizona, West Virginia, and Florida, have already done this. South Dakota can and should follow suit.

Second, H.B. 1020 defines curriculum as “a course of study … approved by the Department of Education.” This represents an increase in government control over education and a step-backward for Alternative Instruction. It is a strong example that what the government funds, the government regulates in some form. This is represents a potential loss of freedom for alternative instruction students and is a significant concern.

Third, we strongly oppose the idea that alternative instruction should be included in the definition of a microschool. We believe there is a fundamental difference between a school that requires enrollment and tuition and must register with the South Dakota secretary of state and parents who teach their children at home under alternative instruction. H.B. 1020’s definition removes what is at the heart of alternative instruction.

Read the entire page here.

The pre-filed measure will be scheduled for heading early on in the legislative session.

Education Savings Accounts: Empowering Parents, Enhancing Education
By: Dr. Joseph Graves 
January 10, 2024  

In her 2024 Budget Address, Governor Noem announced an educational innovation for the parents and students of South Dakota: Educational Savings Accounts (ESAs). She explained that this investment would pay for a portion of private school tuition or curriculum for alternative education for South Dakota kids. And this endeavor has my full support.

Now, I spent 38 years, well over half my life, working in public schools. I love what they do for the children of our state and nation. And South Dakota has some excellent public schools. All four of my children graduated from the Mitchell School District after receiving an education that allowed them to succeed anywhere. Which they promptly did.

So, if all that is true, why am I supporting the ESA bill? After all, some public-school advocates have boisterously voiced their objection to this concept.

First, we must empower families in their decision-making on the education of their children. For ages, educators have known that the number one factor in a child’s academic success is the active involvement of their parents. That needs to begin with the selection of their preferred school option. For a myriad of reasons, some parents view the default option, public school, as less than appealing. They want a different opportunity for their child, and they should have options.

Second, such school options should be available to all parents, regardless of ability to pay. If your immediate response is that such options already exist – private schools and homeschooling – you are correct. But they only exist for some parents: parents who have enough money to pay private school tuition or have one parent leave the workforce in order to teach at the family homeschool. Some parents don’t have that ability. They struggle to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. Tuition will put their family budget in the red, as will going from two breadwinners to one. Education can be expensive, but that shouldn’t mean that those without should be left with just one option.

Third, South Dakota has educational deserts, and we need to fix that. Nobody likes to talk about it, but we have parts of our state where literally 0% of students read at grade level. Most people don’t concern themselves with that reality because it doesn’t affect their children. But that is the sort of neglect no society should tolerate. ESAs will make academic achievement possible by providing more opportunities for their students. 

Finally, we need to provide greater competition within the educational marketplace. In every field of human endeavor, performance improves with greater levels of competition. In this way, ESAs will benefit public schools, as well. Let’s unleash that powerful force for improvement on all schools.

The program is straightforward. Parents of eligible students who apply would receive access to an ESA, amounting to 40% of the allocation provided to public schools for each of their students, or about $3,000. Parents could use the funds to pay tuition for private schools, microschools (programs in which homeschooled students gather for instruction), virtual school courses, and various materials for alternative instruction. They could also use the funds to purchase curriculum, instructional materials, and some limited technology to support their education. 

The education status quo is simply not good enough. Improving it requires something new. Decades of new educational programs and increased spending have not done the trick, unless the trick is increasing taxes and ballooning federal budgets. On behalf of children and parents who currently feel left without viable options, I absolutely support ESAs.

Dr. Joseph Graves is the Cabinet Secretary for the South Dakota Department of Education.

###

You can almost visualize a cartoon villain hopping mad and declaring “Curses! Foiled Again!”

Because today, Nichole Brathwait from Lawrence County just got shut down hard in her attempt to force Lawrence County to hand-count ballots.  Specifically, for the layperson, she filed a lawsuit against the Lawrence County Commission demanding that they accept a hand-counting ballot petition after they said “no thank you, and declared the petition improper.”  And the court did not agree with her. At all.

For background…

Nichole Braithwait, who introduced and circulated the Lawrence County hand-counting petition, argues that county commissioners do not have the authority to reject a properly filed petition with enough signatures to support a public vote. The authority to determine a petition’s legality lies with the courts and not commissioners, her lawsuit says.

Braithwait is associated with South Dakota Canvassing, the group that helped coordinate the statewide petition effort seeking to require hand-counting at the county level.

“I am convinced that we are on the right side of this issue and eventually the people will realize that our elections are run by corporations where the people have no oversight,” Braithwait said in an emailed statement, adding that “our elections are selections.”

and..

The petitioners’ struggle to retain a lawyer, Frankenstein said, reflects poorly on the claims in the lawsuits. Attorneys generally avoid cases with little to no chance of success, she said.

Frankenstein described the lawsuits as “frivolous” actions that cost counties money for elected officials “just doing what they swore an oath to do,” which is conduct elections according to local, state and federal laws.

Read it here at South Dakota Searchlight.

“our elections are run by corporations.” That gives you a good idea of what we’re dealing with.

Because of this action against the county, Lawrence County Commissioners had to seek legal counsel to respond to the hand-counting petition. And via Sara Frankenstein at Gunderson Palmer, they did so:

Respondents’ Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Pat Powers on Scribd

When you have a 48 page response with a table of contents, one can assume they have a lot of ammunition to bring to the fight.

That was in October. And today, the circuit court made their decision.  Not only did they find for the County, they dismissed Braithwait’s action with prejudice.

Order on Petitioner’s Affidavit and Application for Writ of Mandamus by Pat Powers on Scribd

Arguably, this sets a precedent that strengthens the arguments of counties when faced with the attempts by election conspiracists to demand that they not use machines or assistive technologies as part of the election process.

I think you can anticipate that the respondent’s brief and this decision will be circulated among all of South Dakota’s county officials.

And will certainly provide more than adequate ammunition to stave off those who seek to undermine confidence in our state’s election process.

Attorney General Jackley Announces Former DOC Employee Sentenced For Prison-Related Crimes

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that a former Department of Corrections employee has been sentenced after earlier pleading guilty to crimes involving a prison inmate.

Madyson Bixby of Sioux Falls, 22, was sentenced Tuesday in Minnehaha County Circuit Court after pleading guilty to one felony count of Compounding a Felony and one felony count of Possession of an Unauthorized Article (a cellphone with intent to deliver to an inmate). She was sentenced to two years in prison, both suspended, on each count, and 48 months of probation. Prosecutors had asked for four years in the state prison.

“This defendant violated the trust of the Department of Corrections and put others at risk,” said Attorney General Jackley. “Cases like this are why I have prioritized improving corrections, and I look forward to working with our Legislature to improve corrections and strengthen our laws to hold offenders more accountable.”

The charges were connected to an investigation involving an inmate conspiring with another person to burn someone else’s car on Jan. 4 2024 in Sioux Falls. The defendant also brought a cellphone into the prison and delivered it to the inmate.

As part of his 2025 legislative priorities, Attorney General Jackley is proposing to revise provisions related to the delivery, possession with intent to deliver, and possession of unauthorized articles by inmates in a state correctional facility.  “The Attorney General’s legislation seeks to protect our correctional officers from devices being used to put our officers and other inmates in danger,” said Attorney General Jackley.

This case was investigated by the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) and the South Dakota Department of Corrections Special Investigations Unit. The case was prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office.

-30-

From my mailbox:

AFP-SD Applauds Introduction of Education Savings Account Bill

Pierre, SD – Americans for Prosperity-South Dakota (AFP-SD) announced its support for H.B.1020, Establish Education Savings Accounts, introduced by Sen. Mehlhaff and Rep. Odenbach. This bill will expand educational opportunities for all students and empower parents to choose what educational options best fit their child’s needs.

The grassroots organization will run a digital ad campaign thanking these legislators and will support this bill across the finish line so that every child has access to the educational opportunities they deserve.

Herman Otten has apparently decided that Pierre is not where he wants to be in January & February, and has sent a letter to the Governor informing her that she (or her successor) will have an appointment to make to the District 6 House of Representatives:

“It has been an honor and privilege to be a voice for the citizens of district six for the past 12 years,” Otten wrote, in the letter obtained by The Dakota Scout.

and..

Otten, 58, cited “personal and family reasons” as the reason he would be declining his two-year term in the South Dakota State House. Prior to deciding to run for the House in 2024, he had intended to retire from the Legislature all together.

Read the entire story here.

As opposed to the drama coming out of Minnehaha County last night, the Lincoln County GOP also had their elections last evening. This time starting at 6:30 and being done a little after 7.

The new leadership team is:

 

The state’s major homeschooling group is announcing up front that they are opposed to the current proposal for government funding for alternative instruction, and the organization has hired lobbyists to enforce that point with State Representatives and Senators.

The Families for Alternative Instruction Rights is South Dakota’s only statewide homeschooling organization, and has been in operation for the last 6-7 years to represent homeschooling rights and resources in South Dakota. It is led by several familiar names, including board member and State Senator Sue Peterson.  As noted on their website “FAIRSD is dedicated to advancing, protecting and securing Alternative Instruction rights for families in South Dakota. ”

In a letter sent to legislators this last week, the group is emphasizing that at this time they are largely opposing the measure for ESAs’/Vouchers as currently written, and offers the following in rebuttal to the ESA/Voucher program being proposed:

Many assume that FAIRSD would lobby in favor of ESAs or vouchers. That is not the case.  FAIRSD stands adamantly opposed to any legislation which would seek to take away or change the traditional option for Alternative Instruction. It is the desire of many homeschool parents that it remains free and independent from any government funding or interference. We are hopeful that any proposed bills create a separate legal category for ESAs or vouchers. FAIRSD believes parents have the right to choose the best education option for each of their children, and to choose what, how, where, and when their children learn in a homeschool setting. Currently, there are three legal options in SD for parents to choose to educate their children: public, private, or alternative instruction. Any school choice bill that creates education savings accounts or vouchers should create a fourth legal option for parents to choose that is separate and distinct from Alternative Instruction.

The group has announced that they are “partnering with Rob Skjonsberg and Jason Glodt of 605 Strategies to represent SD homeschool families as our lobbyists at the capitol this session.”

More to come on this, as it will be the hottest topic that will come up at this years’ legislative session.