(Since we’re going to start voting absentee by the end of the week, I wanted to pass on how we’re looking at the ballot measures, and to encourage your participation and your vote. And to provide input on viewpoints and information that you might consider as you think for yourself, and evaluate what you intend to do as you walk into the voting booth. – pp)

Initiated Measure 28 is a far too broadly written, over-reaching mess. Vote No on IM28

Title: An Initiated Measure Prohibiting Taxes on Anything Sold for Human Consumption.

Attorney General Explanation: Currently, the State collects tax on the sale or use of certain goods, including foods and drinks. Many municipalities also collect these taxes.

This initiated measure prohibits the State from collecting sales or use tax on anything sold for human consumption. The measure eliminates these sources of revenue for the State.

Human consumption is not defined by state law. However, its common definition includes more than foods and drinks.

The measure does not prohibit the collection of sales or use tax on alcoholic beverages or prepared food. Prepared food is defined by law to include food that is sold heated or with utensils.

The measure may affect the State’s obligations under the tobacco master settlement agreement and the streamlined sales tax agreement. The master settlement agreement resulted from multi-state lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers for the public health effects of smoking. South Dakota’s annual share of the master settlement agreement is approximately $20 million. The streamlined sales tax agreement is a multistate program designed to simplify the collection of sales and use tax for companies selling in multiple jurisdictions.

Judicial or legislative clarification of the measure will be necessary.

Fiscal Note: Beginning July 1, 2025, the State could see a reduction in sales tax revenues of $123.9 million annually from no longer taxing the sale of anything sold for human consumption, except alcoholic beverages and prepared food. Municipalities could continue to tax anything sold for human consumption.

Vote “Yes” to adopt the initiated measure.
Vote “No” to leave South Dakota law as it is

You don’t have to read much more than the Attorney General’s explanation to determine that Initiated Measure 28 is a poorly thought out mess. “The measure may affect the State’s obligations under the tobacco master settlement agreement and the streamlined sales tax agreement” is not a statement lightly made, as it would gut at a minimum $125 Million annually from the state budget, not to mention what it would do to counties and cities.

According to the CON written for the ballots by opponents to the measure,

IM-28 would lead to irresponsible funding cuts to essential government functions or new tax increases. It would eliminate sales taxes on MANY items other than food, cutting at least $176 million.

IM-28 would prohibit taxes on anything sold for human consumption, except alcohol and prepared food. This bad wording would eliminate taxes on tobacco (annual loss of $65 million), vaping products, CBD, toothpaste, aspirin, toilet paper, and many other products.

If IM-28 passes, it would have the absurd result where sales taxes would remain on a rotisserie chicken, but not a pack of cigarettes.

and..

The bad wording in IM-28 is setting us up for a state income tax, or it was drafted wrong. Either way, it’s bad for South Dakota.

IM-28 will cut at least $176 million each year and lead to significant cuts to education, healthcare, and state employees; or it sets us up for an income tax to fund needed services.

I’m not sure what more you need to say, other than it’s a hard NO on IM28.

(Since we’re going to start voting absentee by the end of the week, I wanted to pass on how we’re looking at the ballot measures, and to encourage your participation and your vote. And to provide input on viewpoints and information that you might consider as you think for yourself, and evaluate what you intend to do as you walk into the voting booth. – pp)

Constitutional Amendment H – SDWC says “is it fair to enjoy the meal, and stick someone else with the bill?” The argument for a YES vote on Amendment H.

Title: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Establishing Top-Two Primary Elections.

Attorney General Explanation: Currently, to appear on the general election ballot, major party candidates for the following offices must participate in a partisan primary election: Governor, State Legislature, U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, and elected county offices. Only members of the candidate’s party may vote for that candidate unless that party has opened the primary to voters not affiliated with the party.

Minor party candidates may be chosen by primary or party convention.

Unaffiliated candidates (independents) are only required to file nominating petitions to appear on the general election ballot.

For the listed offices, this amendment requires one primary election wherein all candidates run against each other in their respective races, including major and minor party and unaffiliated candidates. A candidate may list any party next to their name on the ballot regardless of party affiliation or registration. All voters may vote for any candidate. The two candidates receiving the most votes advance to the general election. If there is more than one candidate to be elected to an office, the number of candidates advancing to the general election is twice the number to be elected.

Primary elections may be held for other offices.

The amendment may be challenged on constitutional grounds.

Fiscal Note: Open primaries would require printing additional ballots at a cost of $0.47 per ballot. The additional cost statewide to counties would currently be approximately $23,667 for each primary election. The share of the total cost for each county will vary. There is no expected cost to state government.

Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.

I’m going to blame State Senator Michael Rohl for this, as he made an argument along these lines that I am very challenged by.  As Senator Rohl pointed out in a facebook back & forth on this topic, taxpayers all pay for elections, whether primary or general elections. And as a dyed in the wool conservative Republican, I can’t help but focus on that.

Look at an identical situation. Should those who do not have children in school be able to vote in a school election or serve on a school board? Grandparents? Childless couples? Singles? Or homeschoolers? The obvious answer of course is “yes, they are all taxpayers, and deserve representation and the same vote as others.”

If you’re asking that, you can’t help but ask “What about elections? Is it fair that taxpayers pay for an election that many can’t participate in?”

Should the public at large be excluded from a primary election that they have to pay for just on the basis of a political affiliation?  If we’re not going to exclude people because they are childless in school elections or homeschool, then how can we justify excluding people from elections that they pay for as a member of the public on the basis of political affiliation?  How can we exclude them because of one word on a voter registration?  I am, and always have been a Republican, and I actively participate in the process. But, I’m a bit of a contrarian. And I can’t help but ask whether it is time to address some ‘not always comfortable’ questions about the process?

If political parties want to fund their own primary elections, that ends the debate. Or, as many states – including North Dakota – have done, if the party would want to create an endorsement convention to gather together and endorse candidates on their own, that is another option and is perfectly fine.

But, to argue that the taxpayer-funded primary election, which is administered by public officials, should remain exclusionary to 153,000 South Dakotans – more than the 144,000 that are registered as Democrats – and tell them that you have to pay for the primary election, but aren’t able to fully participate,  ..well.. How do you make that argument with a straight face?

The political parties are private organizations. But elections are a very public process.

One of the rebuttals is that the political parties perform a vital vetting process for the public; that registered voters outside of the organizations are incapable of determining the best people to run. SDGOP Chair John Wiik, whom I greatly respect, writes against the measure, providing the Con to Amendment H on the ballot noting it may “well destroy the effectiveness of our system of government by allowing outsiders to participate in selecting candidates to run for office.”

Well, outside to who? Isn’t selecting candidates to run for office part of democracy?  The Constitution does not give any one group divine providence to pick the best candidates. That’s left up to the voters. If you’re claiming that people can’t pick the best candidates without someone else pre-picking for them, I don’t think that argument wins.

Another point of debate used against Amendment H is that it will mean that special interests will buy these new elections.  That would be an argument where the pot is calling the kettle black.  After a disastrous primary election which had the lowest turnout in history, and provided that in many cases, it was the special interests with deep pockets – who didn’t always follow the rules – that won a disproportionate number of elections, how did that serve as a tidal wall against special interests? It did not. At all.

I will probably not make people happy, but when has that ever been my concern?

If it comes down to fairness and the use of public funds for the benefit of all, if the vote was held today, I would say that I am going to vote YES on Amendment H.

(Since we’re going to start voting absentee by the end of the week, I wanted to pass on how we’re looking at the ballot measures, and to encourage your participation and your vote. And to provide input on viewpoints and information that you might consider as you think for yourself, and evaluate what you intend to do as you walk into the voting booth. – pp)

Constitutional Amendment G – SDWC asks, Have you ever been asked to pick the least worst of bad options?  That’s what the proponents and opponents of Amendment G provide us. And frankly, neither one of them should win.

Title: An Initiated Amendment Establishing a Right to Abortion in the State Constitution.

Attorney General Explanation: This initiated amendment establishes a constitutional right to an abortion and provides a legal framework for the regulation of abortion. This framework would override existing laws and regulations concerning abortion.

The amendment establishes that during the first trimester a pregnant woman’s decision to obtain an abortion may not be regulated nor may regulations be imposed on the carrying out of an abortion.

In the second trimester, the amendment allows the regulation of a pregnant woman’s abortion decision, and the regulation of carrying out an abortion. Any regulation of a pregnant woman’s abortion decision, or of an abortion, during the second trimester must be reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.

In the third trimester, the amendment allows the regulation or prohibition of abortion except in those cases where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman. Whether an abortion is necessary during the third trimester must be determined by the pregnant woman’s physician according to the physician’s medical judgment.

Judicial clarification of the amendment may be necessary. The Legislature cannot alter the provisions of a constitutional amendment.

Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.

A right to Abortion should not be enshrined in the State Constitution.  On that I think many of us can agree. This is one of those things that belongs in state law, to evolve and progress as science progresses, reflecting public opinion.

South Dakota is a conservative, and largely pro-life state. The flipside of that is that there are problems with South Dakota’s law being too extreme. No exception for rape. No exception for incest. And there are questions regarding the exceptions for the life of the mother.

The Pro-Amendment G ballot statement argues “Politicians in Pierre have decreed that South Dakota women and girls who are raped must carry to term, thrown miscarriage care into utter confusion, and limited available treatment of extreme pregnancy complications.”  Therein lies their strongest argument. With South Dakota being a conservative and limited government state, people aren’t looking for that intrusive of a government.

And, the opposition to abortion has been utterly inflexible regardless of how intrusive it is. When throwing it back to the states allowed a trigger law to take effect outlawing abortion almost entirely, they have not just stifled any discussion to find middle ground with exceptions, South Dakota Right to Life became active in the primary elections and actively shifted funds to expunge some legislators who would even consider it, despite legislator’s support of the group. Add to that an awful campaign effort by the Life Defense Fund, and you have a recipe for a campaign that’s in doubt where it’s going to go.

This inflexibility is what will ultimately drive this campaign.   Polling shows that the pro-Amendment G group has the upper hand. In polling that’s much less public, there has been word that the Amendment has broad support. Maybe even stronger than the public polling hints at.

In refusing to consider exceptions such as rape and incest in recent legislative sessions, I believe the opponents may have doomed themselves, despite the basic flaws of the effort in trying to place it in the constitution.

The SDWC recommendation in this measure is to vote your conscience on Amendment G when you get to the ballot booth.

Because you’re going to do so anyway.

Gov. Noem Urges AG Garland to Take Action on Tribal Public Safety

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem wrote to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland urging him to take action to address public safety on Native American reservations in South Dakota. You can find the full letter here.

“I write to follow up on your recent meeting with South Dakota’s nine Native American tribes to address public safety issues on tribal reservations,” wrote Governor Noem. “I have always believed that what you see with your eyes, you carry with your heart. I hope that this conversation convinced you of the urgency of solving the public safety issues that our tribal communities face.”

Attorney General Garland visited South Dakota in August and met with tribal leaders. At the time, Governor Noem responded to his visit on X (formerly known as Twitter), which you can find here and here.

Governor Noem called for the Attorney General to take the following actions to improve public safety on tribal reservations:

• Facilitate public and comprehensive single audits of all federal funds that have been given to South Dakota’s nine Native American tribes;
• Prioritize a Special Assistant United States Attorney initiative within the district of South Dakota to increase federal prosecutions throughout Indian Country;
• Step up efforts to help South Dakota tribes with available funding to assist with large-scale investigations specific to violent crime, gun violence, and organized crimes; and
• Join the State of South Dakota’s efforts to encourage law enforcement agreements in Indian Country.

In the letter, Governor Noem pointed to tangible actions that South Dakota has taken to provide public safety on reservation lands, including:

• Launching a first-in-the-nation tribal-focused law enforcement training, which recently graduated eight tribal law enforcement officers to keep our communities safe;
• Signing a Mutual Aid Agreement between the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe and the South Dakota Highway Patrol, and more tribes are in the final stages of signing one for their communities;
• Calling the first-ever joint legislative session to focus on addressing the crisis at the Southern Border, which is impacting all South Dakotans, especially our tribal reservations, and the legislature took immediate action;
• Calling the first-ever Tribal Public Safety Crisis Summit and bringing together law enforcement and leaders from the state, tribal, local, and federal levels;
• Deploying three detachments of South Dakota National Guard troops to Texas to help build the border wall, which will make us safer here at home (including on our tribal reservations); and
• Naming the first-ever Tribal Law Enforcement Liaison in the Noem Administration, who is successfully facilitating law enforcement memorandums of mutual aid with tribes throughout the state.

“I hope that after your meetings in South Dakota, you will take these necessary next steps to make our tribal communities safe. Conversations help us move towards solutions, but the time has long since passed to take action to fix the problem,” concluded Governor Noem.

###

Attorney General Jackley Announces DNA Discovery In 2022 South Dakota Rape Case

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that the South Dakota Forensic Lab has identified a DNA sample that was collected from an attempted rape in 2022 that occurred in South Dakota, and which has now allowed the case to be reopened.

“The DNA and the State Forensic Lab’s work is a significant break-through in solving a violent crime and protecting victims in South Dakota,” said Attorney General Jackley. “Our South Dakota Forensic Lab sets the national standard, is one of the only state labs with contracts to complete FBI evidence testing, and often handles the challenging cases from other states.”

South Dakota’s Forensic Lab, which is part of the Attorney General’s Office, provides scientific services to all law enforcement agencies in the state. Services are provided in Biology, Fingerprints, Firearms and Toolmarks, and Shooting Incident Re-construction.

The lab also oversees the state’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a database made up of forensic and offender DNA samples managed by the FBI.  Approved law enforcement agencies in all states participate in the CODIS program which allows for state and national searches of DNA profiles to occur.

There are two main types of DNA profiles that are entered into CODIS: Those developed from crime scene evidence, and those from known samples of individuals collected by state statute at the time of arrest or conviction.  DNA profiles are developed from evidentiary items and if appropriate, are entered into CODIS.  The database samples from offenders are entered as they are collected.

Once a DNA evidence profile has been entered into CODIS, it continually searches against new database samples as they are entered.  This allows for previously unsolved cases to be solved once that individual is arrested on an unrelated offense.

South Dakota’s Forensic Lab recently used the CODIS system in the investigation of the attempted rape case in South Dakota that occurred in 2022. The subject left behind an object that was swabbed for DNA.  A DNA profile was developed that was put into the CODIS database with no matches occurring for the last two years.  In the meantime, lab staff in coordination with law enforcement were exhausting all resources to attempt to identify the DNA profile found on the item.

Recently, an offender sample was added to the database, and there was a match to the 2022 attempted rape case.  Law enforcement was made aware of this investigative information which allowed this case to be reopened with new information. This case is currently pending. No further details of the case are being released at this time.

“The cooperation between the Forensic Lab and South Dakota law enforcement agencies is a major reason so many investigations are successful,” said Attorney General Jackley.

The Forensic Lab handles about 2,000 cases a year.

-30-

(Since we’re going to start voting absentee by the end of the week, I wanted to pass on how we’re looking at the ballot measures, and to encourage your participation and your vote. And to provide input on viewpoints and information that you might consider as you think for yourself, and evaluate what you intend to do as you walk into the voting booth. – pp)

Constitutional Amendment F – SDWC says “Current language prohibits South Dakota from imposing a work requirement on expanded Medicaid benefits. This is not an unreasonable change.”

Title: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Authorizing the State to Impose a Work Requirement on Individuals Eligible for Expanded Medicaid Benefits.

Attorney General Explanation:The Medicaid program is funded by the State and the federal government to provide medical coverage for certain low-income people who qualify for the program. ln 2022, the voters approved a Constitutional provision that expanded Medicaid eligibility for any person over age 18 and under 65 whose income is at or below 133% of the federal poverty level, plus 5% of the federal poverty level for the applicable family size.

This constitutional amendment authorizes the State to impose work requirements on any person eligible to receive benefits under the expanded Medicaid program, except for those persons who are physically or mentally disabled. The amendment does not identify any specific work requirement that may be imposed on those receiving expanded Medicaid benefits. Any work requirement proposed by the State must be approved by the federal government prior to implementation.

Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.

The proposed constitutional amendment is not unreasonable, nor unfair. South Dakota already has a work requirement for other welfare programs, and all this does is to make it an option for future legislatures to consider adding in exchange for the expanded Medicaid program.

The pro-statement from legislative sponsor and State Rep. Tony Venhuizen lays out the argument very succinctly:

Amendment F would allow South Dakota to consider a work requirement for working-age, able-bodied adults who want to enroll in Medicaid expansion. Currently, we can’t encourage these folks to seek work or training to get back on their feet, rather than stay on government programs for the long-term.

By voting YES, we can fix the current language, which prohibits South Dakota from even considering a work requirement.

Our welfare programs should care for those who can’t care for themselves – the elderly, the young, and the disabled. Amendment F allows the state to require able-bodied, working-aged people who enroll in Medicaid to work or go to school, to support themselves and their families.

Our state already does this in other social programs, and we know how to do it.

If Amendment F passes, a work requirement will still require approval from the federal government and from the state legislature. This will allow for reasonable exceptions to the work requirement, like for parents of young children, students, those with serious health issues, or those looking for work.

The Amendment opens it up as an option. Not as a mandate. It’s not unreasonable, nor unfair.

Vote YES on Amendment F. 

There are reports today that the South Dakota Freedom Caucus (or free-dumb caucus, if you will) has hired a new state director.

Hannah Determan, an Oklahoman who recently graduated from South Dakota State University had been active in the Young Americans for Liberty libertarian group in Brookings, which she helped organize in 2023, according to the SDSU Collegian:

The Senate unanimously approved the club constitution for Young Americans for Liberty.

“Basically, our club is a coalition of Libertarian and conservative students that we are training in grassroots lobbying,” Hannah Determan, the club’s vice president, said.

Read that here.

We’ll see how that goes. Considering the membership of the group is largely secret, that might be one hurdle she has to cross.

Stay tuned.

Since we’re going to start voting absentee by the end of the week, I wanted to pass on how we’re looking at the ballot measures, and to encourage your participation and your vote. And to provide input on viewpoints and information that you might consider as you think for yourself, and evaluate what you intend to do as you walk into the voting booth. – pp

Constitutional Amendment E – SDWC says “It is 2024 for god’s sake. You should be embarrassed if you don’t vote yes.”

Title: An Amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Updating Gender References for Certain Officeholders and Persons.

Attorney General Explanation: The South Dakota Constitution became effective upon the State joining the United States in 1889. The generic male pronouns he, his, and him are used in the text of the State Constitution to reference certain officeholders or individuals.

This amendment changes the text of the State Constitution to remove the use of generic male pronouns when referencing certain officeholders or individuals. For example, when referencing the Governor, instead of saying “he shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state,” the text will be changed to read “the Governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state.” The amendment makes similar changes to other references to the Governor, as well as to references to other officeholders including Lieutenant Governor, Supreme Court Justices, and Circuit Court Judges. The amendment also makes similar changes to references in the Constitution to general classes of people such as persons, electors, and public officers.

Vote “Yes” to adopt the amendment.
Vote “No” to leave the Constitution as it is.

Our View:

This is not the first time voters have been asked to consider changing the constitution to introduce some gender neutrality.

Way back when we were voting for A. C. Mellette, our first Governor, there were several ballot questions submitted to the voters; To strike the word ‘Male’ from section 7 the State Constitution, whether Indians who sustain tribal relations be permitted to vote, and whether Pierre should be the permanent seat of government.

Guess which one didn’t pass until their hands were forced by a wave of national sentiment? It was always voted down, until the state ratified the 19th Amendment in a midnight session on December 4th, 1919.

And here we are around 225 years later having a similar argument over what should be basic clerical updates that should have been accomplished decades upon decades ago as we update constitutional provisions that are unenforceable. Yet amazingly, there are people opposing it.

Such as Hillary Clinton donor and State Representative Liz May. Why would Liz oppose this?

While this seems like a minor change now, opening up the constitution
in order to correct pronouns will not accomplish anything substantive,
but will cost taxpayer dollars to reprint materials that are already
effective in their current form.

Liz May, “Con – Constitutional Amendment E”  – 2024 ballot

That’s all she’s got? Honestly?

To refute and underline why Liz May’s argument is a failure at every level, I would point you to Exhibit A – the South Dakota Constitution as provided in it’s current form by the Secretary of State.

This is the latest version of the South Dakota Constitution as prepared for South Dakota citizens on the Secretary of State’s website. You can find it here. It is updated after any change, and every time a new Secretary of State comes in, so they can put their mark on it. And, it’s electronic.

Basically, Liz May is complaining that a yes vote “will cost taxpayer dollars to reprint materials” in a Microsoft Word document, that’s converted to a .pdf, and uploaded to the state’s website.

Really?

If you count the hard copy that’s updated in the hard copy law books, any updates would be included in the pocket supplement that the law book company sends already at the same annual subscription cost.

The “no” argument is about cost. And there isn’t any that is measurable, or attributable to a line item. The argument against Amendment A is the last gasp of someone trying to preserve a practice that went out of vogue over a hundred years ago, that despite Liz’s effort, would benefit even her as a naysayer.

Arguments by a ‘Benedictine Arnold‘ eventually failed in the early 1900’s. They should also fail now.

Vote Yes on Amendment E.

Republican Sioux Falls Mayor Paul Tenhaken is expressing concern over the wave of xenophobia that’s sweeping through politics this season, as he took to twitter to refute commentary about the dietary habits of Haitians:

He went on to condemn the comments made on a national level, saying that they are not “dog eaters” and “savages”.

TenHaken continued in a comment to another user.

“I ‘align’ with no one. I align with my values. And I speak up (see above) when those values call me to,” TenHaken commented.

Read the entire story here on KELOland.

That wave of common sense and decency coming from a political figure was a refreshing change of pace.

Now, back to presidential politics.

@aarontaylor241

#ohio #cats

♬ original sound – Aaron Taylor

Actions Speak Louder Than Words
By Sen. John Thune

In recent weeks, Vice President Harris has attempted to reinvent herself and run away from her record in the U.S. Senate and as President Biden’s vice president. Those who know that record, however, will find it difficult to believe her sudden about-face.

As a senator, Kamala Harris ranked among the institution’s most liberal members. She was an early backer of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. She supported a bill that would mandate all new vehicles be zero-emission by 2040. She even authored a universal basic income proposal that one analyst said “could be the most expensive bill ever introduced.” Then, as a presidential candidate five years ago, she ran on an agenda that would please members of the far-left. She endorsed a fracking ban, decriminalizing drug possession, decriminalizing illegal border crossings, and mandatory buybacks of certain guns.

But in just a few weeks’ time, Vice President Harris has changed – or at least she would like the American people to think so. As a senator, she called a border wall “un-American” and “a waste of money.” Now she supports one. She wanted to ban fracking, now she doesn’t. She was for a federal jobs guarantee, but not anymore. She even changed her position on banning plastic straws!

In the last few years, Vice President Harris has also played a key role in implementing President Biden’s agenda. She cast the deciding vote to pass a massive spending spree that sparked a historic inflation crisis from which families continue to suffer. A crisis at the southern border raged for years after the vice president was put in charge of the administration’s response to it. And we’ve seen uncertainty on the world stage dating back to this administration’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in which the vice president played a role.

Despite these sudden changes, it seems that progressives should have no cause for alarm. The vice president’s former colleague, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), was recently asked whether Harris was abandoning her progressive ideals. “No,” he answered, “I don’t think she’s abandoning her ideals. I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.” I think he’s right. I suspect that one of the Senate’s most liberal members would be one of the nation’s most liberal presidents.

Try as she might to remake herself, the vice president’s record reveals a lot about her. She has been aligned with the left wing of the Democrat Party, and she’s been involved in some of this administration’s biggest blunders. No one has to wonder what the next four years would look like – it would be a lot more of the same.

###