Senate Bill 49 is getting attention in the news this week as it’s another half-baked bag of goofy from our out of state transplant Senator John “California” Carley.   SB49 attempts to go after CO2 sequestration pipelines, but in the final section of the bill, it goes farther and also attacks wind and solar power production. As noted on KELOland News:

Why are wind farms and solar farms also covered by your proposed ban?

“I personally use and enjoy some of the benefits of renewables like wind and solar,” Carley said. “However, it’s only there in the case of the exercise of eminent domain when a landowner does not want parts of those projects to go through their land, even after being offered a payment. If the landowner is willing to lease their land, they certainly can. These are just current and future Green New Deal ideas that have been raised, and so instead of having to fight to keep land after the fact, we would like to fix the loophole before it becomes an issue.”

Read it all here.

If you want to read that section of the bill for yourself..

Section 5. That a NEW SECTION be added to chapter 49-41B:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person may not exercise the right of eminent domain to construct a solar energy facility, wind energy facility, or any facility that qualifies for a tax credit pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 45 (August 16, 2022) or 26 U.S.C. § 48 (January 1, 2023).

The problem with Carley’s proposal? As I understand, in the last section Carley is purporting to take away eminent domain rights THAT WIND AND SOLAR DON’T HAVE NOW. 

For God’s sake don’t tell Carley that snipe hunting or sleeping cows that tip over can infringe on a landowner’s rights. Because I’m sure that will be the next bill he tries to bring.

 

 

That was quick.

Ex-Senator Julie Frye Mueller’s buddy Anthony Mirzayants is taking to facebook to attack State Representative Scott Odenbach over Odenbach’s sponsorship of House Bill 1020 establishing education savings accounts.

As noted in the post from Mirzyants…

Scott Odenbach – Your FAKE School Choice Bill is awful. You are completely dropping the ball, and I don’t know why.
YOU ARE INTRODUCING NEEDLESS REGULATION. This is dangerous.
Stop. Take a breather. Withdraw your bill.
Let the REAL School Choice champions handle this.

Just a thought.. maybe they can agree to sit on this and work things out.

For at least a few years…

Thune Previews Senate Agenda, Key Priorities  

“We have a lot of work to do. But the American people have chosen the right team to get it done.”

 Click here to watch the video.  

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor:

Attorney General Jackley Urges and Supports President-Elect Trump’s Efforts to Secure Southern Border

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has joined 19 other State Attorneys General in sending a letter to President-elect Trump asking him to secure the southern border when he takes office later this month.

“We support President-elect Trump’s plan to secure the southern border and stop the surge in illegal immigrants into the United States,” said Attorney General Jackley. “A secure southern border will help keep dangerous illegal drugs from entering the nation and eventually into South Dakota.”

Last year, Attorney General Jackley, along with Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, and North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, argued in North Dakota U.S. Federal Court against a proposed federal rule that would treat certain illegal immigrants as legal citizens. The court later ruled in favor of the 19 states that had challenged the proposed federal rule.

Other Attorney Generals who signed the border security letter are from: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia.

Read the letter here.

-30-

After 33 years with the South Dakota Attorney General’s office long-time Deputy AG Charlie McGuigan is hanging up his hat with State Government and riding off into the sunset. Starting with the AG in 1991, he worked primarily on natural resource issues, Indian Law and legislative issues.

Friends and co-workers are gathering tonight in Pierre at the Fieldhouse to wish him well, as he embarks on bigger and better things.

Congratulations, Charlie!

 

I had mentioned it in an earlier post, and hot off the press, a reader was kind enough to forward State Representative Travis Ismay‘s beg to his fellow legislators for co-sponsorship on his attack against the medical marijuana industry in South Dakota:

Sponsorship Request:

34-20G is part of the marijuana industries plan to exploit the state of South Dakota. This travesty was sold to our state in 2020 as something that would help people and bring in large amounts of revenue to the state. It has clearly been neither. The last two elections have been proof that the people of South Dakota do not want this in their state. I would encourage anyone to please read 34-20 G and see if you can find one thing in this law that is good for the people of South Dakota. This law protects drug dealers (34-20g-2to7). Gives special provisions in custody and visitation rights cases to cardholders (34-20g-21). Forces every municipality in the state to allow for a dispensary (34-20g-59), forces every school in the state to allow for a class 1 drug to be administered in school during school hours by whoever they bought the drug from. (34- 20g-95). The issuance of a medical marijuana card to children under the age of 18 (34-20g-33) and this is my favorite. You don’t need an identification card to defend your use of medical marijuana in court.(34- 20g-53) so basically it doesn’t matter how many restrictions you put on procuring a card, you don’t need one. These are just a few Sections in this law that are asinine.

Also, you have to understand how the marijuana industry sold this to the people to get this on the ballot. All of these sections were in four point font and folded up on one piece of paper so no one could read any of these sections before this was on the ballot. If anyone knew what this Law actually said, they would never have voted for this. The people of South Dakota had this crammed down their throat. Most people don’t know that we already had “medical marijuana” in a prescription form, approved by the FDA, Epidiolex (Cannabidiol), Syndros (dronabinol), Marino! (dronabinol) and Cesamet. I believe that if people knew this, they would not have voted to bring this industry into our state. Please consider supporting and sponsoring this bill if you have any questions, please email me or give me a call 605-490-6010. Thank you, and
God bless you.

The problem with his logic is that the South Dakota Legislature itself acted to place medical marijuana into law while the legal case on the ballot measure was winding through the courts, so the line about 4pt type is more than a bit deceptive. And insinuating that voters are ignorant or had it “crammed down their throat” just isn’t a winning strategy.

Was I in favor of it at the time? No. A fairly significant portion of the electorate disagreed and voted otherwise, and the legislature had decided to be proactive and adhere to the will of the voters.  But 4 years down the line, as I noted during this last election, the industry has gotten through their growing pains and has matured. The state is regulating it and tweaking rules and regulations as needed.  It begs the question “why?”

If we have something that is working and is adequately regulated, why does Rep. Ismay feel the need to throw everything out and contradict the will of the voters because it’s his axe to grind?

We’ll see how this goes.  Stay tuned.

From Twitter:

Dusty Johnson tells @aishahhasnie he’s putting out a bill to authorize Trump buying Panama Canal

“I think it is a Teddy Roosevelt moment. And frankly, America used to run this canal, and it was very well run under American leadership,” he told @FoxNews

— Liz Elkind (@liz_elkind) January 8, 2025

What are your thoughts?

Here’s bill text from @DustyJohnson to “authorize the President to enter into negotiations for the reacquisition of the Panama Canal from the Republic of Panama for the symbolic amount of $1.” pic.twitter.com/k9nRSmrE7l

— Cami Mondeaux (@cami_mondeaux) January 8, 2025

As you might have noticed, there hasn’t been a lot of legislative measures posted from individual legislators for the 2025 session just yet. But I’m hearing they’re an active bunch, and will be bringing all sorts of bills to keep me busy writing about them.

One such bill currently seeking sponsors is Representative Aaron Aylward‘s measure to prohibit directives from the CDC and World Health Organization, because.. well… :

Our former Libertarian Party State Chair Aylward actually wants to make it a criminal act at the level of a DUI offense if state officials try to enforce a regulation from the US Center for Disease Control, or the World Health Organization?  So, what happens if the legislature adopts a practice that they recommend? Would all legislators be facing the long arm of the law? This is stupid.

While I don’t have my hands on a copy of the bill, I’m told by insiders that incoming State Rep. Travis Ismay is supposedly bringing legislation to completely repeal South Dakota’s Medical Marijuana program, since that’s his axe to grind, completely wiping away 4 years of legislation, implementation and fine tuning of the law which we’ve hardly heard a peep about.  And nevermind that it would likely trigger another referred law ballot measure.

I have no doubt there is so much more coming that we can hardly imagine it.  The legislative session starts next week, so just remember:

Saw the latest edition of the South Dakota Right to Life newsletter. Am I the only one reading something that comes off as a bit troubling?

Because the newsletter announces the quiet part out loud, that legislators who are also board members for the organization are in Pierre to represent SDRTL, as opposed to say… voters?:

“Together we will represent SDRTL as we support, with your help, appropriate life legislation...”

If for example Sanford announced that legislators in their employ were there to represent Sanford, or any other business or special interest group said the same, there would justifiably be some public concern over that assertion.

But, apparently SDRTL thinks nothing of it?

It’s going to be a long legislative session.

Here’s a dichotomy in opinion on development that would benefit South Dakota, versus the anti-development forces who don’t want small towns to flourish.

On one hand, you have President Trump lauding a $20 Billion dollar investment in Data Centers and the infrastructure to support them in the Midwest:

On the other, you have anti-development Amanda Radtke (on page 10) complaining about the very thing that president-elect Trump is cheering on – developers bringing in data centers:

Not sure what she has against President Trump, but she might have spent too much time with the Jane Fonda people.