Apparently, Milwaukee was the place to be for a wild convention. And why am I not surprised that this involved Taffy Howard trying to stick her face in a photo?

From Dakota Scout:

According to sources, Rhoden did not want GOP delegate Taffy Howard in the video. Howard, a former state House member who unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Dusty Johnson in the 2022 primary, is running for state Senate.

“I was informed that Reggie Rhoden created a disturbance during the RNC Convention at the Fiserv Forum Center,” the issuing officer wrote, according to the citation obtained by The Dakota Scout. “Lauschke stated the phone hit a person in the Maryland delegation… (and) caused a disturbance in the crowd.”

The incident, Lauschke told investigators, was reported to officers on scene — but only after the convention did he gain traction in getting charges filed. He reported that the incident left him with an injured wrist, which he did not seek medical attention for.

Read the entire story here.

Oops. Maybe next time* he should just stand in front of her.

(*Assuming this actually happened.)

Gov. Noem and Colleagues Urge NCAA to Fix NIL Settlement

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem and four of her fellow governors urged NCAA President Charlie Baker to restructure its settlement with student athletes on Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) sponsorships to fix the undue burden on smaller athletic programs in more rural states.

“Unfortunately, the proposed settlement is unfair for the colleges and universities in our states,” wrote Governor Noem and her colleagues. “In trying to rectify the issue of NIL payments, the NCAA must keep all student athletes across the country top of mind, not just those at athletic programs with the deepest pockets and greatest influence. We urge the NCAA to restructure the settlement to take the concerns of our colleges and universities, who make up a majority of your member conferences.”

You can find the full letter here.

Earlier this month, a federal judge placed the settlement on hold and urged revisions. Last Tuesday, South Dakota filed a lawsuit against the NCAA seeking an injunction of this settlement so that the interests of smaller conferences are duly considered when restructuring another proposed settlement.

The letter points out that NIL sponsorships are more popular among Power Five athletic conferences, but the proposed settlement will hit colleges and universities outside of the Power Five with nearly $1 billion in financial obligation.

“The settlement means our programs stand to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. This may not seem like much to larger athletic programs, but to the student-athletes in our states, it is a significant hit to their programs,” continued Governor Noem and her colleagues.

Governor Noem was joined in signing the letter by Montana Governor Greg Gianforte, Idaho Governor Brad Little, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum, and Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon.

###

Thune: Senate Democrats Must Prioritize National Security Over Political Show Votes

 “We are two weeks away from the end of the fiscal year, and we haven’t touched the National Defense Authorization Act since it was passed by the committee – much less touched the defense appropriations bills.”

Click here or on the picture above to watch the video.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today spoke on the Senate floor about the importance of passing the National Defense Authorization Act. Thune noted that Majority Leader Schumer has spent the last several months holding show votes on bills that are designed to score political points, not become law, and has prioritized them over our nation’s defense and security.

Attorney General Jackley Announces Indictment On First Computer-Generated Child Pornography Charges 

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that an Aberdeen man has been indicted on seven counts of computer-generated child pornography which are part of a new South Dakota law that took effect this past July 1.

“This case demonstrates why the Legislature needed to, and did, act to protect children,” said Attorney General Jackley. “Computer-generated child pornography, including those images and videos created using artificial intelligence, has become an increasing concern nationwide and in South Dakota.”

William Webster Bragg, 56, was indicted Sept. 11 by a Brown County Grand Jury on one count of Distributing Child Pornography, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years and a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, in the South Dakota State Penitentiary, He also was charged with six counts of Possessing Child Pornography where each count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years and a mandatory minimum sentence of one year, in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. The crimes occurred on or about Aug. 13, 2024.

The new statute, proposed by Attorney General Jackley, makes possession, distribution, and manufacturing of computer-generated child pornography, including those images and videos created using artificial intelligence, a crime. That includes “deepfake” images or videos of an actual child that have been manipulated to make it look like the child was engaged in prohibited sexual acts. The provision was part of Senate Bill 79 which was approved by the 2024 Legislature and signed by the Governor.

Bragg’s next court appearance is scheduled for Oct. 15, 2024. He has been released on a $30,000 cash bond. The defendant is presumed innocent under the U.S. Constitution.

The case investigated by the South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI), the state Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) unit, FBI, and Brown County Sheriff’s Office. The Attorney General’s Office is the prosecutor.

-30-

Be sure to check out and click on our newest advertiser on the site, South Dakota Ethanol as they take the top left spot to explain how the CO2 Pipeline Project is a $3.2 Billion Opportunity for South Dakota. 

With a few more than 45 days until election day, SDWC has advertising opportunities for reaching South Dakota’s opinion leaders, based on a first-come, first-serve basis for available positions. Down page advertising spots are still available, and there are discounts for longer ad commitments.  Information on ad prices, ad positions, and ad commitments may be directed to the webmaster by clicking here.

Post-election, a number of spots will be opening up in the run up to what will be a legislative session that will be an upheaval of government with lots of new faces. It will also mark the beginning of the big one – the 2026 campaign season.

Please take a moment to visit our advertisers such as South Dakota’s chief executive Governor Kristi Noem, our friend South Dakota Senator John Thune,  Congressman Dusty Johnson, and Republican United States Senator Mike Rounds. Our friends at South Dakota Ag Alliance are also here to fight for landowner rights and common sense ag development, as Summit Carbon Solutions will keep our farmers and ethanol producers competitive on a world stage.

We have the people at IM29 promoting their measure, we  have the opponents to IM28 making sure South Dakotans know IM28 is a trap.. And we have SD Open Primaries asking voters via Amendment H.

At Dakota Campaign Store, down on the right, you’ll find me already busy in 2024 with yard signs, postcards, and all the things a professional campaign needs to make an impression.

Thank you to our advertisers for your support, and please reach out if you’d like to join them!

(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 29: Legalization passed in 2020, and industry has matured with strong legislative oversight. There’s no reason to stop going.

Title: An Initiated Measure Legalizing the Recreational Use, Possession, and Distribution of Marijuana.

Attorney General Explanation: This initiated measure allows individuals 21 years of age or older to possess, grow, ingest, and distribute marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia. Individuals may possess up to two ounces of marijuana in a form other than marijuana concentrate or other marijuana products. Individuals may possess up to six marijuana plants with no more than twelve plants per household. The measure also places limits on the possession of other forms of marijuana and marijuana products.

Under the measure, the possession, ingestion, and distribution of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia remains illegal for individuals under the age of 21. Driving under the influence of marijuana remains illegal.

The measure restricts where individuals may possess or consume marijuana, such as schools or where tobacco is prohibited.

The measure allows employers to restrict an employee’s use of marijuana. Property owners may also regulate the use of marijuana on their property.

The measure does not affect State laws dealing with hemp. It also does not change laws concerning the State’s medical marijuana program.

The measure legalizes marijuana-derived substances considered felony controlled substances under State law. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Judicial or legislative clarification of this measure may be necessary.

Fiscal Note: The state and municipalities would collect minimal additional sales tax revenue, as the measure would not decriminalize the sale of cannabis but would decriminalize the sale of cannabis accessories. Counties could see incarceration expenses reduced by $581,556 every year.

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

In 2020, Voters passed an amendment to the state constitution, winning by 54% that would have legalized recreational marijuana use. But, that vote at the ballot box found itself stymied by the single subject rule in court, overturning the will of the voters in 2021.  There are those in South Dakota who continue to fight it, but popular opinion is not on their side.

In June, the Associated Press in June laid out the measure and part of the national landscape:

Twenty-four states have legalized recreational marijuana. Ohio voters did so most recently, in November 2023. Florida voters will also vote on the issue this fall. And other efforts are ongoing in other states, including North Dakota.

The South Dakota measure would legalize recreational marijuana for people 21 and older. The proposal has possession limits of 2 ounces of marijuana in a form other than concentrated cannabis or cannabis products. The measure also allows cultivation of plants, with restrictions. Measure backers plan to work with the Legislature to implement business licensing, tax and other regulations, if successful.

Read that here.

Popular nationally. Popular in South Dakota. And then there’s a more recent development:

President Trump himself, the flag-bearer for the Republican Party, has directly come out and said “We must also implement smart regulations, while providing access for adults, to safe, tested product” and that he will support “states rights to pass marijuana laws, like in Florida, that work so well for their citizens.“

In other words, if you support and follow former President Trump, that’s how he’s voting. And that might bring a lot of people in South Dakota with him.  Are you a Democrat? President Biden has also made overtures in that direction, but has not gone as far as President Trump.

As I mentioned, the industry has matured. We’ve transitioned from the days of people seeking any and every crazy regulation to open up it’s use, and moved over to a somewhat controlled medical marijuana industry. Which, while it has not been without it’s own bumps in the road, they have not caused the world to end in it’s implementation. Any problems have been addressed. We’ve moved past the time of people wanting it legalized period with no barriers, to a time when it’s legal within a framework and tightly controlled and regulated like alcohol.

Honestly, I think we hear less about that industry than people having problems with alcohol.

It has sprouted into a small but growing industry on the medical side.  It has been very tightly controlled and monitored, and the earth has not stopped revolving.  They have given no reason why they should not be given the opportunity to expand the industry. Given the chance, they have been reasonable and trustworthy.

What about the opposition? Well, the organized moral opposition group has shown themselves to be somewhat slimy, as they diverted money from the ballot initiative side to engage in primary election races when they refiled as a PAC for a period of time, and used money – including that donated by nuns  – to put into races where they worked against candidates who had supported them.

People we might have given a side-eye to in years proving themselves trustworthy. And those who claim to be morally righteous turning out to be less than so. (Sounds like a movie plot).  It makes it much easier to give grace and consideration to those we might not have given it to in the past.  Despite fighting it in the past, I think they and the state have done a good job to date, and we can give ourselves permission to trust.

The industry has had a good start, and regulation has worked.  Unless you are a strict prohibitionist, it is ok to vote for Initiated Measure 29, because it is going to pass in 2024 with popular support, including that of President Trump. 

(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.

###