John Hult at South Dakota Searchlight has an article which came out today noting Secretary of State Monae Johnson is urging South Dakotans to trust election officials.  After an election where she might not have exactly walked that walk herself.

The South Dakota brochure is tied to an educational push from the National Association of Secretaries of State dubbed #TrustedInfo2024. The national website says the campaign is meant to bolster the importance of state-level election officials as “trusted sources of election information during the 2024 election cycle and beyond.”

Johnson’s news release includes a nod to her role as that information source in South Dakota.

“My number one job as Chief Election Officer is to ensure that we conduct fair and accurate elections for the citizens of South Dakota,” the release says. “Our office will continue to focus our resources on the protection of our election systems and overall election security.”

and..

In South Dakota, Johnson’s rise to the state’s top election post was fueled in part by promises to protect elections. Her campaign materials leaned into election integrity language, citing opposition to voter fraud, online voting and online voter registration, and she refused to affirm the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election when questioned by reporters.

Read the entire story here.

It’s good to see that Secretary of State Johnson might be coming around to the realization that South Dakota isn’t exactly a hotbed of election fraud.

Now if she can only convince the people who literally ran her campaign & put her in office.

Driving Drunk in South Dakota
by Sen. Brent “B.R.” Hoffman

One of the many great things about glorious South Dakota is that we don’t rest upon our greatness.  We’re proud of our state, yet we recognize it can always be better.  Which brings me to the uncomfortable topic of drunk driving.

You may have read recent reports ranking South Dakota #1 in the nation for drunk driving fatalities over Thanksgiving weekend, but you probably didn’t read that our state also tops the nation on most other weekends.  According to Forbes, our state has the highest DUI arrest rate and the sixth-highest number of drunk drivers under age 21 involved in fatal crashes.  Zutobi ranks our state #2 (behind only Montana) in road fatalities and DUI arrests.  In 2021, more than 35% of road fatalities in our state were linked to impaired driving.

 While most drunk driving isn’t considered a violent crime, it’s certainly a preventable crime of choice and consequence.  It cuts innocent lives short and destroys families.  The college student killed on his birthday.  The teenage girl who will never graduate from high school.  The young man who will never walk again. Heartbreaking examples like these are not isolated incidents, but part of a system or culture that doesn’t demand accountability.

This lack of accountability stems from our state sentencing laws.  South Dakota has the most lenient DUI sentencing laws in the nation, as reported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  Almost all states require an interlock device for multiple DUI convictions, but South Dakota is not one of them.  Any DUI can result in damage or death, but it’s the multiple offenses that are most concerning.  A few months ago, two men in Sioux Falls were each charged for their 8th DUI.  A few weeks ago, a woman in Spearfish was convicted of her 7th DUI.  She received one day in jail and a suspended sentence. 

If South Dakota is to get serious about drunk driving, a good place to start would be a complete repeal of the so-called look-back provisions.  In short, the state law only allows prosecutors to “look-back” 10 years to determine the number of offenses.  So if an offender had three DUI convictions from 2000-2010, the sentencing clock would be reset with the next conviction after 2020, and it would be charged as a first offense rather than a fourth offense. Many citizens, even lawyers and judges, agree it complicates sentencing and undermines accountability.

This next session, we’ll consider a bill to repeal the look-back statute, and we’re hopeful it will be an important step forward in our state’s approach to drunk driving.  This bill, “An Act to improve accountability for driving under the influence,” has been developed and coordinated with attorneys, law enforcement, legislators and victim’s rights groups.  It will simplify sentencing, improve accountability, encourage deterrence and bring South Dakota laws in line with many other states.  We believe it will make our great state even better, and we ask for your support.

 —

The author served a career in the military, surviving the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon.  He’s a published author, occasional newspaper columnist and currently serves as a state senator for District 9 in glorious South Dakota.

In a decision released earlier this month, it looks like the South Dakota Supreme Court – like much of South Dakota – is not aligned with the thinking of the the Rapid City group, Citizens for Liberty.

By way of explanation, referring back to an article published when the controversy came in front of the Supreme Court in November of 2022…

The opposing parties agree that state law requires a public forum at regularly scheduled school board meetings. But they disagree on how to define the term “regularly scheduled.”

The attorney for the school district said by law, regularly scheduled meetings are set annually on the second Monday in July. Emily Smoragiewicz told justices that other meetings are special meetings, and the district is not required to invite comment at an open forum.

Read that here.

With that as the primary issue, based on subsequent changes in law, the decision issued on November 1st of this year held up that… they weren’t going to touch that, because the legislature rendered it a moot point.

We hold that the issue regarding the interpretation of “regularly scheduled official meeting” as used in SDCL 1-25-1 is moot and, therefore, nonjusticiable. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court’s decision interpreting the statute.

But the more important issue that was decided, one that has implications for those contesting whether an open meeting was held properly, was an issue not really even discussed in the prior article – WHO has the right to make the final say about what is and is not proper for open meetings. Because the Supreme Court decided that the Open Meetings Commission, not they, are the final arbiter of open meetings complaints, as they addressed the other controversy that came up as part of the court action:

The circuit court also ruled on two other, more peripheral issues. Referring to the “specter” of an open meeting violation, the court stated it did not view “the Declaratory Judgment statutes [as] the appropriate remedy for . . . allegations . . . concerning open meetings.” The court noted the statutory procedure for pursuing an open meeting violation allegation contemplates a role for state’s attorneys and for the South Dakota Open Meetings Commission, but not the court. See SDCL 1-25-6 to -7 (establishing the procedure for determining allegations of open meeting law violations). [¶26.] In addition, the circuit court rejected RCAS’s argument that Citizens could not obtain an interpretation of SDCL 1-25-1 as a request for declaratory relief but, instead, was relegated to an administrative complaint to the Board and, ultimately, an appeal under SDCL 13-46-1. The court noted that RCAS’s argument had “some allure to it,” but the procedure outlined by RCAS “doesn’t preclude the plaintiffs . . . from requesting a Declaratory Judgment as to the meaning of statutes[.]”

…

“An appeal from the action of public officers or boards to the circuit court must be invoked in the manner prescribed by statute.” Middle Creek Sch. Dist. v. Butte Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 83 S.D. 107, 111, 155 N.W.2d 450, 452 (1968) (citation omitted). SDCL chapter 1-25, as presently written, does not provide a route for judicial review of a state’s attorney’s determination that a complaint has no merit.

and..

Because the statute does not prescribe a manner through which a complainant may seek review of the state’s attorney’s decision, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter judgment declaring an open meeting violation. Consequently, this Court also lacks jurisdiction to grant Citizens’ requested relief.

and..

We also determine that SDCL chapter 1-25 does not confer jurisdiction upon circuit courts to review the actions of a state’s attorney taken under SDCL 1- 25-6. Thus, we affirm the circuit court’s decision to not review the State’s Attorney’s determination.

Read that as part of the decision below. 

Because the Open Meetings law and complaint process doesn’t provide a mechanism for appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that courts have no basis to take that on. So if a State’s Attorney says “meh,” and does not move a complaint forward, or someone doesn’t like the decision of the Open Meetings Commission, that’s that.

The remaining question would be whether or not legislators decide they want to re-open the issue and inject a mechanism for appeal into current law.

Given that source of this issue is Citizens for Liberty, I’m not sure they will view that as a problem. If it was a group of citizens who have been genuinely wronged, versus those who just want a venue to rant, it might be a different matter. But sometimes the messenger can kill the message.

Read the decision issued November 1 for yourself: 

SD Supreme Court Decision on Citizens for Liberty by Pat Powers on Scribd

Thune: Bipartisan AI Bill Promotes Transparency and Encourages Innovation

 “The right way to approach AI regulation is to pursue a bipartisan, nationwide approach in Congress that will protect innovation while putting in place the necessary safeguards for the riskiest applications of this technology.”

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 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Research, Innovation, and Accountability Act of 2023, his bipartisan bill that would bolster the United States’ leadership and innovation in AI, improve transparency for consumers, and create common-sense safety and security guardrails for the highest-risk AI applications.

Gov. Noem Supports Congressman Mike Gallagher’s Bill Protecting U.S. Farmland from Foreign Adversaries 

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem announced her support for Congressman Mike Gallagher’s bill preventing the Chinese Communist Party and other nations that hate America from owning American agricultural land. She made this announcement in a letter to Congressman Gallagher, who is the Chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party.

“I write to you out of mutual concern for the threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party. I offer my support for H.R. 4577 and urge that it be added to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),” Governor Noem wrote to Chairman Gallagher. “Food security is a matter of national security… We have seen China use fear and control to perpetuate their agenda for generations. If they successfully control our food supply, they will be able to control the United States.”

From 2010 to 2020, China’s holdings of American ag land increased by 5,300%. H.R. 4577 protects U.S. farmland from foreign adversaries by giving the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United State greater jurisdiction over land purchases tied to “foreign adversaries,” the same six countries that Governor Noem listed as “Evil Foreign Governments,” including Communist China.

“The states and Congress must work together to defend our nation from the Chinese Communist Party, especially given the lack of sufficient action from the Biden Administration,” continued Governor Noem. “This legislation is an important step in that effort – but getting it passed as part of the NDAA will be no small lift.”

Governor Noem ended the letter to Chairman Gallagher by offering to testify before the Select Committee in support of this legislation.

###

The Sioux Falls school board announced today that the days of free lunch are coming to an end in the school district next week for those who haven’t signed up for free or reduced-price lunch. And they may have reignited a bill that was killed last year, in what could be a one of the more challenging debates for legislators. Because the cost isn’t insignificant, and neither is the issue:

The total school lunch debt in the district is about $92,000, child nutrition coordinator Gay Anderson said. The district accrues about $3,000 each day in lunch debt, community relations coordinator DeeAnn Konrad said, compared with a total yearlong debt of $7,000 more than a decade ago in 2012.

And..

But starting Dec. 4, the district will have to enforce school board policy, stating students with meal accounts in debt of $75 or more will not be provided further meals “until the account is back in good standing,” or if a payment plan is set up with the student’s parents or guardians.

Read that here.

They accrue $3000 in school lunch debt each day? Good lord. What do you do with that?   And that’s a group who fall outside of those who have signed up for free/reduced cost programs.

So how do you categorize that group?

Before it was electronically tracked, I know I’ve had kids a time or two forget to deliver low-on-lunch-money-notices.. and they found themselves getting a sterner note, or worse, the dreaded cheese sandwich, instantly prompting them to go “Daaad.. I need lunch money.”  Keeping track was never helped by those deciding to eat breakfast at school, order a la carte, etcetera. But it was always remedied quickly.   In more recent years, I just get a nagging daily notice from the school in my e-mail box as soon as the balance goes below $20.

But it’s not as simple as that.  Is it parents not keeping track? No. And it’s concerning as a society that we seem to have this problem as schools keep accruing significant debt for feeding kids.

As the spouse of a long-time educator & school administrator, I’ve heard more than once that there are kids out there that the only hot or nutritious meal they get in a day may be the one they get in school. Or worse, it might be their only meal. And I don’t think most people would argue with the statement that Teachers have a much harder time educating kids who are starving.  But how do we fix it? And where is this problem originating?

What makes up this gap?  According to educationdata.org, it is noted..

Children unable to afford a proper meal are defined as being food-insecure; they lack reliable access to food. Many of those children who owe school meal debt are part of families who earn too much to be considered for free or reduced lunch, but also earn too little to afford regular school meals.

• 1 million students receive free school breakfast, compared to 1.7 million who pay a reduced price of $0.40, and 7.7 million who pay the full price.
• 8 million students receive free school lunches, compared to 0.74 million who pay a reduced price of $0.30 and 2.23 million students who pay full price.

The fact that the number of full-price lunches is just over 15% nationally is somewhat shocking.  Because it isn’t a gap. The numbers seem to be saying that free and reduced price lunches are the majority.  If this is accurate locally, the Sioux Falls School District is accruing a $3k a day cost they have to try to chase that in all actuality is a portion of the 15% who haven’t signed up for a free or reduced cost program?

South Dakota is one of the few states that has no statewide policy on school lunch debt, preferring to leave it to individual districts.  This coming January lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are already offering solutions that propose to solve the problem.

If the majority of school lunches are free or reduced cost anyway, why don’t we at least remove the issue and the overhead of having schools having to chase that debt?  We argue that schools should have fewer mandates anyway… which comes right before we put new ones on them, and legislators try to send their funding elsewhere.  So, why not make it free?  Or is the concept of a free lunch for public school children a tougher debate than that?

During the last legislative session, a Democrat-sponsored measure lost in committee which proposed to open up the state’s checkbook for school lunches. Just flat out making it a Department of Education expense. Which counted among it’s opponents, the Department of Education, as well as some legislators individually:

Graves told the committee that during the two years free meals were offered, dozens of meals would be thrown out daily without being touched by students. Graves provided an anecdote about the visit of a federal delegate for the program. Graves wanted to demonstrate how much food was being wasted and so he spread out the unopened, pre-packaged items along two, eight-foot-long tables.

“I decided I wasn’t going to show the member of the federal delegation because I was embarrassed,” Graves said.

And..

Republican Senator Jim Bolin also spoke in opposition to the bill citing his experience as a former teacher.

“What you’re really doing here, if this bill were to pass, is providing what I would call, sort of the equivalent of a middle-class entitlement for those that can afford lunches already,” Bolin said. “It doesn’t seem right to me.”

Read that here.

The Democrat bill that was attempted last year which is certain to return, and a Republican sponsored measure for 2024 differ somewhat..

Wittman’s bill had a fiscal note that estimated ongoing budgetary impacts at $38.6 million, while Deutsch said his bill, which he directed the Legislative Research Council to draft at his direction, has a fiscal impact estimated by the LRC to be $394,095.

Read that here.

Whether there are competing measures, it’s a given that either one of them will reopen the attempts to distill the issue down to cause and effect, as they try to identify a problem that government can solve by making a law, or elevating the issue from the level of the school district.  No one would argue that they want kids to go hungry. But, can they come up with a solution that works?

Your thoughts? Or your solutions?

Shorma to seek re-election to South Dakota House

William “Bill” Shorma is excited to announce his 2024 bid for Re-election to District 17 House of Representatives. Shorma and his wife Marcie live in Dakota Dunes, and are involved in the S. Union County communities and Clay County towns as well. Shorma has started and managed companies who employ over 600 employee’s in South Dakota and Bill and Marcie currently own a Manufacturing Company in Springfield SD that employs 50-60 people year around.

Shorma serves on the House Commerce and Energy, Transportation and Military and Veterans Affairs committees. While in the Senate in 2016, Shorma served on the Health and Human Services, Transportation, and Commerce and Energy Committee’s. Shorma’s has also learned from his 50 years in Business, through his leadership on Boards of Directorships with his Church, serving on the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, and serving on Family Business Co.’s Boards, all that provided experience for service In the the South Dakota House of Representatives.

District 2 State Senator Steve Kolbeck is hosting a fundraiser on Thursday, December 7th at the Willow Run Golf Clubhouse in Sioux Falls from 4:30 to 6 to support his re-election campaign for the Senate in 2024.

Go check it out!

Gov. Noem to Host Christmas at The Capitol Grand Lighting Ceremony

PIERRE, S.D. – Governor Kristi Noem, First Gentleman Bryon Noem, and Pierre Mayor Steve Harding will host the 2023 Grand Lighting Ceremony for Christmas at the South Dakota Capitol in the Rotunda on Tuesday, Nov. 21, at 7 pm CT.

“This is always one of my favorite events of the year,” said Governor Noem. “Bryon and I can’t wait to greet all of the families at the Capitol for our annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony. We hope you can join us for an evening of festive fun!”

The Capitol Christmas trees will be lit by the Harris family. The Harris family felt the call to foster and have since been called to adopt as well. They are incredible success story of foster and adoption, and they represent the great work our Department of Social Services is doing to build stronger families. They embody the spirit of the holidays, and we are excited to welcome them to light our very special Christmas trees.

The Capitol Christmas display includes 90 trees decorated by volunteers from communities, schools, churches, nonprofit organizations, and state government offices. This year’s theme for Christmas at the Capitol is “Winter Wonderland.”

The largest tree in the Capitol, a 27 ft Black Hills Spruce, is being decorated by the Great Plains Zoo and Butterfly House in Sioux Falls and was donated by Isaac Lalonde of Onida, SD.

At the ceremony, music will be provided by Surprise Package from the Pierre/Ft Pierre area.

Santa will be here to say hello to the kids and set out his North Pole Mailbox for the year. Children can write letters to Santa at home and bring them along to the Capitol and drop them into the mailbox, which will be located on first floor by the South Dakota First Ladies and First Gentlemen Exhibit while the display is open to the public.

Beginning on Wednesday Nov. 22 visitors can come see the Christmas trees from 8am to 10pm daily, including holidays and weekends. The last day to view the display is Tuesday, Dec. 26.

You can follow the Christmas at the Capitol events on Facebook and Instagram.

###

Attorney General: Draft Explanation Released For Initiated Measure Submitted by Rapid City Man

PIERRE, S.D. – An explanation for a draft initiated measure, proposed by Emmett Reistroffer of Rapid City, that would legalize recreational marijuana and create dual-use licenses for medical marijuana dispensaries, has been submitted for public review by the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office.

Attorney General Marty Jackley takes no position on any such proposal for purposes of the ballot explanation. He has provided a fair and neutral explanation on the initiated measure to help assist the voters.

This proposed initiated measure would allow individuals 21 years old or older to possess, grow, sell, ingest, and distribute marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia. The initiated measure does not affect laws dealing with hemp.  The measure also authorizes the South Dakota Department of Health to issue dual-use licenses to medical marijuana dispensaries.  A dual-use license allows dispensaries to sell marijuana to persons 21 years or older.

The ballot explanation can be found here.

State law requires the Attorney General draft a title and explanation for each initiated measure, initiated constitutional amendment, constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature, or referred measure that may appear on an election ballot. The Attorney General’s explanation is meant to be an “objective, clear, and simple summary” intended to “educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed” measure, as well as identify the “legal consequences” of each measure.

Once the Attorney General has filed and posted the draft explanation, the public has 10 days to provide written comment. The explanation was filed Nov. 17, 2023 (Friday), and the deadline for comments on this explanation is Nov. 27, 2023 at the close of business in Pierre, South Dakota. The final explanation is due to the Secretary of State on Dec. 7, 2023.

The initiated measure would require 17,509 valid petition signatures to qualify for the 2024 general election ballot.

To file written comments on a draft Attorney General’s explanation please use one of the following methods below. Copies of all received comments will be posted on this website. https://atg.sd.gov/Legal/ballotexplanations.aspx#gsc.tab=0

Comments may be submitted via mail, or through hand delivery, to the Attorney General’s Office at:

Office of the Attorney General
Ballot Comment
1302 E. Hwy. 14, Suite 1
Pierre, SD 57501

Comments that are hand delivered must be received by the close of business in Pierre, South Dakota, by Nov. 27, 2023.  The Attorney General’s Office will be closed Nov. 23-24 for the Thanksgiving Holiday. Comments that are mailed must be received by the Attorney General’s Office before the deadline expires to be accepted.

Comments may also be emailed to ATGballotcomments@state.sd.us by Nov. 27, 2023.  Comments should be clearly expressed in the body of the email. The Attorney General’s Office will not open attachments in an effort to prevent malware or other digital threats. Please include your name and contact information when submitting your comment. The title of the comment must be included in the subject line of the email.

-30-