I was working on something and went to a legislative profile.. and something brand new caught my eye.

The legislative photos for South Dakota State Legislators, which have long been considered and used by literally everyone as if they are public domain, are now adorned with a copyright notice for the photographer Johnny Sundby Photography, Inc./SD Legislative Research Council, and stamped that they are only available to “Use by Permission Only.”  This brand new notice has certainly caught my attention, as I think it was in the last 2 weeks that a legislator directed me to their photo as the one they preferred to use with a release, and there was no such notice at the time.

But as we’re seeing today, the copyright line is up, and everyone is on notice that legislators telling people to just use their LRC photo might just be verboten.  I’ve asked legislators if they had seen it or heard about it, and all are telling me that it’s news to them.

Certainly, LRC is allowed to sign a contract with the photographer (who has always done nice work, BTW) which allows them to retain copyright for their works.  But in way, it also sets a precedent that might make people uncomfortable, especially in the news media.

So now the media apparently shouldn’t  assume they are free to use the official legislative photos alongside stories of interest about that legislator, without first obtaining permission from a government office?

A little troubling, especially since those pictures are paid for with taxpayer dollars.

Something to think about.

Remember last week when the Hughes County States Attorney noted the following to Senator Tom Pischke when he tried to gin up criminal charges against 27 of his Senate colleagues?  And the Hughes County State’s Attorney said no dice:

The South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that neither the Executive Branch nor the Judicial Branch have any role in the internal working of the Legislative Branch. McIntyre v. Wick, 1996 SD 147, 558 NW2d 347 (1996) relying on State ex rel. Ingles v. Circuit Court of Spink County, 63 SD 313, 258 N.W. 278 (1934). This includes the investigation and discipline of a member of the Legislature.

and…

The law is clear in South Dakota. The Executive Branch, which includes State’s Attorneys, cannot interfere in the internal workings of the Legislature including the investigation and discipline of a legislator.

Read that here, and it’s pretty clear..

It was clear from the State’s Attorney’s reply that it’s more than settled law that the executive branch cannot interfere in the internal workings of the Legislature.   So what does Senator Pischke do for his seatmate?  Instead of spending his time representing his district, he’s stuck on stupid, and asking the question again, this time going to the Attorney General – a member of the executive branch – for the same thing:

“I write to request the intervention of the Attorney General’s Office; as the highest law enforcement office in the State of SD, with power to review criminal conduct on the part of government officials, especially upon failure or refusal of the local State’s Attorney to act, or in the event of a conflict of interest,” reads a letter Pischke sent to Jackley Tuesday.

and..

Unsatisfied, Pischke wrote to Jackley that he is “angry, appalled and embarrassed” that “members of the State Legislature, lawmakers, are above the law.”

Read the entire story here.

Maybe if Senator Pischke devoted more time working for the interests of the constituents of his district, and less time working for the interests of his seatmate and lactation consultant gone wild Julie Frye-Mueller, he might actually be able to pass legislation.

Gov. Noem: “Temporary tax cut will hurt our families and businesses”

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem asked legislators to support a permanent tax cut. Governor Noem thanked the people of South Dakota for turning challenges into opportunities – and she advocated for the tax cut that the people of South Dakota overwhelmingly want: the grocery sales tax cut. You can watch Governor Noem’s video here.

“I want to help every single person who lives here in our great state. [The grocery sales tax cut] is the fairest tax cut for all people,” Governor Noem said in the video. “It doesn’t decide who gets a tax cut and who doesn’t – because everyone who lives here eats: the single mom trying to put food on the table, the senior citizens living on fixed incomes, the family where both parents have to work to make ends meet with rising record inflation nationwide. Overwhelmingly, the people of South Dakota want this tax eliminated.”

Eliminating the grocery sales tax is overwhelmingly supported by the people of South Dakota. A recent poll found that 58% of South Dakotans prefer this tax cut to other options. But last week, the House of Representatives opted to instead reduce the overall sales tax rate by 30 cents for every $100 spent.

“If the legislature pursues a temporary tax cut and instead embraces a spending spree, it will hurt our families and our businesses,” continued Governor Noem.

Yesterday, the Senate Tax Committee put a 2-year sunset on that tax cut because they know that the people will support repealing the sales tax on groceries in the near future. Legislators should be giving the people of South Dakota what they want now instead of thinking they know better how to spend someone else’s money.

“As we go into the last two week of legislative session, my hope is that policy makers remember they work for the people and will be accountable to the people,” continued Governor Noem. “They will present me a budget soon, and I will decide if it is worthy of my signature or not. I have proved in the past that I am willing to make hard decisions – and I will again, especially if it is something that respects our Constitution and the will of the people.”

South Dakota can afford eliminating the sales tax on groceries because of our permanent economic growth. Our businesses are growing and expanding quicker than ever before, incomes are going up faster here than in almost any state, we have the lowest unemployment rate in South Dakota history, and our population is growing at 5 times the national average.

###

If the legislature pursues a temporary tax cut and instead embraces a spending spree, it will hurt our families and our businesses.

They should pass the tax cut the people want: eliminating the sales tax on groceries. pic.twitter.com/6QlgT5pQzk

— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) February 28, 2023

Saw this on the Internet today:

There’s a depressing set of numbers. From recently published “The Shredding of Midwestern Newspapers”https://t.co/Wa0W6b8uua pic.twitter.com/wSWV2aOtVb

— Dᴀɴ Gᴏʟᴅᴇɴ (@_DanGolden) February 27, 2023

According to this, over the last 20 years the number of staff employed by the Argus has been reduced from 65 to 8. Yet in that time, it’s parent company has acquired 2 daily and several weekly newspapers around the state, and shipped their publication out to Iowa.

Someone explain to me why exactly why taxpayers still have to be on the hook to place public notices, as opposed to filing such things in local libraries, or being placed on-line?

If it is going to be in law that taxpayer dollars are spent to support their mission, We should go back to supporting community sources of news and information and the local jobs they create.

Not media conglomerates who come in and strip-mine them for assets and ship jobs and production out of state.

Attorney General Jackley Releases Explanations for Proposed Constitutional Amendment, Initiated Measure

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has released the final ballot explanation for both a proposed constitutional amendment and an initiated measure, both of which would prohibit the implementation of taxes on anything sold for human consumption.

Language for the constitutional amendment can be found here. The initiated measure language can be found here.

For either measure to be placed on the 2024 general election ballot, they must receive enough valid petition signatures. The proposed constitutional amendment requires 35,017 valid signatures, and the initiated measure needs 17,509 valid signatures.

A majority of the votes cast in the general election will be needed to pass either or both measures.

The Attorney General’s explanation was drafted after a review of all the comments received during the proposed amendment’s 10-day comment period. Two comments were received.

State law requires the Attorney General to 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.

For more information regarding ballot measures, please visit the Secretary of State’s website.

-30-

Attorney General Jackley Releases Draft Explanation for Proposed “Top Two Primary” Constitutional Amendment

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has released a draft ballot explanation for a proposed Constitutional Amendment regarding top-two primary elections.

State law requires the Attorney General to 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.

The proposed amendment would allow top-two primary elections, regardless of political party, for Governor, legislative office, county office, United States Senator, and United States Representative. The two top vote getters in each primary would advance to the general election.

State law requires the Attorney General to 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. Attorney General Jackley’s draft explanation on this proposed amendment can found here.

Once the Attorney General has filed and posted the draft explanation, the public has 10 days to provide written comment. The deadline for comments on this amendment explanation is March 9, 2023, at the close of business in Pierre, South Dakota. The final explanation is due to the Secretary of State on March 29, 2023.

The draft amendment would require 35,017 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.

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 March 9, 2023. 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 March 9, 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-

Gov. Noem Signs Bills into Law

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Noem signed the following 12 bills into law:

• SB 31 creates an off-road vehicle decal for non-residents visiting the state;
• SB 34 authorizes the sale of real property in Lake County by the Board of Regents;
• SB 61 revises driver’s license suspensions for restricted permit holders over the age of sixteen;
• SB 77 reinstates the restricted real estate broker’s license for auctioneers and revises real estate licensing;
• SB 83 revises provisions regarding water development districts;
• SB 84 authorizes compensation for water project district directors;
• SB 88 amends a provision allowing municipalities to jointly license and regulate intercity services;
• SB 92 requires that certain operations obtain their own general or individual water pollution permits;
• SB 93 provides an increased appropriation for the construction costs of an athletics event center at Dakota State University;
• SB 95, amends provisions regarding trusts;
• SB 162 revises public meeting requirements; and,
• HB 1054 provides a stipend for the erection of a private headstone for a deceased veteran.

Governor Noem has signed 67 bills into law this legislative session.

###

Protect Eye Surgery in South Dakota
By Dr. Ryan Geraets and Barbara Smith

Tomorrow, the South Dakota Health and Human Services Committee will consider a bill (SB 87) that seeks to expand the scope of practice for the profession of optometry to include surgery on and around the eye with instruments such as scalpels and lasers. As leaders in the South Dakota medical community, we adamantly oppose this legislation. Expanding the scope of practice to allow non-surgically trained optometrists to perform surgical procedures puts South Dakota patients at risk.

The average patient may not know the difference between optometrists and ophthalmologists—but there is a big difference. Ophthalmologists are medical doctors and trained eye surgeons—optometrists are not. Optometrists are valued members of the eye care team and undertake a four-year training program focusing on eye examination and disease identification. But they do not properly train in performing surgery. They learn about specific, minor procedures but do not undergo the necessary education and training to perform the surgeries included in the proposed bill.

Ophthalmologists, on the other hand, are medical doctors and trained eye surgeons. They undergo at least 10,000 more hours of training than optometrists and attend four additional years of residency, where they must complete hundreds of hands-on, supervised surgical procedures.

As South Dakota doctors who perform eyelid surgery and laser surgery inside the eye, we can attest that these are not minor surgeries. Among surgeons, eye surgery ranks as one of the most risky, invasive surgeries for a patient. We cannot forget the patient as we debate who should be able to perform these surgeries. Our first priority should be our patients and their vision.

Today, South Dakota is rightfully in line with an overwhelming majority of states that exclusively allow ophthalmologists to perform laser eye surgeries on patients, but SB 87 seeks to dilute our quality of care. This bill is part of a larger national agenda by the optometry profession stemming from an aggressive and well-funded optometry lobby. Advocates incorrectly claim that allowing optometrists to perform eye surgery would improve availability and access to eye care. Medical research, however, shows there is no significant increase in accessibility to eye care in states that allow optometrists to perform eye surgery.

In states that have enacted similar legislation, patients have been hurt. A few years after the Louisiana legislature mistakenly expanded optometrists’ scope of practice to allow them to perform surgery, a Texas resident named Charlotte was told by a local optometrist that she required laser surgery. The state of Texas rightfully prohibits optometrists from performing surgery, but instead of referring her to one of many ophthalmologists near her home who would have been happy to treat her, Charlotte’s optometrist convinced her to drive six hours to have laser eye surgery performed by one of his optometry colleagues in Louisiana.

Surgery that would have taken an ophthalmologist less than 10 minutes lasted more than two hours, and Charlotte woke up to swollen eyes, extreme pain, and discomfort. As a result of the optometrist’s laser surgery, Charlotte suffered irreversible eye damage to both of her lenses.

We cannot let this happen in South Dakota. The surgical expansions in SB 87 are dangerous and would dramatically reduce the quality of eye care in our state, potentially hurting people and causing irreversible damage. As leaders in our state’s medical community, we urge the members of the House Health and Human Services Committee to vote no on SB 87. There are no shortcuts to safe surgery.

 —

Ryan Geraets, MD, is an ophthalmologist in Sioux Falls and serves as President of the South Dakota Academy of Ophthalmology. Barb Smith is CEO of the South Dakota State Medical Association.

There are a lot of deadlines coming up quickly in Pierre this week, as the legislature moves through the home stretch in anticipation of ending the main run of session on March 9th.

Commemoration draft requests are due to the Legislative Research Council by 5:00pm, AND it is the Last day for the house of origin to pass special appropriation bills referred from the Joint Committee on Appropriations.

Wednesday is the last day for introduction of commemorations, and Friday is the last day to move required delivery of bills or joint resolutions by a committee to the second house.

Next Monday, the 6th, it the final deadline for a bill or joint resolution to pass both houses.

So watch for some of the tougher bills to move through, as well as resurrection of some compromise that have been under discussion.

Had word that the attached document was being handed out at the District 30 Crackerbarrel in Custer & Hill City on Saturday, by Mathew Monfore.. who if you’re not familiar with him, he’s the goofy evangelist who managed to get himself banned from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation for, as they put it, distributing hate materials.

Well, he’s back distributing goofy materials, which make a specific point to attack Republican State Representative Dennis Krull..

Why the push by Monfore at the Cracker Barrels to attack Krull?  I’m getting word from out west that allegedly, “there is a plan” afoot that is being discussed for the hard right to run both Senator Julie Frye-Mueller for Senate AND to place her husband Mike Mueller on the ballot for District 30 State House.

Which doesn’t really sounds like a good idea, given what happened this session..

An LRC employee, a new mother, said that she had a concerning conversation with Frye-Mueller and her husband Mike, a lobbyist, last week in the LRC offices. The employee said Sen. Frye-Mueller engaged in an inappropriate conversation about breastfeeding and vaccinating her baby.

Read that here.

So not only would the person saying some pretty awful things to an employee represent District 30, her husband who was present and “smiling” during the conversation about how to get breastmilk flowing would be right along there with her.

Ugh.  I would think we could easily come up with two better candidates… two who weren’t involved in unwanted creepy conversations with a legislative employee.