Top Political Stories of 2019: #1 – Kristi Noem sworn in as Governor

On Saturday, Jan. 5, 2019, Kristi Noem was sworn in as South Dakota’s 33rd governor, the first woman to hold the position in South Dakota. And hardly a day goes by where Kristi is not in the news.

While her predecessor, Governor Dennis Daugaard had to be focused on the financial stability of South Dakota out of necessity right out of the gate, Noem was able to start her term committed to her core values. She’s direct on policy, and to the point. Think Bill Janklow.

After years in Congress, where Noem displayed a desire for direct action and at times not mincing words about it  – as she made clear in the 2014 farm bill – in that body, you’re still one of hundreds trying to accomplish things.  Now as Governor, there’s no mistaking that she’s ready to get some things done.

Kristi is about priorities, and when she wants things to happen, they happen. She’s also is setting her own path as Governor and has proved that anyone thinking of putting her in the corner does so at their peril.

When the legislature decided it was going to cut more than the Governor was proposing in the state’s budget, as well as other actions that garnered the attention of the second floor, they quickly found out that this was not the chief executive to try that with as Governor Noem clearly and concisely told them how it was going to be. This is a departure from the style of her last two predecessors in the Governor’s office. Governor Noem is not a pushover, and is not afraid to dress down other elected officials when she believes they have it coming.

2019 has seen Noem move forward many of the planks in her platform of governance. She’s moved forward programs on pheasant habitat and hunting, supporting campus free speech, pipeline legislation, constitutional carry, expanding broadband, meth education, and drawing a line in the sand on illegal drugs.

While moving forward, Noem has also shown flexibility beyond her own priorities when needed.

A group of parents with children on the autism spectrum brought legislation to address shortcomings in state insurance law regarding coverage for autism treatments but it failed in the legislature. In a post-session response, Noem noted there may be a solution outside of legislation – and to the surprise of many she delivered by asking the federal government to add it as an essential health benefit in health insurance plans in South Dakota.   When some were critical of the fact that the change would not take place until 2021, Noem negotiated health insurance offerings to be available in 2020, a year earlier than the benefit change would have taken effect.

Make no mistake (speaking as someone on the inside on these fights) these are not changes that would have taken place unless the call came directly from the top that this was something that needed to happen.  The state insurance bureaucracy and private companies make changes at a glacial pace.  These things happened in weeks and short months.

2019 also marked new challenges for state government that the chief executive had to respond to and begin preparing for the future, as South Dakota – which has been in a drought state for many years – suddenly had an overabundance of rainfall, causing new problems to plan for and deal with.

As noted in a recent article,  Noem acknowledges that “storms, tornadoes and flooding that devastated communities across the state was one of the biggest challenges she faced in her first year in office” and will continue to challenge the administration.

In 2019, the Noem administration has not been without its critics, as even Kristi might concede there’s room for working towards middle ground, noting in the same recent article that she considered herself “teachable.”

Kristi Noem being sworn in as Governor was the biggest political story of the year, her actions have continued to be among the biggest political stories of the year, and nothing is likely to change in 2020 as she keeps with the strong executive model of state government.

Top Political Stories of 2019 – Honorable Mention: John Thune selected as US Senate Majority Whip

One of the big political happenings of 2019 was South Dakota’s senior US Senator John Thune assuming the second highest office in the US Senate, and being named Majority Whip on January 3, 2019.  Thune had been the #3 person in the US Senate, but replaced John Cornwyn who served in the position for six years, until he was term limited out.

It’s a tremendously important position in the Republican Caucus, and could set Thune up to be Majority Leader, if the position held by Mitch McConnell opens up. And it has helped Thune be at the forefront of driving issues for South Dakota, such as his 5G and robocall legislation.  

Why wasn’t the Thune move bigger news?  Moving from #3 to #2 in the Senate Republican Caucus was not a tremendous leap for one of South Dakota’s favorite sons. And as he’s done ever since he was elected, Senator Thune puts his nose to the grindstone, and does his job, and is back in the state as often as possible. John Thune is the same John that South Dakotans have known for decades, so he certainly doesn’t wear the new position on his sleeve.

There’s been no putting on of airs by the Senator, even though his new office is a little nicer.

It’s as politically important an event as anything else that happened this year, and well worth recognizing!

Noem Announces District 35 Legislative Appointment 

PIERRE, S.D. – Governor Kristi Noem today appointed Jessica Castleberry to represent District 35 in the South Dakota Senate, effective January 1, 2020. The vacancy was created after Lyndi DiSanto announced her resignation. Castleberry will serve during the 2020 legislative session.

“I’m thankful for the input from folks in District 35 as we’ve worked toward this decision,” said Noem. “Jessica is an accomplished businesswoman and a proven public servant. Her background and experience have prepared her well for this position, and I’m confident she will be a strong voice for the people of District 35.”

“Serving in the South Dakota Senate is a true privilege and an honor that I take very seriously,” said Castleberry. “I look forward to bringing my perspective to Pierre and working to shape policies that best serve people in District 35 and throughout our state.”

Castleberry owns and operates Little Nest Preschools in Rapid City and is an instructor at Black Hills State University’s South Dakota Center for Enterprise Opportunity. Castleberry was named South Dakota CEO Young Enterprising Entrepreneur of the Year in 2016, and Small Business Administration South Dakota Woman Owned Small Business of the Year in 2018. She is a member of the Rapid City Area Chamber of Commerce, serves on the Rapid City Area Schools Strategic Planning Committee, and previously served as president of the South Dakota Association for the Education of Young Children.

###

Top Political Stories of 2019: #2 – The collapse of the South Dakota Democrat Party

The handwriting might have been on the wall in November 2018 when Democrat scion and former Sioux Falls City Council Candidate Nick Weiland opined “With the Democratic Party in South Dakota in decline, it might be time for something different…..  Not sure how we can change all the old D’s here.”  Because the words were very prescient, and a lot of old D’s were changed with the events of 2019, and how those events affected the Democrat party.

The year started off with chair Ann Tornberg asking for another term of office at the helm of the Democrat party after a closer than expected Gubernatorial election, but yet all other state offices were swept, and flat election results in the state legislature, where Republicans maintained historic numbers.  Several others decided to run, including Paula Hawks who had earlier attempted a coup of the office after her own disastrous campaign for Congress in 2016,  saying “I think that what we’ve seen in the last year is that what we’re doing isn’t working…We do need a shake-up.”

While Paula Hawks was not met with universal appeal, she did manage to capture 73% of the vote after a runoff between her and Tornberg in a vote in the March election.  While Hawks waited until May to take office, Tornberg remained in charge for a bit.

And then State Democrats started posting unusually lopsided FEC reports, noting $16,363.17 raised against $34,956.32 spent –  better than a 2x burn rate – leaving them $22,742 in the bank.  And shortly thereafter, the FEC chided them for not filing a year end report.   And then the next report was worse.

In the next report, as Tornberg departed, they started with that $22,742.60, to which they added $26,509.17 in receipts, but spent $32,627.39, leaving them with only $16,624,38 Cash on Hand.  And we got the first glimpse of a notation of debts of $46,863.72. And then this report with the debt load was amended away only days later.  Another report came out a month later, draining them down to only 3k cash on hand.

And then the dam broke loose. In August, the Federal Elections Commission released the results of an audit they conducted of the South Dakota Democrat Party. And it was bad, with the FEC noting that “The Audit staff recommends that the Commission find that SDDP received impermissible contributions totaling $23,827.”  But that was just the start.

While the Argus Leader’s political reporter Lisa Kazcke was busy downplaying the story and saying inconsistencies with Democrat’s FEC reports were not “newsworthy,”  Seth Tupper at the Rapid City Journal wrote a damning story about the violations noting “ the South Dakota Democratic Party understated disbursements by $2.5 million, received $67,182 worth of contributions from unregistered organizations and failed to disclose $46,097 worth of debts and obligations.”

Shortly thereafter, the South Dakota Democrat Party started to unravel.

Paula Hawks wasted no time in blame-shifting, criticizing the prior “lack of oversight in the financial management of SDDP,” despite having the same treasurer that had been at the party for more than a decade.

The mysterious disappearing debt began to reappear in a series of new FEC filings, and Democrats started trimming staff, while denying they were doing so.  And two days later, the South Dakota Democrat Party shuttered their doors, with an announcement:

In reviewing our budget, the biggest operating expenses are attributed to the office rent in Sioux Falls and Rapid City. Therefore, we have made the necessary decision to close both offices within the next month and staff will begin work remotely. We anticipate this being temporary until we are in a better financial position.

Read that here.

As if it could get worse.. it did.  Just a month or so into Chairman Paula Hawks’ stint as chairwoman, Democrats reported starting with $3180 in cash, raised $17,539 in receipts in their federal account and had $30,580.49 in expenditures. Leaving them $9860.26 of deficit spending.  Added to that was the $46,863.73 in debts and obligations already owed by the committee to a number of vendors.

Within a day, the Democrat Party treasurer was out after just short of 2 decades.  But that didn’t stop the bleeding, and things remained in free fall.   More reports of deficit spending continued, and Democrats began to circle the wagons, with one Democrat insider noting “Things are going on in the South Dakota Democratic Party, but our new Chairman wants much of it to be held in confidence. So, to not risk violating her wish and admonition, I dare not discuss anything here. Maybe next time. Sorry.”

And suddenly in late October, Team Paula couldn’t take it anymore, and both Paula Hawks and Stacey Burnette abruptly resigned, declaring  “Frankly our skills and services aren’t required for an organization whose sole focus can only be on fundraising to rectify past mistakes.”

Democrat Vice-Chair Randy Seiler, who in March declared that he ran an ‘independent campaign’ for AG “ as of October was now in charge of the Democrat Party.

Maybe.  He was not sure at that point.

As things moved forward, a long-time Dem Party insider, South Dakota Democrat National Committeewoman Deb Knecht spoke to a group of Huron Democrats, claiming that Democrats may face a $5000 fine.

Seiler agreed to accept leadership of the Democrat party, and in an article appearing in the Capitol Journal, the new Democrat Vice Chair and Treasurer noted that they’re attempting to manage their finances by taking out a 3 year loan of $25,000 to repay past due accounts.  This was illustrated by the FEC Report filed December 20^th which noted the same troubling spending trends that caused the collapse of the prior leadership team.

Which brings us to now.

The FEC is waiting for a new member to be voted in to finally move forward with the penalties yet to be assessed against the South Dakota Democrat party, which will include repayment of impermissible donations, as well as whatever fines are assessed.  That would be on top of their now $71,863 of existing debts and obligations as reported to the FEC.

Dems do have 2 US Senate Candidates, and 2 Congressional candidates for a primary, but none of them are considered able to post a competitive challenge to the incumbents in those races.

State Democrats are attempting to regroup, and are looking for a new Executive Director who is “reliable, honest, loyal, and discreet” with a closing date of January 31, which means that hiring for that office is likely to come in the middle of the early campaign season.

At the same time, South Dakota Republicans are fairly organized and energized, coming off of hosting campaign schools in Rapid City and Sioux Falls for 40-50 candidates in each location.

It remains to be seen whether Democrats can be competitive in South Dakota in 2020 as they attempt to rebuild after their total collapse in 2019.

But no matter what, it was entertaining to watch over the course of the last year.

Top Political Stories of 2019: #3 – Happy Hawaiian Day! The Board of Regents versus the Legislature.

An entity which has been present in South Dakota Law since the early days of South Dakota, the South Dakota Board of Regents (BOR) which governs the state’s Public University system has long been referred to as the state’s 4^th branch of government due to the panel’s structure and organization.

Only subject to term limits since 2018, Six year terms for members have meant that those who sit on the panel enjoy long tenures that sometimes outlast elected officials in government who might be at odds with things that are going on in our institutions of higher learning.  As a result, universities and the board of regents have always played a game of “survivor “with Governors and especially the Legislature. They play to outwit, outplay, & outlast.   Especially the outlast.

The BOR and University presidents have expanded their territory over the years and been able to resist change as legislators have to pivot from one item to the next, sometimes lacking the ability to devote sustained attention to forcing this massive higher educational system to heel, and accept that they are an entity under state government – and not one unto themselves.  2019 started with the Board of Regents already on the wrong side of the South Dakota Legislature on the issue of Free Speech on University campuses.

A previous attempt in 2018 to pass two bills guaranteeing free speech had come about because of reported problems with speech on campus, with USD specifically cited as having designated free speech zones.  Under the glare of the legislative eye,  USD danced a little sidestep, declaring victory as “under the new policy, the entire campus is open to free speech.”

The Board of Regents responded to legislators push, and staved off the law they feared.  But, legislators noted, they weren’t going to let this one go.  Regents on their part promised to take a “more aggressive” approach to free speech, saying the bills were unnecessary as they prepared to slow walk the issue.

But a funny thing happened. Lee Qualm, the House Majority Leader decided he wasn’t going to let that happen, and sent the regents a letter with very specific questions (which they responded to). And Regents drafted a policy. State Representative Sue Peterson and Senator Jim Stalzer also mounted a campaign to keep up the pressure, keying in on intellectual diversity. Regents responded that they would write policies, telling the legislators:

The presidents of our institutions are charged with providing academic leadership and promoting academic excellence at their institutions and formulating educational policies and academic standards consistent with BOR policy. It is through BOR policy and the BOR’s employment and oversight of the presidents of our institutions that it ensures and promotes a commitment to intellectual diversity on our campuses.

Read that here.

And that brings us to 2019. Where Regents slow walking the legislature didn’t work anymore.

Right out of the gate, an Intellectual Diversity bill was introduced and moved forward in legislature under the sponsorship of Speaker of the House Haugaard and House Majority Leader Lee Qualm as co-sponsors of the bill, with Senate Majority Leader Kris Langer and Senate President Pro Tempore Brock Greenfield also adding their names to the list.

While it moved through the House, the bill seemed somewhat stalled by mid-February, and some were thinking it dead.  In fact, it was dead, moved to the 41^st day in Senate State Affairs by a vote of 6-3. But then the biggest gift that Regents could provide its detractors was given.  Hawaiian Day at USD Law School.

A silly let-off-steam event at USD Law School called Hawaiian Day was hijacked by the Schools’ PC overlords, and as related from the Argus Leader after SDWC ran the story:

A student organization at the University of South Dakota has been told that holding a “Hawaiian Day” social event violates the school’s policy on inclusiveness.

As a result, the Student Bar Association of the USD School of Law changed the name of the event to “Beach Day.” In a Facebook message to its members, the group said: “We greatly apologize to those we offended; it was unintentional.”

In the same message announcing the change from Hawaiian Day to Beach Day, members were told that the dress code was the same – floral shirts – and that leis, the traditional flower garlands that are often given to tourists in Hawaii, would also be handed out. But in a second message that went out to members on Wednesday, bar members were told that leis had been nixed from the event.

Read that here.

Suddenly, USD was held up to National ridicule, including a Hawaiian state legislator who mocked the forces of political correctness at the University of South Dakota.

And a curious thing happened. That bill that was killed on a 7-2 vote and sent to the legislative morgue of the 41^st legislative day now had a heartbeat.  And not just a heartbeat – it had momentum!   In fact, so much so that the Board of Regents could tell the winds had shifted, and now found themselves at the table to help “fix” this once dead measure.

Within days HB 1087 was revived, reconsidered, amended and sent to the Senate Floor (on a 6-3 vote) – where it passed on a vote of 26 to 7. The newly amended bill also rocketed through the House for concurrence in Amendments on a 51-12 vote, with a very supportive Governor signing it within a week of it being delivered.

It was a hard won fight for free speech advocates. But that wasn’t quite the end of it.  Because the State Legislature was still wanting to chat with the Board of Regents.

Government Operations and Audit Committee or GOAC was now on deck for the interim period of time between legislative sessions. And they wanted to continue the conversation with the Board of Regents, and invited them to have a chat about Hawaiian Day, and a previously unannounced plan to replace the University Center in Sioux Falls with a new college under the University of South Dakota.

USD attempted to blame their Hawaiian Day debacle on the conservative rabble rousers at Dakotawarcollege.com. In talking with legislators, they didn’t really put much credence in USD’s internal investigation on Hawaiian Day.  And it really didn’t help that they created a new College at USD without bothering to mention it.

That new college stuck in GOAC’s craw a bit, and they invited Regents back to discuss their compliance with SDCL 13-51-1.3, the law that designated the “Sioux Falls site for instructional, research, and service programs.”

And the headaches of the Regental institutions didn’t end there.

As reported on the Campus Reform website, USD President Sheila Gestring told an assembled group in a September Forum that that Democrat state Sen. Susan Wismer’s criticism of a letter by GOP lawmakers suggesting free speech and intellectual diversity policy changes was “brilliant.”  To which it was responded to publicly by Senator Stalzer who noted ““It is becoming obvious that USD has a culture that opposes free speech and intellectual diversity. [T]hat needs to change and the President appears to support that culture,” (State Senator) Stalzer concluded.”

Oops.

This and other actions earned the Board of Regents a return trip to the Government Operations and Audit Committee, where in October, GOAC decided they wanted more information on the implementation of House Bill 1087, free speech and intellectual diversity on university campuses from the Board.  GOAC expressly noted to Regents “We have been informed by various parties that the BOR is not taking the implementation of HB1087 seriously and that the BOR is instructing campuses to ignore the requirements of HB1087 and/or to “slow walk” any reforms.”

So far, the draft report for the interim 2019 period for GOAC doesn’t go very far in depth on upcoming legislation being considered by individual legislators regarding the Board of Regents, but with concerns over slow walking reforms, and allegations of USD containing “a culture that opposes free speech and intellectual diversity “ it would not be surprising if further legislation regarding free speech and intellectual diversity don’t come up. In fact, I would almost expect it.

Happy 2020!

Top Political Stories of 2019: #4 – Meth. Have you heard about it? 

“Meth. We’re On it.”

The tagline didn’t just grab attention, but exploded across social media like a white-hot comet the instant the media campaign was announced from the Department of Social Services with the full endorsement of Governor Kristi Noem.

You wouldn’t know it from the way people have carried on, but the Governor has actually been talking about the dangers of methamphetamines for some time.

In 2018, early on in her Gubernatorial campaign, the then candidate Kristi Noem made some promises regarding meth education and prevention programs:

SAFER COMMUNITIES, STRONGER FAMILIES

PREVENT WHEN POSSIBLE

Close the gateways. Whether the gateway drug is marijuana or a legal prescription painkiller, the slope toward addiction can often be a slippery one. As governor, I will oppose all attempts to legalize marijuana. At the same time, I will work with medical professionals and the state legislature to enact reasonable limits on opioid prescriptions and support provider education and training.

Implement research-based meth prevention programs. Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death among Americans under age 50. In South Dakota, drug use, including methamphetamine use, is rising dramatically. In fact, drug arrests hit their highest point in a decade last year. We must change course. My administration will work to expand evidence-based education and prevention programs. Every South Dakotan should know and understand the signs of addiction as well as the dangers of meth use to aid in early intervention.

Read that here.

The expansion of meth education and prevention programs was foundational to the Governor’s campaign for office, and the Governor had made efforts on it earlier this year, such as when she urged HHS Secretary Azar to Address Meth Epidemic,  and entered into a contract with the Rosebud Sioux Tribe to expand treatment options.   The Governor added specific troopers in the Highway patrol to address meth interdiction, and hosted 10 tribal leaders for a luncheon at the Governor’s Residence to discuss ways we can work together to educate people on the dangers of meth and root out meth.

Literally, Kristi’s first weekly column as Governor promised to “work to expand prevention and treatment programs” and to “do more to educate our young people about the effects of meth and give them strategies to avoid it.” She also noted that the state would “help every South Dakotan learn to identify the early signs of meth use to increase early referrals to treatment.

Since nearly day one of her campaign, in no uncertain terms Governor Kristi Noem has been promising to expand education and prevention of meth.

So, what happened?  She actually went and did something that did more than the ho-hum, run of the mill “don’t do drugs” education effort that has been going on for time immemorial.  The Governor approved an education program that grabbed people’s attention.

And not just a little. It got the attention of not just South Dakota, but a million armchair quarterbacks across social media. It was everywhere.

As I wrote after the campaign came out, like it or not, the “Meth – We’re on it”  ad campaign has had a societal impact, and raised it from a ho-hum issue to what newspaper ad people call “Top of Mind Awareness.”  It’s reached the point where people are familiar enough with the tagline to parody it – and have others know what the reference is.

Looking back across the year, it seems as if people who weren’t paying attention point to the meth campaign and try to claim it was bad or it wasn’t successful in some manner.  But they’d be wrong.

The Governor promised an expansion of education programs on meth.  And it looks like she’s delivering.

And unlike some state-led drug education campaigns in the past, I think she has all our attention.

Top Political Stories of 2019: #5 – Hemp. 

The #5 top political story of 2019 is closely related to the #6 top political story. Or it’s not, and it’s a completely different plant, depending on who you talk to.  But as a political story, hemp might have been as controversial if not more controversial than marijuana in 2019.

The legalization and cultivation of Hemp has long been considered a back door to the legalization to marijuana. Most recently various legislative measures have been brought up in 2015 and 2016, but the issue reached critical mass in 2018, with the 2018 Farm Bill directing the USDA to establish a national regulatory framework for hemp production in the United States.

In light of the federal government’s move, in 2019 South Dakota legislators brought a measure – House Bill 1191 – to legalize the growth, production, and processing of industrial hemp and derivative products in the state.   While the bill was brought by a Democrat, it had a significant number of Republican Sponsors, including the prime sponsor in the state senate, Senator Youngberg, and sponsorship by the House Majority Leader, Lee Qualm.  Ultimately, it was sponsored by 78 of the 105 legislators.

The measure then hit a wall. Legislators found that Governor Kristi Noem didn’t just object to the measure. She had strong objections to the legalization of hemp. The Governor cited questions over hemp’s ambiguity in identifying it versus marijuana as affecting public safety, law enforcement, and costs to the taxpayers.

And legislators passed it anyway, with the hemp measure sailing through the House of Representatives on a 65-2 vote, and passing the Senate on a 21-14 vote (with the House concurring on Senate Amendments 58-8).

The line in the sand had been drawn, and it found Governor Noem wielding one of the two full vetoes she issued in the 2019 session (2 more were simple style and form changes), citing that “Our state is not yet ready.” Turned back to legislators, while the House overrode her veto on a 55 to 11 vote,  The Senate could only muster a 20-13 vote, and failed to override the Governor’s nixing of Hemp.

But the issue didn’t end there.

Governor Noem continued to be vocal on the topic all year, speaking out on it at various times, including urging lawmakers to consider extensive questions surrounding industrial hemp, and state officials expressing their concern over it’s legalization.  The Governor also devoted a weekly column to it, declaring “Industrial Hemp is Not the Answer,” letting lawmakers know they could expect another veto, and even authoring an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

And then it got really interesting, as a Colorado hemp delivery driver was arrested in South Dakota, and indicted on drug charges, specifically “intending to distribute marijuana and possessing more than 10 pounds.”  He was also arrested for “charges of ingesting marijuana and cocaine.”   This arrest added more fuel to the fire.

About this time, the USDA finally issued interim rules for the 2018 legislation, which gave some guidance. However, the Governor noted that “USDA does not preempt a state’s ability to adopt stronger requirements or prohibit production,” but “the guidelines do require the State to permit interstate transportation of hemp.”

I might also mention that there’s no indication this issue is going away.  Sponsors have expressed an interest in bringing it back for another go.

One of the other interesting developments throughout the year was  a record number of legislative resignations. And guess who gets to pick the replacements, according to the Constitution?  Governor Kristi Noem.

The power of appointment gives the Governor a unique opportunity to reshape government and state policy as she deems prudent – which may mean that the 2020 legislative session might be less friendly to hemp when it convenes in a couple of weeks.

Still lots more to come on hemp. And 4 more top political stories of 2019!

Top Political Stories of 2019: #6 – Marijuana measure pushers regroup with out of state allies, and put two marijuana legalization ballot measures up for 2020.

Drug legalization efforts in South Dakota have a history of staying true to the state’s conservative roots, in that they’ve been rejected time and again. But, after over a decade of rejection by South Dakota voters, the issue has once again bubbled to the top.

A ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana first appeared on the 2006 ballot, losing 52%-47%, which was followed with another measure in 2010, which lost by an even greater margin of 63%-36%. These efforts had backing from the out of state Marijuana Policy Project which helped to fund the petitioning process, and put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the measures. By 2015, another group of people were there was an effort to place yet another ballot initiative on the 2016 election to legalize medical marijuana, but unlike the previous ballot drives, the Marijuana Policy Project appeared to largely take a pass on the South Dakota effort, largely due to strong marijuana campaigns in larger states for the 2016 election.

The South Dakotans Against Prohibition group began circulating petitions to put decriminalization of marijuana on the November 2016 ballot, but failed to gather the 13,871 signatures necessary to place the measure on the ballot, forcing the group to withdraw its petition. The same group went back to the drawing board in the next election, and turned in over 15,000 signatures, barely meeting valid signature requirements, in an attempt to place medical marijuana on the 2018 ballot. But similarly to their attempt for the 2016, the group failed to make the ballot due to an insufficient number of valid signatures.

Moving forward to 2019, various parties had an interest in adding South Dakota to the list of states that would legally permit the sale of marijuana, which currently remains illegal on a federal basis.

John Dale of Spearfish submitted a ballot measure early on that would let people age 21 and older possess, grow, sell and distribute marijuana in South Dakota has taken the first steps toward the 2020 election ballot. The Dale measure would also allow someone younger than 21 use marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.

Melissa Mentele, who had led the measures which failed to achieve the ballot for the 2016 and 2018 elections, submitted a medical marijuana measure that according to the Attorney General’s opinion declares that “Cardholders may possess 3 ounces of marijuana and additional amounts of marijuana products.”  The Attorney General’s on this measure opinion also notes that if passed, the measure “will likely require judicial or legislative clarification.”

In addition to the two initiated measures, a third measure, a Constitutional Amendment, was proposed by a group represented by former United States Attorney Brendan Johnson. The Constitutional Amendment proposes in part legalizing “the possession, use, transport, and distribution of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia by people age 21 and older. Individuals may possess or distribute one ounce or less of marijuana.”

After petition circulation approval in 2019, The initiated measures seemed on track for the same level of success they had in the prior two elections. Dale sought people to sign via facebook an effort which ultimately was unsuccessful – and Mentele’s group exhibited the same lackluster organization they had in two prior elections when they failed to achieve the ballot.

Early on, there were reports of the Mentele backed Medical Marijuana group lacking funds, to the point they were asking circulators to print their own petitions, and making facebook appeals for donations to rent booth space.  Early reports had them far off of necessary goals into the process, and far off from the numbers that would be required to successfully turn in.

And then something changed – The Brendan Johnson sponsored Constitutional Amendment was approved for circulation, and the world changed overnight, as floodgates of cash were broken free.

Quickly after approval for circulation, a new political action committee was formed affiliated with the national “New Approach PAC,” and there was a major push by an out of state petition firm, Fieldworks, hiring petition circulators who were aid to be aggressive in the pursuit of signatures.

While the financial reports won’t be forthcoming for another month, what appears to have happened is that the national Marijuana Policy Project returned to support the state’s pot related ballot measures after nearly a decade hiatus – setting up the “South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws” as the umbrella organization under which they are operating.

The Constitutional Amendment seems to have been the trigger for the heightened activity, as the petition circulators gathered the Constitutional measure primarily.

Although, it appears that the mega-bucks that the out of state groups brought in may have also provided some cash up for the initiated measure to hire petition circulators, as at the time petitions were turned in, the initiated measure backers appeared arm in arm at the petition turn-in with paid petition circulator Jordan Mason of Rapid City, who had previously been paid to circulate petitions for unsuccessful Congressional candidate and former Secretary of State Shantel Krebs.

With the return of the Marijuana Policy Project, it’s already been exhibited that South Dakota voters should expect deeper pockets of out of state cash.

Versus the previous two failed petition drives, the two measured backed by the group actually made it to the ballot, arguably from their heavy reliance of the use of paid circulators.

The Marijuana Initiated Measure turned in 25,524 signatures that were deemed valid by the Secretary of State’s office, providing it clearance to appear on the state’s 2020 election ballot (16,961 valid signatures required).   Having submitted over 50,000 signatures, absent a significantly high error rate, the Marijuana Constitutional Amendment is likely to be validated for the ballot early in 2020 (33,921 valid signatures required).

While 2019 was all about petitions, 2020 will see the battle over legalization of marijuana in South Dakota move from signature gathering phase to the ballot box where based on history, it still faces an uphill battle.

Zikmund Announces for SD Senate

State Rep. Larry P. Zikmund, Sioux Falls, announced today that he will be a candidate for the South Dakota State Senate in 2020. Zikmund represents District 14 which takes in southeastern Sioux Falls.  Rep. Zikmund, the leading vote getter for the South Dakota House in the last three general elections is running for the position currently held by Sen. Deb Soholt, who is term limited.  Zikmund commented, “I decided to declare my candidacy early to make my intentions known.   I encourage others in my party who wish to represent District 14 in the state legislature to run for my vacated House seat.”

Rep. Zikmund, an Air Force veteran, brings a wealth of experience to the race.  He is the current Chair of the House Veteran’s and Military Affairs Committee and has been a legislative leader on veteran’s and other issues.  He was especially instrumental in the passage of the bill to create an east river cemetery for veterans near Sioux Falls, and serves on the Cemetery Endowment Committee.  The cemetery is currently under development by the Veteran’s Administration.  Other committee appointments include Chair of the House State Retirement Laws Committee and he serves on the House Transportation and Commerce and Energy Committees.  Zikmund also brings a strong background in education and business to the race.   He is a former President and CEO of the South Dakota Associated General Contractors Building Chapter and their lobbyist, and former State Director for South Dakota Career and Technical Education.

Rep. Zikmund and his wife Judi are parents of two daughters and have five grandchildren.