Terry Sabers Announces Candidacy for South Dakota House of Representatives, District 20

Mitchell, S.D. — Fifty year Mitchell resident, businessman, and community servant Terry Sabers today announced his candidacy for the South Dakota House of Representatives, District 20, citing a lifetime of service and a deep desire to ensure South Dakota remains a place where his children and grandchildren can build their futures.

Born in 1955 at St. Joseph Hospital in Mitchell and raised on a farm west of Salem, Sabers learned early the values that still guide him today: faith, family, hard work, and service to others. Those values led him to Mitchell Vo-Tech, now Mitchell Technical College, where he earned a degree in Accounting and Business Management, an experience that shaped his lifelong advocacy for technical education and workforce development.

“I’m running because I want my kids and grandkids to have the same opportunities I had right here in South Dakota,” Sabers said. “I want them to be able to build careers, start businesses, raise families, and succeed not because they had to leave the state, but because South Dakota’s leadership and policies made it possible to stay and be successful here.”

Sabers spent 45 years at Muth Electric, starting part-time while attending technical school and ultimately serving as Co-President before retiring in 2019. During that time, the company grew from approximately 10 employees to more than 400 across 10 locations, providing stable, good-paying jobs to South Dakota families.

He has also helped start several small businesses, an entrepreneurship training program, managed assisted living facilities, and founded the non-profit Mitchell Area Housing Inc. in 2022 to address workforce housing needs in Mitchell. His work has always centered on one principle: strong communities begin with opportunity and accountability.

“Good policy matters,” Sabers said. “When government stays focused on fiscal responsibility, local control, and common sense, families and businesses can thrive.”

Sabers has devoted decades to serving Mitchell, District 20, and South Dakota through extensive volunteer and civic leadership, including:

Youth, Civic & Service Organizations

• Boy Scouts of America: Scoutmaster, Troop 72 (10 years); 25 years more as volunteer and President, Sioux Council – Boy Scouts
• Jaycees Organization — Mitchell President up to SD Jaycees State President
• Mitchell Rotary — 15 year Current member

Education & Workforce Development

• South Dakota Board of Education — (2008-2016) appointed by Governor Mike Rounds)
• South Dakota Board of Technical Education — Original board member; Secretary
• Build Dakota Scholarship Board
• Mitchell Technical College Foundation Board — Current member
• Holy Family School Board — Long-term member

Faith-Based Service

• Holy Family Church — Volunteer & Properties
• St. John Paul II School — Volunteer
• Knights of Columbus – Life member and Treasurer
• Sioux Falls Diocese — Bishop’s Pastoral Council member

Local Government & Economic Development

• Mitchell Airport Board — 12 years of service
• Mitchell Area Development Corporation — Multiple leadership roles, including President

Community & Nonprofit Leadership

• United Way of Mitchell: Board member (12 years), Campaign Chair, President
• Mitchell Area Housing Inc. — 2022 Founder & President

Throughout his life, Sabers has been guided by his Catholic faith and a belief that leadership means serving others, especially the next generation.

As a Republican candidate, Sabers is focused on protecting the South Dakota way of life, supporting families, strengthening technical and workforce education, respecting taxpayers, and ensuring young people have real opportunities to stay and succeed here.

“For too long, too many young people feel they have to leave to get ahead,” Sabers said. “I want South Dakota to remain a place where our sons and daughters and our grandchildren choose to stay because the opportunities are here. We must slow the Brain Drain that occurs when young people leave SD for a perceived advancement”

Terry has been married to his wife Deb for 50 years. They have two sons, Eric and Blake, both raising their families in Mitchell, and Terry and Deb are proud grandparents to five grandchildren.

“Everything I do comes back to family,” Sabers said. “I want to make sure South Dakota remains strong not just for us today, but for the generations coming behind us. That’s a tradition worth protecting.”

Sabers is running for the South Dakota House of Representatives to bring steady, conservative leadership, grounded in real-world experience and a lifetime of service, to Pierre, focused not on politics, but on people.

For more information or to get involved, contact the campaign at

www.terrysabers4SD.com
terry@sabers4SD.com

South Dakota is laser focused on being the middle of the pack in the race to be the best place in the country to start a business, according to the WalletHub website:

According to the study, conducted in December of 2025:

In order to determine the best and worst states to start a business, WalletHub compared the 50 states across three key dimensions: 1) Business Environment, 2) Access to Resources and 3) Business Costs.

We evaluated those dimensions using 25 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the most favorable conditions for new-business creation.

Finally, we determined each state’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample.

Read that here.

Comparatively, that’s down from 24th according to the same study in 2024.

Now, Forbes magazine liked South Dakota better than WalletHub in 2024, ranking the state 4th at the time. But many would argue that our economic star isn’t as bright and shiny as it used to be.

And we might need to work at it a bit harder than we had to do during COVID, when freedom was more attractive than worrying about whether you had a WalMart within 50 miles.

$891,088.63 raised. $199,200.82 spent. $969,539.28 cash on hand. Congressman Dusty Johnson, in his pursuit of becoming South Dakota’s next Governor, isn’t messing around.  And in one of the first reports posted for the year end 2025 state reports, Johnson’s political action committee may be dwarfing some of his competitors in what the side committee reports raising, versus their main committees.

Dusty State PAC by Pat Powers

I would venture this will blow the doors off of what Toby Doeden is able to raise, since he’s self-funding. And the most unlikeable candidate ever to run for office.  And the PAC coming in with nearly a million is likely to dwarf what Jon Hansen pulled out of Pizza Ranch, unless Karla Lems starts selling some land.   Governor Rhoden might be the most competitive, but getting into the race later than expected might have his fundraising lagging in the contest, but we’ll see.

Nearly 1 million cash on hand in this side PAC, with well over 2/3 coming from South Dakotans.  That’s a pretty strong report.

From the Internets, the Governor Rhoden event for Friday in Watertown is postponed to Feb 27th at 5PM at the Redlin Art Center.

That whole 40 below thing can put a damper on fundraisers.

The Liberty Land destination district in Rapid City, which promised to bring millions of new dollars in sales tax revenue to South Dakota’s second largest city, will not have access to Tax Increment Financing after the city ordinance approving the measure was struck down at the ballot box on a nearly 2-1 basis.

And odd bedfellows are sometimes made as members of the ultra-right snuggled right up with Rapid City Democrats to defeat this opportunity for economic development for the community, as related in the Rapid City Journal:

Guest Column: Lies Pt. 2 – Cops Lying to Citizens
Thomas E. Simmons

(This is part 2 of a 2-part series on lies. Part 1 can be found here.)

The case of Frazier v. Cupp (U.S. 1969) stands for the proposition that cops may utilize deception, mislead, and be untruthful in conducting investigations. Cops can and do lie. The badge, the uniform, and the impressively equipped squad car might suggest an unfailing dedication to the truth. Weirdly, it does, but officers may utilize untruth in order to uncover the truth. The ends – at least in this context – justify the means.

As explained by attorney Alexander Ransom, police officers may lawfully:

• Verbalize falsehoods concerning the evidence;
• Momentarily lie about the seriousness of an offense;
• Make unfulfilled promises of leniency in exchange for waivers of rights; and
• Lie about what others may have told them.

In the U.S. Supreme Court decision authorizing such tactics, a man named Frazier was identified as a murder suspect, along with his cousin, Rawls. When Frazier was initially questioned at police headquarters, he admitted to being with Rawls on the night that the victim was slain, but denied being with any third person.

The questioning became more vigorous, but Frazier stuck to his story. Then a police officer told him – falsely – that Rawls had been separately brought to headquarter and that he had confessed to the crime. Still, Frazier maintained that he had not been near the victim on the night of the murder, but before long he lost his nerve and confessed. The jury was allowed to hear his confession and he was convicted of second-degree murder.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court, Frazier argued that the cop’s lie concerning Rawls’ confession rendered his own confession involuntary, and therefore inadmissible. Justice Thurgood Marshall authored the decision which rejected his argument. Marshall explained: “The fact that the police misrepresented the statements that Rawls had made is, while relevant, insufficient in our view to make this otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible.”

The other eight justices agreed. Not a one dissented. Frazier v. Cupp remains good law today.

A popular urban myth asserts that if an undercover officer is directly asked whether he or she is, in fact, a police officer, they must answer truthfully. This is hogwash. Undercover officers are practiced in the art of deception. They adopt a false identify, a fictional name, a concocted motive, and a made-up background. Nothing requires them to be truthful about these deceits, even if they are asked point blank. They may deny the fact that they are an officer of the law.

The fact that the Supreme Court has held that police deception does not in and of itself render a confession induced thereby inadmissible does not preclude lawmakers from providing additional protections for those accused of crimes if they should choose to. About ten states (beginning with Illinois) have recently enacted statutes prohibiting police from deceiving juvenile suspects. But police are still permitted to lie to adults in all fifty states. The same is true in China and Israel, though not in England or Japan.

The argument in favor of the use of deception in interrogations is premised on the claim that it generates far more truthful confessions than false ones. Some research psychologists disagree. But police maintain that the use of subterfuge is a valuable investigative technique. I have personally seen Sioux Falls police straight-out lying to witnesses in an attempt to pry more useful information from them. Police may lie to witnesses as well as suspects.

So, if you are ever questioned by the police and they tell you that you failed a polygraph, that the murder weapon was found in your home covered in your prints, or that your friend just ratted you out, don’t assume that you’re not being lied to. Don’t assume that a badge signifies that its wearer may not lawfully deceive you. It doesn’t signify that at all.

Thomas E. Simmons
University of South Dakota School of Law
Vermillion, SD

—

All of the views and opinions Professor Simmons expresses here on are his as an individual and do not reflect the views of the Board of Regents, the University of South Dakota, its School of Law, their employees, faculty or administrators. The foregoing editoral represents only his views as a private citizen.

 

 

State Representative Phil Jensen found out from House Leadership today what happens when people grow weary of your antics.  It was announced that he has been removed from House Education Committee.

I would venture that it had as much to do with what he pulled last year – singling out Huron to zero fund their state aid to education – as it did when he joined Rep. Josephine Garcia in generally being a pain in the rear in committee over their seating assignments this last week.

I have no doubt Phil will continue to make a nuisance of himself as the chairman of the South Dakota Freedom Caucus.

Especially since they’ve given him freedom from his House Education Committee assignment.

Update:

Word is that Phil was replaced by Liz May. Jensen is noted by LRC as currently serving on House Taxation and Local Government.

Bit of a fall from being House Education vice chair last year.

What Federal Cannabis Rescheduling Means and Why South Dakota’s Medical Cannabis Law Remains Essential for Patients and Public Safety
By Emmett Reistroffer

President Trump’s recent executive order directing the rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act is a significant and historic step toward potential federal reform. But it is only that—a first step. Any actual change will unfold through a lengthy, uncertain process that could take years before it produces meaningful, on-the-ground effects.

Still, the announcement has understandably sparked (pun intended) widespread interest and confusion, particularly among the more than 18,000 South Dakotans who currently rely on our state’s voter-approved medical cannabis program for safe and lawful access. Questions are fair. Misinformation is not.

As someone who has spent years advocating for safe medical cannabis access—and who now works daily with patients, caregivers, regulators, local governments, and licensed operators across South Dakota—I believe it is important to set the record straight. Patients, providers, and community leaders deserve clarity. Unfortunately, some politicians appear eager to exploit uncertainty as an opportunity to undo progress backed by an overwhelming majority of voters.

South Dakota’s medical cannabis law — now SDCL 34-20G — was built deliberately, carefully, and democratically. It provides patient protections, oversight by physicians and other medical providers, controlled licensing, product testing, and strict regulatory enforcement. It is not a loophole, a commercialization scheme, the wild west, or a policy accident. It is a medical framework supported by veterans, chronic-pain patients, cancer survivors, families, and healthcare professionals who support a safer alternative to opioids and criminalization.

The claim that federal rescheduling somehow makes South Dakota’s voter-approved medical cannabis program unnecessary misunderstands both what rescheduling is and what it actually changes in practice.

First – Why Did President Trump Take Action?

The opening section of President Trump’s executive order clearly states the policy rationale behind directing federal agencies to reconsider marijuana’s classification.

“Chronic pain affects nearly 1 in 4 United States adults and more than 1 in 3 United States seniors, and 6 in 10 people who use medical marijuana report doing so to manage pain.  Forty States plus the District of Columbia have State- or locally-sanctioned, regulated medical marijuana programs.  Yet decades of Federal drug control policy have neglected marijuana’s medical uses.  That oversight has limited the ability of scientists and manufacturers to complete the necessary research on safety and efficacy to inform doctors and patients.”

In short, the executive order recognizes a reality that patients, physicians, and states have already confronted: federal policy has failed to keep pace with medical evidence and real-human experience.

This action reflects Donald Trump’s populist governing approach—addressing issues directly, grounding policy in observable facts, and prioritizing the lived experiences of Americans over outdated assumptions. It does not legalize marijuana, nor does it dismantle state authority. Instead, it acknowledges medical use, encourages research, and begins correcting a long-standing federal and state conflict.

That context matters—because the executive order was not issued to replace state medical cannabis programs like South Dakota’s, but to begin aligning federal policy with what the American people want and what most U.S. states have worked on for decades.

What Federal Rescheduling Really Means — and What It Doesn’t

The shift toward moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III is meaningful — but it is not federal legalization, and it is not a replacement for state medical cannabis programs. It’s also not a guarantee that anything will change – it simply allows a pathway to change.

Rescheduling happens through formal DEA rulemaking process that includes scientific review, public comment, and final rule publication. The process is further affected by other agency involvement and input and even Congressional action. This will take, at least, several months — but more likely, years — and potentially longer if litigation occurs. Until rescheduling is final, cannabis remains Schedule I under federal law.

Even if rescheduling is finalized, marijuana will still be a controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act. It will not become broadly available as a federally prescribed medication unless and until there is full FDA approval to be dispensed in pharmacies.

Physicians in South Dakota issue medical certifications, not federal prescriptions — and rescheduling does not convert our program into a federal prescription system.

In practical terms, rescheduling does three important things:

1. It formally acknowledges legitimate medical use
2. It reduces research barriers to legitimate scientific research
3. It allows relief from the punitive IRS 280E tax restriction on state-licensed medical cannabis businesses

Those are positive steps — and a long list of various organizations and the vast majority of Americans, including Veterans, patients, medical providers and researchers support rescheduling because it strengthens and stabilizes state medical cannabis programs — not because it replaces them.

What Rescheduling Does Not Fix

Rescheduling alone does not resolve the core conflicts between federal and state law.

Congress would still need to act to:

• harmonize federal criminal statutes with state-regulated systems
• address interstate transport and commerce rules
• modernize banking and financial protections
• establish an appropriate federal framework for medical cannabis access
• preserve state regulatory authority

South Dakota’s medical cannabis program remains essential until these issues are addressed and safe access for patients is guaranteed.

If South Dakota repealed SDCL 34-20G today, there would be:

• no federal replacement structure ready
• no federal prescription access available
• no legal framework protecting patients
• no oversight system for quality, safety, or testing

Repeal would not “defer to federal law.”

Ultimately, repeal would simply remove patient protections and re-criminalize sick and dying South Dakotans – whom 70% of voters decided deserve compassion, dignity, safe access and legal protection.

A small group of newly elected lawmakers, led by a vocal anti-marijuana activist, are calling to return South Dakota back to a time when sick and dying patients had to get cannabis from street dealers and risk jail or prison time, just to find relief and manage paint – folks with chronic pain, seizures, or PTSD among many others.

I believe a more reasonable, conservative and compassionate approach is to respect the will of the voters and focus on program improvements instead – working together to ensure safe access to medical cannabis with proper oversight.

South Dakota’s Program Reflects This Approach.

Maintaining the voter-approved medical cannabis program means:

• regulated rather than chaotic
• physician-guided rather than street-driven
• tested and tracked rather than unmonitored
• accountable to state agencies rather than cartels or illicit suppliers

Our Department of Health, local governments, and licensed operators have invested years and millions of dollars into building a secure, compliant system — one that prioritizes safety, product integrity, and an overall responsible approach to handling medical cannabis.

Repealing the voter-approved law and current program would:

• destabilize communities
• endanger patients and create unnecessary risks for them and their families
• embolden street dealers and make the black market more lucrative
• and undo the will of South Dakota voters

Federal reform should support and complement South Dakota’s voter-approved and state-regulated medical cannabis program — not erase it.

The Responsible Path Forward

Rescheduling is progress — but it is not a finish line.

The responsible and principled approach is to:

• maintain the voter-approved medical cannabis law (SDCL 34-20G
• continue improving the program to ensure every patient who qualifies has the option for safe access to medical cannabis
• work with regulators and stakeholders to ensure regulations are reasonable and fair
• align where appropriate with evolving federal policy
• advocate for Congressional action that respects state sovereignty

South Dakotans support a program rooted in compassion and common-sense oversight. We should not abandon that work — but steward it wisely as federal policy finally begins to catch up. While President Trump’s executive order is a positive step in the right direction, South Dakota is ultimately better positioned to deliver on the needs and desires of our own people and should remain in control of our own medical cannabis policy — rather than rely and wait on Washington bureaucracy.

—

Emmett Reistroffer is the Director of Government Relations for Genesis Farms, based in Box Elder, SD and is a Republican candidate for the South Dakota House of Representatives, District 35

Representative Amber Arlint Announces Reelection Campaign for District 12 House

Sioux Falls, S.D. – Today, Representative Amber Arlint announced that she is running for re-election to the South Dakota House of Representatives in District 12,  reaffirming her commitment to serving her constituents by improving education, keeping neighborhoods safe, and supporting an economy that rewards hard  work and creates opportunity here at home.

“I am running for re-election because I believe in our community and the future of South Dakota,” said Arlint. “That means protecting taxpayers, strengthening public safety, improving education, and making sure South Dakota remains a place where you can live, work, and raise a family.”

First elected in 2022, Arlint has championed legislation to grow South Dakota’s workforce through technical education, modernize community safety zones to include domestic violence shelters, and strengthen the state’s long-term financial stability. She has also supported public safety measures, including expanding access to forensic medical exam kits, increasing penalties for impaired boating, and strengthening laws to combat human trafficking.

In the Legislature, Arlint serves on influential committees shaping education and transportation policy, where she has consistently defended local decision-making and pushed back against policies that place new requirements on schools and communities without the resources to meet them. She has also led and supported legislation to expand health care training capacity at Southeast Technical College, addressing workforce shortages through targeted, one-time investments.

Arlint is a wife, mother, and small business owner in the Sioux Falls metro area. Together, she and her husband are raising their two children in the community she serves, bringing her family and business experience to her service in the Legislature.

District 12 includes portions of Sioux Falls in Minnehaha and Lincoln counties.

Absentee voting begins April 17, 2026 and the Republican primary election will be held on June 2, 2026.

To learn more about Representative Arlint’s re-election campaign, visit AmberArlintSD.com or follow her on Facebook.

###

Guest Column: Lies Pt. 1 – Citizens Lying to Cops
by Thomas E. Simmons

Not everyone knows a fairly basic fact about what’s illegal: lying to a cop can be a crime. Specifically, lying to law enforcement is a class 1 misdemeanor. (Class 1 misdemeanors are punishable by one year’s imprisonment per South Dakota Codified Law 22-6-2(1).)

This fact was underscored by a recent South Dakota Supreme Court decision, South Dakota v. Biteler (SD 2025), a case which arose out of Lincoln County and was decided in December.

First, let’s look at the statute which criminalizes lying to cops. It a crime whenever someone:

Makes a report or intentionally causes the transmission of a report to law enforcement authorities which furnishes information relating to an offense or other incident within their official concern, knowing that such information is false.

South Dakota Codified Laws section 22-11-9(3).

The statute was initially enacted in 1975, but initially it only penalized the false reporting of a crime. It has since been expanded – as one can see from the text above – to include a false report (1) “relating to an offense” and; (2) to any “other incident within” an officer’s “official concern.” Lies “relating to an offense” would include misleading an officer about the whereabouts of a suspect. Penalizing lies relating to an “incident within” a cop’s “official concern” is broader still.

That’s all well and good, but the word “report” makes it sound like the only thing to avoid is filing some official formal paperwork with the police that contains knowingly false information. What is a “report,” exactly? That was the issue presented to our state supreme court in the Biteler decision.

Amanda Biteler was originally charged with a second-offense DUI a few years ago and sentenced to parole rather than incarceration. As part of her sentence, she was required to submit what is known as “24/7” breath monitoring to check for alcohol consumption. Eventually, she was permitting to submit “remote breath” tests using a portable device with a straw and a camera lens. She was instructed how to use it.

As the court explained, “When a remote breath enrollee submits a breath test, the testing device takes their photograph. One of Biteler’s test photographs was flagged because it did not appear that she was the person who blew into the testing device.” She was charged with making a false report.

The court had to determine whether a breath test and a picture amounted to a “report.” Biteler argued the breath data and photograph didn’t amount to a report because rather than affirmatively communicating to law enforcement, she was simply complying (or rather, failing to comply) with the conditions of her parole. Moreover, there were no words contained within the breath data and photograph.

The statute itself does not define “report.” So, the court turned to ordinary definitions of the word. (Note that the word here is being used as a noun – as in making a report – and not as a verb – for example, reporting something to someone.) The county circuit court had located this definition of report: “a formal oral or written presentation” and it had dismissed the charges against Biteler since the breath test coupled with the photograph didn’t meet that definition.

The South Dakota Supreme Court reversed, adopting a broader definition of “report.” It concluded that a report means “a communication which furnishes information.”  Biteler had falsified her breath test by having someone else blow into the unit while Biteler’s face pointed at the camera. The breath test accompanied by the photograph amounted to a report insofar as they represented a communication which furnished information. False information, it turns out.

Biteler essentially conceded that she had been noncompliant with the conditions of her parole because she had misused the portable unit, but she resisted the prosecutor’s assertion that she had committed a crime. She had been noncompliant, certainly, but had she attempted to deceive law enforcement with a false communication – a false “report?” Indeed, she had, the court concluded.

On that basis, her conviction was reinstated.

Lying to cops is illegal. In fairness, I expect that a lot of lies to law enforcement go uncharged and unpunished. If, for example, back when Amanda Biteler was driving under the influence and stopped, the officer may have asked her if she’d been drinking. If she denied that she had had a few, this would have been a lie. Indeed, it would have been a report (a “communication which furnishes information”).

Better to refuse to answer a question than to answer it falsely. Falsehoods and untruthfulness can get you in trouble. Lying to cops is rightfully categorized as a claim because it impedes the functions of law enforcement.

The foregoing has been “part I” of a 2-part series on lying. Here, in Part I, we considered citizens lying to cops. In Part II, we’ll consider cops lying to citizens.

Thomas E. Simmons
University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law
Vermillion, SD

—

All of the views and opinions Professor Simmons expresses here on are his as an individual and do not reflect the views of the Board of Regents, the University of South Dakota, its School of Law, their employees, faculty or administrators. The foregoing editorial represents only his views as a private citizen.