Bluestem Prairie

Cannabis industry is major funder of South Dakota pot legalization ballot question

Another look at ballot measure fundraising in South Dakota from the South Dakota Searchlight. 

Marijuana industry is major funder of legalization ballot question
by Joshua Haiar

Both sides take in big checks from individuals, businesses

Representatives of the cannabis industry contributed over $300,000 since last spring toward the Nov. 5 South Dakota ballot measure that would legalize a limited form of adult marijuana use, according to campaign finance reports. 

Meanwhile, on the anti-marijuana side, more than 100 people gave individual donations totaling more than $370,000. 

The largest of those was $61,400 from Brad Wheeler, who owns Wheeler Manufacturing in Lemmon. The next biggest contribution against the measure was $50,000 from South Dakota Hall of Famer Robert Mudge, co-founder of RPM and Associates in Rapid City.

There are no limits on contributions to ballot question committees.

Initiated Measure 29 would legalize the possession, use and free distribution of up to 2 ounces of marijuana for adults 21 and older. It’s one of seven statewide ballot questions under consideration by South Dakotans.

In all, about $915,000 was raised for and against the marijuana measure, with $458,000 on the pro side and $457,000 on the con side.

Supporting donations and spending

The Yes on 29 Ballot Committee took in $436,000 and spent $217,000 since May, according to its most recent campaign finance report.

About $300,000 of the contributions came from the marijuana industry. The largest contribution was $100,000 from GL Partners Inc. in Rapid City, a medical marijuana dispensary business (South Dakota voters approved medical marijuana in 2020). Ahead of the June primary election, GL Partners gave another $100,000 to the committee. 

Trevor, Sydney and Gib Moyle of Rapid City gave a combined $100,100. The family owns the Moyle Petroleum Company. 

Committee chair Brad Jurgensen’s HomeSlice Media company donated $50,000 in marketing work and $5,000 cash. 

The Marijuana Policy Project, a national nonprofit that supports pot legalization, gave $37,000, and a California company that makes maps showing where to buy weed legally gave $30,000. 

The group also took in $15,000 from South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, a ballot question committee that was organized to support a failed 2022 ballot question to legalize recreational cannabis.

A similarly named committee supporting IM 29, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws Inc., spent $64,570 of the $82,000 it took in since May. Its largest single contribution of $60,000 came from the Yes on 29 Ballot Committee. The group also received $10,000 from a dispensary business, High Hills LLC.

Opposition donations and spending

An anti-marijuana group, the Protecting SD Kids Ballot Question Committee, pulled in over $457,000 and spent $371,000. Besides the more than $370,000 in individual contributions, $71,000 came from eight South Dakota companies and organizations, including $25,000 apiece from First PREMIER Bank in Sioux Falls and Prestige Auto Sales in Spearfish.

The group issued a press release Wednesday announcing it had raised a total of $550,000, including more recent fundraising that wasn’t included in the group’s Oct. 21 report. Committee Treasurer Marli Wiese said the additional funds are all individual contributions under $10,000.

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Photo:  A marijuana plant at the Dakota Herb medical marijuana grow operation near Tea. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight).

Related posts

•  Cannabis on South Dakota ballot yet again with IM 29: if voters decriminalize marijuana, lawmakers would make the call on sales  
•  Marketing opportunity for Big Stone County? South Dakota News Watch Poll: South Dakota voters oppose recreational marijuana measure
• South Dakota cannabis legalization ballot measure validated for November 5 election 
• South Dakotans return dope to governor's office, defeat legal pot, preserve Pierre's red swamp 
• Bummer! South Dakota News Watch poll shows referendum on recreational cannabis legalization in South Dakota could fail in November 
• After court defeat, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws keeps working for adult cannabis
• SD Supreme Court strikes down legal cannabis; supporters vow to make the people rule

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

In Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic sometimes called the shots with Governor Tim Walz

Some fine in-depth reporting by two of my favorite Minnesota journalists.

In Minnesota, the Mayo Clinic Sometimes Called the Shots With Gov. Tim Walz
by Max Nesterak, Minnesota Reformer, and Jessica Lussenhop, ProPublica

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Reporting Highlights

• A Close Relationship: Since the beginning of his political career, Gov. Tim Walz has maintained close ties to the world-famous Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.
• Mayo’s Influence: The hospital had considerable sway with the Obama administration as it crafted the 2010 Affordable Care Act, and it lobbied against a public option.
• Limits of Power: Mayo convinced Walz to help kill bills by threatening to withhold billions in investments. When Walz pushed back on Mayo’s plans for consolidation, he had little success.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

At the vice presidential debate against Republican Sen. JD Vance this month, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz did something he’s done throughout his nearly 20-year career in politics: name-drop the Mayo Clinic.

“If you need heart surgery, listen to the people at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, not Donald Trump,” Walz said.

Later in the debate, he did it again, after Vance criticized the Affordable Care Act, the 2010 law that expanded access to health coverage.

“I come from a major health care state, home of the Mayo Clinic,” said Walz. “We understand health care.”

Walz’s high regard for the world-renowned hospital system in southeastern Minnesota makes sense — he represented the Rochester area in Congress for 12 years, and it’s where he and his wife, Gwen, sought fertility treatment before having their daughter, Hope. The nonprofit Mayo is the state’s largest employer with more than 50,000 employees.

On various occasions, Walz has also acquiesced to the wishes of Mayo, even when those were at odds with the goals of other allies. In 2023, for example, Mayo leveraged its plans for a $5 billion expansion in Minnesota to muscle Walz into helping kill a bill aimed at slowing the speed of rising health care costs, which had passed the state House and Senate.

Years earlier, while still in Congress, Walz tried to push back against Mayo when it consolidated services after gobbling up local hospitals across southern Minnesota. When Mayo announced in 2017 that it intended to close labor and delivery, surgery and intensive care units in the city of Albert Lea, Walz supported workers protesting the reductions as a part of a contract fight with the hospital. But Mayo did not change course.

“He probably could have done more,” said Brad Arends, one of the leaders of a group in Albert Lea called Save Our Hospital that tried to preserve services. “Mayo was the bright shining star and now Mayo is literally a four-letter word in Albert Lea.”

“Mayo," he added, "has a way of hypnotizing people, especially probably politicians."

Mayo’s lobbying abilities extend beyond Walz and Minnesota’s borders. The hospital system has resisted proposals aimed at reining in the cost of health care, and has found success with Democrats in getting its way. Vice President Kamala Harris is running for president in part on lowering health care costs — it's listed third on her policy agenda — and her plan is built around expanding government subsidies and the Affordable Care Act.

When the ACA was first being debated, Mayo helped beat back an attempt to include a national public option, or an insurance plan run by the government. Today, the cost of care at Mayo is 88% higher than the state average, according to health care industry analysts at the nonprofit MN Community Measurement.

“Moderate Democrats, they haven’t been able to stand up to the hospital industry. That’s a pattern all over the country,” said Gillian Mason, the executive director of Healthcare NOW, which advocates for the creation of single-payer, federally managed universal healthcare coverage.

Kendall Witmer, the Minnesota senior communications adviser for the Harris-Walz campaign, said in a statement that Walz “has championed expanding access to affordable and high-quality healthcare, particularly for rural Minnesotans and veterans across the country.” She added that, under Walz, “Minnesota is recognized as a top 5 business state, a top 3 state to raise a child, and the best state for health care in the country.”

Andrea Kalmanovitz, director of communications for the Mayo Clinic, said its physicians treat “some of the most serious and complex medical conditions in the world.” The MN Community Measurement analysis that shows Mayo’s costs are higher than the state average does take into account how sick a hospital’s patients are.

“Mayo Clinic is guided in all we do by our primary value — the needs of the patient come first,” Kalmanovitz said in a statement. “As a nonprofit, we are strongly nonpartisan and work with policymakers to promote understanding of how policy proposals affect our patients and impact Mayo Clinic’s ability to fulfill its mission and further advance the transformation of healthcare.”

Walz siding with the Mayo Clinic reflects the deference he sometimes pays industry giants in Minnesota, a state that claims the fifth-most Fortune 500 companies per capita in the U.S. The headquarters of General Mills, U.S. Bancorp, 3M and Target are in Minnesota. UnitedHealth Group, the country’s largest health insurance company, and the food conglomerate Cargill, which is estimated to be the largest private company in the country, also have their headquarters in the state.

Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said the governor has demonstrated a willingness to water down progressive policies to appease big business.

“Is that caving or is that pragmatism?” asked Jacobs. “I think what you're seeing is how you govern the progressive way in the real world.”

During the 2023 Legislative session, the Minnesota Nurses Association felt confident that it could finally pass legislation requiring hospitals to increase nurse staffing levels after 15 years of losing that fight to the hospital lobby. The 2022 elections months earlier had handed Walz a second term as governor, and for the first time in a decade, voters also gave control of both the state Senate and House to Democrats. The Keeping Nurses at the Bedside Act seemed destined to become law after it sailed through the House and Senate.

But two and a half weeks before the end of the session, an email from a Mayo lobbyist landed in the inboxes of Walz’s most senior advisers and set off a panic. “Mayo has long been planning significant facilities and infrastructure investments in Minnesota,” the lobbyist, Kate Johansen, wrote. Without changes to the bill, she added, Mayo would need to take its “enormous investment to other states.”

Mayo was asking for a special exemption from the nurse staffing bill, and it said that it wanted a second bill, which would empower the state to penalize hospitals for raising prices faster than targets set by a newly created commission, scrapped entirely.

If the pressure on Walz wasn’t enough, Johansen also forwarded the message to the state’s top Democratic leaders stressing the urgency. “The decision to withdraw the planned investment described below is, unfortunately, time sensitive and will be resolved in the next few days,” she wrote.

According to Mary Turner, then president of the state nurses union, Walz reached out the next day. He told her he supported the nurses — he had walked a picket line with them months earlier during what was then the largest private sector nurses strike in U.S. history — but that Mayo doesn’t bluff.

Nurses organized a sit-in at the governor’s Capitol office, an effort they nicknamed “Occupy Walz Street.” Although Walz met with some of the nurses, by all accounts the Mayo ultimatum became the final word on the matter. After initially resisting, the bill’s authors drafted the exemption Mayo demanded in response to pressure from Walz.

Mayo said that all hospitals should be able to earn exemption from the law by using advanced staffing software, which Mayo said was more effective in determining staffing needs. But the bill’s authors rejected that proposal, choosing to only carve out Mayo. That upset other hospital leaders, who’d been lobbying against the bill for months. The measure then unraveled in the Senate.

Mayo has another leg up when it comes to influence: Mayo lobbyist Sarah Erickson, who’s with the firm United Strategies, was previously the operations director of Walz’s campaign for governor.

That close contact with the governor’s office can be in the public’s interest. The Mayo Clinic was instrumental in Walz’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, providing regular updates and expertise on infection rates. It also helped roll out the COVID-19 vaccine.

Setting aside his relationship with Mayo, Walz’s record of standing up to big business is mixed. His sole veto in the 2023 Legislative session was for a bill setting minimum wages and labor standards for Uber and Lyft drivers, after Uber threatened to pull out of Minnesota entirely and set off fears that residents with disabilities and tourists would be left stranded. The following year he signed a compromise version of the bill with lower pay rates that Uber and Lyft ultimately agreed to.

He’s also drawn criticism from the state’s environmental community for not challenging permits issued for a proposed copper-nickel mine formerly known as PolyMet (now called NewRange Copper Nickel), owned by Glencore, one of the largest multinational corporations in the world, which pleaded guilty in 2022 to bribery and corruption charges brought by the U.S. government.

Uber, Lyft and Glencore declined to comment.

Walz signed one of the nation’s strictest bans on PFAS, the forever chemical born at 3M, although the company had already said it would “exit all PFAS manufacturing globally by the end of 2025.” He also signed another prohibiting for-profit health insurance companies from selling plans as a part of Minnesota’s Medicaid program. The only company affected was UnitedHealthcare, the health insurance arm of UnitedHealth Group, which sued the state over the law. That lawsuit is pending and the company said in a statement that it strongly believes “that Minnesotans deserve the right to choose among health plans that offer the broadest access to care, the most innovative services and the highest quality benefits to meet their health care needs.”

Walz’s relationship with Mayo, however, has potentially far-reaching implications for federal health care reform. Mayo was hugely influential on the Obama administration when the ACA was being drafted, arguing that the focus of new policy should be delivering more efficient care, not lowering prices. In the summer of 2009, Mayo Clinic leaders voiced strong opposition to the creation of a public option, which advocates say would have helped pull down the ballooning price of both health care treatments and insurance.

Rather than risk losing the hospital’s support, the Obama administration drew Mayo even closer into the process. “They said, ‘Tell us exactly what you want,’” Denis Cortese, Mayo’s CEO at the time, told the Washington Post. By the end of 2009, any plans for including a public option were dead.

In the roughly 15 years since the ACA was born, Mayo Clinic has demonstrated resistance to further efforts to rein in health care spending while stirring up repeated questions about its commitment to rural health care and serving poor patients.

Since 2017, Mayo has closed at least more than a dozen rural clinics and a hospital in southern Minnesota and northern Iowa, citing staffing issues. In 2017, the Star Tribune reported that then-CEO Dr. John Noseworthy told employees that patients with private insurance would be given preference over those with Medicaid or Medicare, which pay less for care than private plans.

The hospital has also sued low-income patients for medical debt even though they were eligible for free or discounted care, which nonprofit hospitals are required to offer under the ACA, according to an investigation by the Rochester Post Bulletin. In response, Minnesota lawmakers passed a bill requiring hospitals to screen patients for eligibility for financial assistance before pursuing collections, which Walz signed.

Mayo Clinic's higher costs don’t just affect its patients. The hospital’s significant market share and high prices have contributed to a higher cost of living for families without employer-funded insurance in the Rochester area than in the Twin Cities, even though housing, food and other necessities are cheaper, according to the nonprofit economic think tank Economic Policy Institute’s family budget calculator.

That’s true even for healthy residents who rarely see their doctor, because insurance premiums for individual plans are higher in the Rochester area, which is about 90 miles from St. Paul and Minneapolis. Southeastern Minnesota has the highest average premiums for individual insurance plans in the state, with residents paying nearly 60% more before subsidies than people living in the Twin Cities metro area, according to data from MNsure.

Arends, now the president of the nonprofit Albert Lea Healthcare Coalition, said he would like to see politicians from both parties spend more time pressuring Mayo to lower their costs. “All of them — not just Tim Walz,” he said.

In response to questions about the higher cost of health care plans in southern Minnesota, Kalmanovitz wrote that the premium costs are beyond Mayo’s control. “Providers do not have any input into this process.” She said Mayo has a “robust” financial assistance program that patients can apply for online.

Whether a Harris-Walz administration would try to enact the kind of aggressive cost-saving reforms that Mayo might oppose remains to be seen. While Walz supports a state public option in Minnesota, Harris has backed off of previous support for a federal single-payer system such as Medicare for all. Instead, the campaign has pledged to renew the tax credits that President Joe Biden enacted to lower insurance premium payments, which are set to expire after 2025.

“Vice President Harris’s plans will make prescription drugs less expensive, expand access to health care, reduce medical debt, and continue strengthening the Affordable Care Act, while Donald Trump’s ‘concept’ of a health care plan will raise costs and remove peace of mind for millions of Americans,” Witmer, the campaign spokesperson, said in a statement.

Absent from Harris’ plan, however, is any mention of lowering hospital rates.

Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the nonprofit KFF, adds that Democrats forged bonds with the hospital industry to beat back nearly 15 years’ worth of efforts by Republicans to repeal the ACA.

“Democrats and hospitals have fought side by side during the battles over the ACA,” he said. “I'm sure that goodwill will help the industry in the future.”

In November 2023, Walz attended Mayo Clinic’s unveiling of its $5 billion expansion, a project that CEO Dr. Gianrico Farrugia called a once-in-three-generations opportunity to “redefine the future of health care.”

“There is no more important place on the planet and no more important work being done for humanity than is being done in this spot in Rochester, Minnesota,” Walz said at the event.

Turner, the former Minnesota nurses union leader who is now a president of National Nurses United, anticipates that what was once a local political fight for Walz will travel with him to a national stage should he and Harris take the White House.

“The bean counters are running health care right now. And they're trying to run it, and I've said this before, they're trying to run it like it's a frickin’ factory,” she said. “Once it gets to the federal level, if it isn't Mayo that's going to try to influence it, it's going to be Kaiser or Sutter, or any other huge, huge health care operation.”

This ProPublica article is republished online under terms outlined on the Republish button near the top of the original page of publication.

Photos
Top: Photo collage by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source Images: AaronP/Bauer-Griffin and Bloomberg/Getty Images. Donate to ProPublica if you appreciate the reporting.

Middle: Gov. Tim Walz, center front, poses for a photo with Mayo Clinic leaders at a celebration for a $5 billion expansion at its flagship Rochester campus on Nov. 28, 2023. Credit: Max Nesterak/Minnesota Reformer.

Bottom: Minnesota Nurses Association President Mary Turner speaks at a news conference on April 26, 2023, before the House debate of a bill giving nurses more power over hospital staffing levels. Credit: Max Nesterak/Minnesota Reformer.

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

HPAI update: first case of bird flu in hog discovered on small Oregon farm

UPDATE: There's a somewhat different story at the University of Minnesota's  Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy report, USDA announces first H5N1 avian flu detection in US pigs [end update]

It's been a while since Bluestem posted about highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) jumping from poultry and wild bird populations to mammals and livestock.

A developing story from the Oregon Capital Chronicle, part of the States Newsroom network. Here's hoping for the best for hog farmers in this region,

First case of bird flu in pig discovered on small Oregon farm
by Lynne Terry

All of the pigs along with 70 backyard birds that became infected have been humanely euthanized, the farm’s been quarantined and officials are monitoring the owners and potential others for infection

This is a developing story and is likely to be updated.

State officials announced Wednesday that a severe form of bird flu has been detected for the first time in a pig on a small unidentified farm in Crook County in central Oregon.

The same strain – highly pathogenic avian influenza – has turned up in backyard and commercial flocks across the country. Hundreds of cows have also been infected, along with some people who worked around the infected animals. Two of the latest cases of human infection were announced last week in Washington state. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Protection confirmed that two people working in a commercial egg farm in Franklin County in south-central Washington were infected, Washington State Standard reported. 

But this is the first time the virus has crossed over to pigs. Federal officials at the National Veterinary Services Laboratories confirmed the presence of the strain in one of five pigs on the farm. Results on the other four pigs are pending, according to a news release. The testing can take a little while because the CDC conducts DNA analysis.

The farm also has backyard birds that became infected. State and national officials humanely euthanized all 70 of the birds and the five pigs to prevent further spread of the disease, the release said. None of the meat entered the food supply chain – it is not a commercial farm – and it was not intended for retail. 

Ryan Scholz, the Oregon Department of Agriculture state veterinarian, has quarantined the property and state officials are conducting surveillance at the site, the release said. The agriculture department also has provided the owners with protective gear to avoid further infection, and officials are educating and monitoring the exposed individuals.

State officials didn’t say how many people might have been exposed. Many people develop mild respiratory symptoms, including a runny nose, sore throat and cough. People can also get conjunctivitis – or “pink eye.” Some people who’ve been infected have become severely ill and have required hospitalization, according to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. 

The current strain of the virus that’s circulating in the U.S. and worldwide is endemic in wild birds, causing outbreaks in poultry, wild mammals, including seals and sea lions, along with domestic animals and dairy cows. Officials said it’s been confirmed in dairy cattle in 14 states, including California and Idaho. Oregon has not had any cases in dairy cattle. The number of cases of human infections is relatively low, state officials said.

Food safety officials recommend properly cooking meat and eggs to kill the virus along with other harmful bugs like E. coli, which can be deadly. The CDC also recommends pasteurizing milk and dairy products to kill pathogens. Check the U.S. Department of Agriculture website for food safety tips.

State officials expect the measures taken at the farm will end the outbreak, but they advised others to take these precautions to prevent their animals from becoming infected:

• Prevent exposure of domestic poultry and livestock to wildlife, especially wild waterfowl.
• Limit co-mingling of different species of livestock, especially poultry and pigs.
• Wash your hands before and after handling your flock.
• Clean vehicles, tools and equipment.
• Limit visitors.
• Sanitize shoes in clean foot baths.
• Change clothes after contact with birds.

In the age of HPAI, biosecurity is an important farm and business practice, wherever a farm is located or the size of the operation.

Photo:  Oregonians raise about 3,000 pigs every year and at least one just became infected with bird flu. (Courtesy of Oregon Department of Agriculture).

This Oregon Capital Chronicle article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

• Are HPAI outbreaks on dairy farms contributing to spread of avian influenza in Kandiyohi, Renville County breeder turkey farms? 
• HPAI dairy update: fourth human case of bird flu diagnosed in Colorado dairy farm worker
• Fed health officials prepare for bird flu jump to people by commissioning Moderna vaccine, tests
• Board of Animal Health: First case of bird flu in MN dairy cows strikes Benton County herd
• HPAI digest: 3rd worker catches flu; testing not reaching workers; more MN flocks stricken
• At a Michigan dairy: CDC confirms second bird flu infection of dairy worker
• U.S. Department of Agriculture to require bird flu tests of lactating dairy cattle before transport 
• How two vets discovered avian flu in dairy cows
• Sick cows news digest: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza detected in South Dakota dairy herd 
• [VIDEO] State vet briefs MN House Ag Committee on avian flu (HPAI) in dairy cows and people
• Not an April Fools' Day joke: Person in contact with HPAI infected cows in Texas catches bird flu
• Dairy cattle in Kansas and Texas catch highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) from wild birds
• Minnesota Board of Animal Health: Stevens County goat tests positive for avian influenza
• MN Board of Animal Health: HPAI confirmed in commercial Meeker County turkey flock 
• MN DNR: Wild fox in Minnesota tests positive for highly pathogenic avian influenza
• In America's turkey industry, SD producers hit hardest by highly pathogenic avian influenza
• Board of Animal Health: Minnesota poultry sales and exhibitions temporarily banned for 31 days
• Board of Animal Health: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza confirmed in two Minnesota flocks 
• SD Game, Fish & Parks: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) detected in South Dakota 
• Associated Press: Bird flu detected among commercial flock in southeastern South Dakota
• Minnesota Reformer: Menacing bird flu detected in western Iowa backyard chicken and duck flock
• Shocking photos in state vet's report to Midwest lawmakers reveal bird flu toll to farmers & flocks 

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

 

 

Minnesota Democrats are drawing in the most outside spending, campaign finance data show

I just posted a South Dakota Searchlight article about outside spending on a ballot measure here in South Dakota.

Now, a look at outside spending in legislative races in the North Star State from its  States Newsroom sibling, the Minnesota Reformer.

Minnesota Democrats are drawing in the most outside spending, campaign finance data show
by Michelle Griffith and Christopher Ingraham

Outside groups backed by labor unions and wealthy individuals are spending big to defend the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party’s control of Minnesota state government, according to the latest batch of data from the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board.

This latest data from the state board is the last look Minnesotans will get into how much candidates, parties and political action committees have collected and spent this year prior to the Nov. 5 election.

The Reformer in June identified roughly 15 key House races that will determine control of the lower chamber on Nov. 5. Minnesota Democrats are fighting to maintain control and continue pushing their progressive agenda, while Republicans desperately want to break up the DFL trifecta and roll back what they see as profligate taxing and spending. 

The DFL-majority Legislature in the past two years passed new programs and spent the vast majority of the state’s $17.5 billion budget surplus, and all of it hinged on a handful of battleground districts that were often decided by just a few dozen votes.

The winners in these key races will to a degree owe their victories to groups, committees and donors who helped them earn their election certificates.

So far this cycle, outside groups — including party and political action committees — have poured more than $17 million into legislative campaigns. Democrats have been the recipients of the lions’ share of that money, particularly in the key races that will determine the control of the House. A single special Senate election to replace Sen. Kelly Morrison, who resigned to run for Congress, will decide control of the 33-33 deadlocked upper chamber. Eight campaigns have surpassed $1 million in outside spending.

The race in District 3B between incumbent Republican Natalie Zeleznikar and DFL challenger Mark Munger, a former judge, has drawn the most outside spending at over $1.3 million. Roughly $900,000 of that sum has been spent on Munger’s behalf. Rep. Zelezikar won her race two years ago by just 33 votes.

Races in 18A, between DFL Rep.Jeff Brand and GOP challenger Erica Schwartz; and 35A, between DFL Rep. Zack Stephenson and Republican Josh Jungling, have seen similar total spending and breakdowns by party.

The lone Senate seat up for grabs this year, in District 45, has also drawn more than $1.2 million in outside funding, with DFL candidate Ann Johnson Stewart holding a slight spending edge.

One race that had previously flown under the radar is House district 11A between GOP Rep. Jeff Dotseth and challenger Pete Radosevich. In mid-September, news outlets reported on Dotseth’s divorce and arrest in 2008, which included allegations of domestic violence made by his now-ex wife and a son.

Since that news broke several hundred thousand dollars has flowed into the campaign, with the majority of it going to DFL challenger Radosevich.

The House DFL Caucus has spent the most cash on the election this year, doling out over $3.5 million for their candidates and against Republicans. In a press release, the House DFL said it again broke fundraising records — collecting over $9.2 million in 2024. The DFL House Caucus has nearly $3.5 million cash on hand.

“Minnesotans are supporting candidates who will protect their fundamental freedoms, invest in public schools, keep lowering the costs of health care, and help Minnesotans afford their lives,” House Speaker Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, said in a statement. “Our record-breaking fundraising and volunteer recruitment show that Minnesotans across the state support the work House Democrats have done and will continue to do.”

The House Republican Caucus also said it broke its fundraising record, raising nearly $2.7 million this year. The caucus has spent nearly $1.5 million towards their candidates and against Democrats.

“Republicans have the momentum and resources heading into the final stretch to win the majority and restore balance to Minnesota,” House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, said in a statement. “Minnesotans are ready to move on from the expensive two years of Democrat one-party rule that resulted in billions in tax increases on families, record amounts of fraud in our state agencies, and crushing regulations and mandates that have harmed our schools and Main Street businesses.”

Outside of the House political caucuses, the biggest outside spending groups include A Better Minnesota PAC, a progressive fundraising group. Pro Jobs Majority, which is the political spending arm of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, is also among the biggest spenders.

Policy advocacy groups, including Planned Parenthood, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Minnesota Concerned Citizens for Life are also represented on the list via their fundraising committees.

The largest individual donors include Alida Messinger, ex-wife of former Gov. Mark Dayton and frequent DFL donor, who has given $1.73 million dollars this year alone to DFL groups, including $500,000 to the DFL fundraising committee We All Do Better PAC and $500,000 to WIN Minnesota PAC, another DFL fundraising committee.

On the Republican side, Stanley Hubbard, founder of Hubbard Broadcasting, which owns KSTP,  has donated over $60,000 to Minnesota Senate Republicans and Wayne Johnson, who is running for House District 41A.

This Minnesota Reformer article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: Maple leaves carpet the ground near the Capitol on Oct. 28, 2024. Photo by Michele Jokinen/Minnesota House Public Information Services/ via Minnesota Reformer.

Related post

• DFL network dominates fundraising in September campaign finance reports

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Dark money in SD: Virginia nonprofit outspends in-state groups in open primaries campaign

Another interesting look at spending in South Dakota ballot measures from the South Dakota Searchlight.

Out-of-state nonprofit outspends in-state groups in open primaries campaign
by Makenzie Huber

‘Dark money’ organization has not disclosed its donors

An out-of-state nonprofit that hasn’t disclosed its donors is outspending in-state opponents and supporters of an open primaries ballot question ahead of South Dakota’s Nov. 5 election.

Article IV is an issue-advocacy nonprofit in Arlington, Virginia. It has spent $889,145 on large postcards and online advertisements for Amendment H, according to reports filed with the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office. 

Some of the postcards feature images of soldiers with tape over their mouths, along with a claim that Amendment H would “protect veteran voters” who “aren’t able to participate fully in our political process.”  

That claim is related to South Dakota’s current primary election system, in which Republicans only allow Republicans to vote, while Democrats allow Democrats and independents. 

Amendment H, one of seven statewide questions on South Dakotans’ Nov. 5 ballot, proposes opening up future primary elections and placing all candidates, regardless of party, on a single ballot open to all voters. The top two vote-getters would advance to the general election. In races with two winners, such as state House districts, the top four would advance to the general election. 

Some veterans have spoken out against the Article IV postcards, saying they use veterans as props for a political agenda, and also saying veterans are currently able to register for a political party and participate in the party’s primary election. Some of Article IV’s other postcards are more generally supportive of Amendment H and do not mention veterans.

More about Article IV

Article IV is a 501(c)(4), a type of nonprofit sometimes described as a “dark money” group because it’s allowed to engage in political campaigns and doesn’t have to publicly disclose its donors.

Nobody from Article IV returned messages from South Dakota Searchlight, and the group’s website reveals few details beyond a mission to “improve the health of American democracy by instituting reforms that align citizens’ interests with politicians’ incentives.” The website also describes a form of open primaries as a solution: “Top-4 and Top-5 nonpartisan primaries where everyone, regardless of party, can participate are better than the alternative.”

Some information about the group is available in public IRS documents that nonprofits are required to file. Article IV’s 2022 filing — the most recent one located by Searchlight — said the group had $11 million in revenue and made contributions to primary reform efforts across the country, such as a $12,600 donation to Open Primaries Inc., $342,000 to Oregon Ranked Choice Voting and $400,000 to Utah Ranked Choice Voting. 

In-state campaign finance data

Meanwhile, in-state supporters and opponents of open primaries have formed ballot question committees, which are required to disclose donors and additional details about fundraising and spending.

A pro-Open Primaries ballot question committee spent $439,211 on advertising between May and Oct. 15, according to its latest campaign finance report, while opponents spent $18,481.

South Dakota Open Primaries Chair Joe Kirby said his ballot question committee does not have direct contact with Article IV, nor does the committee have control of what the organization advertises.

That’s “the way the system works,” Kirby added.

“That happens to politicians, too: Outsiders spending money for or against them,” Kirby said, adding that there is a national interest in election reform. “There’s not much you can do about that. Outside interests have a big say in all elections, including the governor and congressional delegation. It’s not unique to our ballot issue.”

In another example of outside “dark money” influencing a South Dakota ballot question this year, supporters of an amendment that would restore abortion rights in South Dakota received $540,000 in donations from Think Big America, an issue-advocacy nonprofit in Illinois.

Article IV spent its own money directly on advertising rather than donating to the Open Primaries ballot question committee. The Open Primaries committee has raised over $750,000 since May, mainly from a group of business leaders in Sioux Falls, while opponents hadn’t broken $100,000 in fundraising a week before the election.

Three-fourths of the Open Primaries ballot question committee’s $777,225 in fundraising came from eight households in southeastern South Dakota. 

Those eight are:

• $250,000 in total contributions from chair of the committee Joe Kirby and his wife, Jennifer, of Sioux Falls.
• $110,000 from Dave Knudson, a Sioux Falls lawyer and former South Dakota lawmaker, and his wife Deanna, who serves as treasurer of the committee.
• $103,400 from gas station and convenience store chain Heinz Inc. owner Tom Heinz and wife, Jane Heinz, of Dakota Dunes.
• $50,000 from Matt Paulson, of Sioux Falls, owner and founder of MarketBeat.
• $25,000 from Dana Dykhouse, of Sioux Falls, CEO of First PREMIER Bank.
• $25,000 from Dan Kirby, of Sioux Falls, Joe and Jennifer Kirby’s son.
• $25,000 from Nathan Peterson, of Sioux Falls.
• $10,000 from Kevin Schieffer, of Sioux Falls, former president of the South Dakota Board of Regents.

Other major contributions include $100,000 from Marc Merill, co-founder and former CEO of Riot Games, in Santa Monica, California, and $25,000 apiece from Avera Health and First PREMIER Bank, both based in Sioux Falls.

Opponents to Amendment H formed the Vote No on H ballot question committee and raised $90,276. The ballot question committee’s largest contribution was $35,000 from James Koehler, an Aberdeen businessman and namesake of the Northern State University Koehler Hall of Fame Field.

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under  Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Photo: A postcard featuring images of soldiers with tape over their mouths and a claim that Amendment H would “protect veteran voters” was sent to households across South Dakota in October 2024. The postcard was paid for by Article IV, an issue-advocacy nonprofit in Arlington, Virginia. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

Related post

•  South Dakota News Watch poll: Support slips for abortion, open primaries, grocery tax measures

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Jeepers: ethanol coop kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question

There's an ad running on YouTube asking South Dakota folks to vote NO on Referred Law 21 ethanol carbon pipeline legislation which suggests big industry and foreign corporations are behind the deceptively-named "Landowners Bill of Rights."

The South Dakota Searchlight article republished below suggests there's something to that. The contribution makes me happy I've got my little yellow Yote No yard sign out.

Ethanol cooperative kicks in another $400,000 to support carbon pipeline ballot question
by Joshua Haiar

A cooperative that owns four ethanol plants has made a second $400,000 contribution to support a Nov. 5 ballot question about carbon dioxide pipelines.

Glacial Lakes Energy owns plants in Watertown, Mina, Aberdeen and Huron. The money went to the Vote Yes for a Strong South Dakota ballot question committee, which supports Referred Law 21.

The cooperative has now contributed a total of $800,000 to the campaign. Its latest $400,000 contribution came Friday, according to a supplemental campaign finance report. An earlier report disclosed a previous $400,000 contribution.

There are no limits on contributions to ballot question committees in South Dakota.

Referred Law 21 is a response to controversial plans by Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions to capture some of the carbon dioxide emitted by Midwest ethanol plants — including in eastern South Dakota — and transport it via pipeline to North Dakota for underground storage.

The law would establish financial and other protections for landowners and counties affected by pipelines. It requires pipeline companies to cover damages, mandates CO2 pipelines be buried at least 4 feet deep, and compels companies to share rupture modeling data. The law also says counties can collect up to $1 per linear foot of pipeline for property tax relief and road repairs. Supporters describe the law as a “bill or rights” for landowners.

Ethanol producers view carbon pipelines as crucial to their survival. Glacial Lakes and other ethanol producers have now contributed a total of $2.7 million in support of the ballot measure. Other major contributors include Sioux Falls-based biofuels producer POET, as well as Gevo, a company aiming to produce ethanol-based jet fuel in Lake Preston. 

Besides the four plants that Glacial Lakes Energy it owns, it also has ownership stakes in other plants, including a 16% interest in Minnesota-based Granite Falls Energy, according to the Glacial Lakes website. 

South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem is an investor in Granite Falls Energy, according to the last financial interest statement she filed with the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office. Noem is also a former investor in Glacial Lakes, but her spokesman told South Dakota Searchlight last year that she no longer has that investment.

Noem signed the bill adopted by the Legislature last winter that citizen opponents petitioned onto the ballot, which is now known as Referred Law 21. Glacial Lakes and Granite Falls are both partners in the Summit project.

Opponents of Referred Law 21 say it requires local governments to prove their restrictions on pipelines are reasonable, rather than requiring pipeline companies to prove them unreasonable. They describe that as an attack on local control. 

Pipeline opponents also have concerns about potentially hazardous pipeline leaks and Summit’s likely use of eminent domain, which is a legal process to obtain land access from unwilling landowners. Referred Law 21 does not address eminent domain.

Opponent groups have raised about $224,000 for their campaign, mostly from individuals and farm and ranch corporations. 

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Photo: A Sioux Falls resident votes in the city and school board election at Southern Hills United Methodist Church on April 9, 2024. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

Related posts

• Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Incumbent raises more than opponents in SD PUC race; has support from industry groups

Is this one form of regulatory capture in South Dakota?

A quick read from the South Dakota Searchlight.

Incumbent raises more than opponents in PUC race, and has support from industry groups
by Joshua Haiar

The Republican incumbent running for reelection to the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission has raised and spent more than her Libertarian and Democratic challengers combined, and is the only candidate in the race to receive money from political action committees whose donors could have business before the commission.

According to campaign finance reports filed this week, Kristie Fiegen had about $41,000 on hand in May and has raised nearly $19,000 since then while spending about $29,000, leaving her with about $30,000. Libertarian candidate Gideon Oakes started from zero and reported raising about $2,500 and spending it all, while Democratic candidate Forrest Wilson also started from zero, received about $5,500 in contributions, and spent $5,200.

Contributions to Fiegen, who has served on the commission since 2011, included money from three political action committees: $1,500 from COTEL, which is the political action committee for members of the South Dakota Telecommunications Association; $1,000 from SD Action Committee for Rural Electrification; and $1,000 from Midcontinent Communications South Dakota Political Action Committee. 

Fiegen is the only one of the three elected commissioners up for election this year. They oversee the regulation of private utility companies, which provide essential services including telecommunications, electricity and natural gas. The commission exercises a more limited regulatory role with telecommunications companies and cooperative and municipal utilities. 

Commissioners also consider permits for major projects, such as new power plants, transmission lines and wind and solar farms.

Learn more about the candidates

• Republican Kristie Fiegen.
• Libertarian Gideon Oakes.
• Democrat Forrest Wilson.

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under  Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Photo: Public Utilities Commissioner Kristie Fiegen participates in an election forum on Sept. 19, 2024, at Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell. Her opponents did not attend. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

 

‘Too shameful to acknowledge’: Biden delivers historic apology for Indian boarding schools

Since I moved to the Lake Traverse Reservation, home of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate seven years ago, my neighbors have shared their intergenerational experience of the boarding schools that removed children from their families and communities in an attempt to eradicate their culture and language.

My romantic partner, an elder, has shared some of his father's experience; because of that experience, he was taught Dakota as one of his first languages. The other was Danish, as his Lutheran mother was a refugee from the Nazi invasion of her country. His boarding school stories aren't the only ones,

The Oyate brought back two children last year who perished at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. 

The Arizona Mirror article republished below is very good.

Bluestem recommends reading additional coverage of the reaction by members of indigenous nations to President Biden's apology. I suggest:

Shondin Mayo and Pauly Denetclaw's Reactions mixed to boarding school apology; President Biden’s historic apology largely draws praise but most agree that it’s only the first step toward healing in ICT

Melissa Olson's ‘Long overdue’: Indigenous people in Minnesota react as Biden apologizes for federal boarding school policy at Minnesota Public Radio News

Amelia Schafer's Rapid City Indigenous community reacts after President Biden's historic boarding school apology in the Rapid City Journal.

Liz Navratil's Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan says Biden apology on boarding schools is ‘first step toward healing’ in the Star Tribune

Associated Press's Graham Lee Brewer and Sejal Govindarao's Native Americans laud Biden for historic apology over boarding schools. They want action to follow, in the Star Tribune

It's time to listen to indigenous people and nation's voices. Bluestem also recommends taking a look at the NDN Collective Response to President Biden’s Planned Apology for U.S. Government’s Role in Native Boarding Schools.

Please pay attention to what indigenous Americans say about their collective experience and the actions that mush follow the President's apology.

Here's the Arizona Mirror article.

‘Too shameful to acknowledge’: Biden delivers historic apology for Indian boarding schools
by Shondin Silversmith

Standing solemnly in front of a crowd full of Indigenous people on the grassy field of a tribal elementary school near Phoenix, President Joe Biden issued a formal apology to Indigenous communities across the country for the role the United States government had in the Native American Boarding School system, a system that harmed Indigenous people for generations. 

“After 150 years, the United States government eventually stopped the program, but the federal government has never formally apologized for what happened,” Biden said. “Until today — I formally apologize, as president of the United States of America, for what we did.”

Biden’s apology was met with loud cheers from the crowd. He is the first sitting president in the last 10 years to visit a Tribal Nation.

He told the community that it was long overdue and that it was only fitting that it was given at a tribal school within an Indigenous community deeply connected to culture and tradition.

“I have a solemn responsibility to be the first president to formally apologize to the Native peoples, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, Native Alaskans and federal Indian boarding schools,” he said. “It’s long, long, long overdue. Quite frankly, there’s no excuse that this apology took (150) years to make. 

Biden said the pain that the federal Indian boarding school policy has caused will always be a significant mark of shame for the United States. 

“For those who went through this period, it was too painful to speak of,” he said. “For a nation, it was too shameful to acknowledge.”

“This formal apology is the culmination of decades of work by so many courageous people,” Biden said, acknowledging many who were sitting in the audience, including the boarding school survivors and descendants.

“I know no apology can or will make up for what was lost during the darkness of the federal boarding school policy,” Biden said. “But, today, we’re finally moving forward into the light.”

Biden’s apology, delivered Friday at the Gila River Crossing School on the Gila River Indian Community, comes three years after Interior Secretary Deb Haaland launched the first ever federal investigation into Native American Boarding Schools.

Haaland spoke before Biden, and was welcomed to the stage by Miss Gila River Susanna Osife as “Auntie Deb.” Haaland, a member of the Pueblo of Laguna, told the crowd that thinking about our ancestors today is important because they persevered, and their stories are everywhere.

“We tell those stories because Native American history is American history,” Haaland said. 

The Department of Interior released the final boarding school report in July. It provided eight recommendations from the Department of Indian Affairs for the federal government that would support a path to healing for tribal communities. 

At the top of that list was a call for the United States to acknowledge and apologize for its role in the federal Indian boarding school policies that have harmed — and continue to harm — Indigenous peoples across the country.

“Today is a day for remembering, but it’s also a day to celebrate our perseverance,” Haaland said. “In spite of everything that has happened, we are still here.”

While boarding schools are places where affluent families send their children for an exclusive education for most of the United States, Haaland noted how different the prospect was for Native Americans. 

“For Indigenous peoples, they served as places of trauma and terror for more than 100 years,” she said. “Tens of thousands of Indigenous children as young as four years old were taken from their families and communities and forced into boarding schools run by U.S. government institutions.”

Haaland said that the federal Native American Boarding School system has impacted every Indigenous person she knows, and they all carry the trauma that those policies and schools inflicted. 

“This is the first time in history that a United States cabinet secretary has shared the traumas of our past, and I acknowledge that this trauma was perpetrated by the agency that I now lead,” Haaland said. “For decades, this terrible chapter was hidden from our history books, but now our administration’s work will ensure that no one will ever forget.”

Haaland launched the Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative in 2021 to shed light on the “horrific era of our nation’s history.” 

The initiative compiled two reports and visited dozens of Indigenous communities, hearing from survivors and descendants so that their experiences are all documented because the goal of Native American Boarding Schools was to assimilate and eradicate Indigenous people. 

Haaland said the investigation into these boarding schools are shared in those reports and it shows the “loud and unequivocal truth” that the federal government took deliberate and strategic actions through boarding school policies to isolate Indigenous children from their families and steal from them the languages, cultures, and traditions that are fundamental to Indigenous people.

“As we stand here together, my friends and relatives, we know that the federal government failed,” She said. “It failed to annihilate our languages, our traditions, our life ways. It failed to destroy us because we persevered.”

The Federal Boarding School Initiative’s report called on Congress and federal agencies to take action, and Haaland said that some of those recommendations are already being put into effect. 

For instance, Haaland said the department is working alongside the departments of Education and Health and Human Services to invest in the preservation of Native languages.

“We are developing a 10-year national plan guided by tribal leaders and Native language teachers,” Haaland said, and more details about their efforts will be released later.

“The painful loss of our Indigenous languages has been a consistent topic as we have met with survivors across our nation,” she said.

Another effort Haaland highlighted is the department’s collaboration with the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition to create an oral collection of first-person narratives from boarding school survivors. 

Haaland said this collaboration is a way to ensure that future generations are told the stories of the boarding school era and understand the impacts and intergenerational trauma caused by boarding school policies.

As the crowd listened to Biden give his speech, protesters with O’odham Solidarity made their voice heard as one walked toward the stage holding a sign calling for justice for Palestinians.

As Biden delivered his remarks, one protester yelled from the crowd: “No, what about the people in Gaza.”

The protest was met with shouts from the crowd as a man in the crowd yelled: “Get out of here.” But Biden said let her talk.

“Let her go,” Biden said as the protester was being removed. “There’s a lot of innocent people being killed and it has to stop.” 

Even after the protestors voiced their concerns, the community’s attention went back to Biden as he continued his speech about the boarding school years as well as his investments to Indian Country.

‘It was long overdue’

Crystalyne Curley said she thought of her grandfathers as Biden delivered his apology, which brought back memories of the stories they would tell of their time at boarding schools and the trauma they experienced. 

“It’s a bittersweet moment,” Curley said. “I think there is a lot of a mix of emotions, because each of our Navajo citizens has a tie to the trauma that has happened within our boarding schools.”

Curley serves as speaker of the Navajo Nation Council and has heard stories about the federal boarding school system from her community for generations. 

“It was long overdue,” Curley said. “I really commend our president Biden for taking that step and being the first one to have that courage to say, ‘Yes, we done wrong.’”

Curley said that is something that many Indigenous people have been waiting to hear, including the Navajo people.

“Many of our children didn’t come home,” she said, and the policies’ lingering effects include the loss of language and culture.

The Department of the Interior investigated the federal Indian boarding school system across the United States, identifying more than 400 schools and over 70 burial sites.

Arizona was home to 47 of those schools, which were attended by Indigenous children who were taken away from their families and attempted to assimilate them through education — and, often, physical punishment.

The legacy of the federal Indian boarding school system is not new to Indigenous people. For centuries, Indigenous people across the country have experienced the loss of their culture, traditions, language and land. 

Multiple federally operated boarding schools were established in the Navajo Nation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, and many of them are still operational today, though under different policies than when they were constructed.

Curley said that there are still a lot of federally operated Bureau of Indian Education schools in operation on the Navajo Nation, but some families still hesitate to enroll their children in them because of the boarding school history. 

She hopes that this apology will lead to the federal government investing in the education system within tribal nations.

“Start investing back into our children and our mental, spiritual, (and) psychological health that this has caused for many decades,” she added.

Curley said she hopes that the momentum of Biden’s apology will be carried on into the next administration by acknowledging the wrong done to Indigenous communities. 

Now that an official apology has been given, Curley said that healing needs to take place and that comes in the form of investing in Indigenous communities, something she said is best done by funding public and mental health resources, as well as reinvesting in the culture and language revitalizations within their communities.

“For healing to take place, it takes at least two generations,” Curley said.

After Biden issued his apology, Native organizations and advocates from across Indian Country called for action. 

Cheryl Crazy Bull, the president and CEO of the American Indian College Fund, said that the federal government and philanthropists need to make a significant investment in restorative and healing approaches as well as institutions to repair the harm done by the boarding school era. 

“The Native people who we support, from our youngest children to our college students, deserve that investment,” she said. 

Crystal Echo Hawk, the founder and CEO of IllumiNative, called Biden’s apology a significant step toward justice for Indian Country, but said it must not be the end of the government’s efforts.

“True accountability requires comprehensive action — beginning with full transparency about the extent of these abuses and the return of Native children’s remains to their families and communities,” she said. 

“We must continue to demand further accountability of the harms done to Native peoples, especially the Native children who experienced neglect, inhumane conditions, physical and sexual abuse, and death under the guise of education,” Echo Hawk said. “The federal government must commit to supporting Native-led healing initiatives, language revitalization programs, and cultural preservation efforts to effectively begin repairing the damage of the past.”

My partner was deeply moved by Biden's respect for the pro-Gaza protestor, since deaths of so many Palestinians in the current war reminds him of the stories his own family has shared about their experience as Dakota people.

This Arizona Mirror article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: Six Sisseton and Wahpeton Dakota children arrived at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School in November 1879. The group from the eastern Dakota Territory included, from left, Nancy Renville, Justine LaFromboise, Edward Upright, John Renville and George Walker. Amos LaFromboise, the first child to die at the school, is not pictured. Glass plate photo by John Choate in 1879 / Carlisle Indian School Digital Resource Center via Fargo Forum.

Related posts

• ‘We have persevered’: Biden will apologize for Native Amercan boarding school history
• Dozens of children from South Dakota tribes died at boarding schools, Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative report says
• Indian Country News: A final journey home from Carlisle Indian Industrial School to the Oyate
• MN Reformer: Federal investigation seeks to uncover painful history of Native American boarding schools
• ‘They are important to us’: Remains of Sisseton Wahpeton & Spirit Lake children returning home 
• Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate & Spirit Lake Tribe strike historic deal with Army over repatriation of Amos LaFromboise & Edward Upright
• On September 11, US Army began disinterment project to return remains of more children buried at Carlisle to tribal communities
• Update: Amos LaFramboise to be returned to the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, Lake Traverse Reservation from Carlisle Indian School 
• SWO archivist: "We are committed to them . . . to bringing them home like the chiefs that they are" 
• SWO moves closer to bringing ancestors home from Carlisle Indian School with affidavit signing ceremony
• Video: Return of Our Sisseton-Wahpeton Children

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure

South Dakota Searchlight looks at the funding in the ballot battle over Referred Law 21. Quite the David v. Goliath fight as far as funding goes.

Ethanol is fueling support of South Dakota carbon pipeline ballot measure
by Joshua Haiar

Money from ethanol producers is clashing with contributions from individuals and farm-and-ranch corporations — plus some funding from national climate activists — in the fight over a carbon-dioxide pipeline law on South Dakota’s Nov. 5 ballot.

Committees supporting the law have raised at least $2.3 million, all from ethanol companies, since their last reports in May, and they’ve spent $1.5 million. Committees opposing the law have raised at least $224,000 and spent over $160,000. Individuals and farm-and-ranch corporations put forth about $150,000 to defeat the bill, making up a majority of the money raised on the vote-no side. 

The information comes from new campaign finance reports filed this week.

State lawmakers and Gov. Kristi Noem adopted Senate Bill 201 during the last legislative session. Opponents collected over 31,000 petition signatures to put the legislation on the ballot as Referred Law 21. A yes vote supports the law, while a no vote opposes it.

The law includes financial and other protections for landowners and counties affected by pipelines. It also shifts a burden to local governments, requiring them to prove their restrictions on pipelines are reasonable, instead of pipeline companies having to prove them unreasonable.

Proponent finances

A ballot question committee backing the law, Protect South Dakota’s Ag Future, is chaired by former South Dakota Agriculture Secretary Walt Bones. The committee spent $167,000 on advertising using a contribution of that amount from Gevo, a company that hopes to produce ethanol-based aviation fuel in South Dakota. Gevo is backing the law as part of its plans to use carbon capture technology in its production process.  

Another ballot question committee, Vote Yes for a Strong South Dakota, raised $2.2 million from ethanol producers, including $1 million from POET, the Sioux Falls-based world’s largest ethanol company, and $400,000 from Glacial Lakes Energy, an ethanol producer with multiple locations in South Dakota. Another $200,000 came from Gevo. The committee has spent $1.4 million, mostly on ads. 

Opponent finances

Opponents of the law, through the SD Property Rights and Local Control Alliance ballot question committee, raised $189,000. Aside from the individual donations and farm-and-ranch corporation contributions, an additional $27,500 was raised through fundraising events such as silent auctions.

South Dakota Searchlight questioned the committee’s treasurer, Rep. Tina Mulally, R-Rapid City, about the legality of reporting only the amount of the silent auction proceeds without the names of auction buyers. South Dakota requires individual campaign contributions above $100 to be disclosed with the contributor’s name.

“Those silent auctions were for a yard sign, a pie, a print,” Mulally said. “They were all little items. Mostly signs.”

Several county Republican parties donated a combined $4,400. South Dakotans for Safe and Responsible Renewable Energy is one of two political action committees listed as contributing, totaling $2,800; however, no committee by that name is listed on the state campaign finance website. 

Jane Fonda and other national money

Another opponent group, a ballot question committee affiliated with Dakota Rural Action, received its $35,000 in funding from the South Dakota Rural Voters political action committee. It received its funding from two national groups – New World Foundation and Jane Fonda Climate PAC – which support social and climate justice efforts.

Referred Law 21 arose from controversy surrounding Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions, which has partnered with ethanol plants in the Midwest — including in eastern South Dakota — to capture CO2 and transport it to North Dakota for underground storage.

The project aims to benefit from federal tax credits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Some landowners along the route oppose the pipeline due to concerns about eminent domain — a legal process for gaining access to land from unwilling owners — and potentially hazardous leaks.

Referred Law 21, described as a compromise bill by Republican legislative leaders, does not address eminent domain but includes landowner protections. It requires pipeline companies to cover damages, mandates CO2 pipelines be buried at least 4 feet deep, and compels companies to share rupture modeling data. The law says counties can also collect up to $1 per linear foot of pipeline for property tax relief and road repairs.

Photo: Walt Bones, left, representing Protect South Dakota’s Ag Future, and Jim Eschenbaum, representing South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance, participate in an election forum on Sept. 19, 2024, at Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Related posts

• Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota 
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Breaking crowded South Dakota ballot news: carbon pipeline law referendum validated
• Sustainable jet fuel company Gevo contributes $167K in defense of carbon pipeline law
• South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance turns in petitions to SD Secretary of State to force a vote on carbon pipeline policy
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

‘We have persevered’: Biden will apologize for Native American boarding school history

Last year, the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate brought home Amos La Framboise and Edward Upright, two young men who died at the Carlisle Indian Industrial School, from their lonely graves in Pennsylvania. And many of my neighbors have shared stories of their relatives' traumatic years away from their families at other boarding schools.

Via the South Dakota Searchlight, this Arizona Mirror article tells the story of a long due apology.

‘We have persevered’: Biden will apologize for Native American boarding school history
by Shondiin Silversmith

For the first time in history, a sitting U.S. president is set to apologize to Indigenous communities for the role the federal government played in the atrocities Indigenous children faced in the federal Native American Boarding School system.

The apology, which President Joe Biden will deliver Friday when he speaks at the Gila River Crossing School on the Gila River Indian Community near Phoenix, comes three years after Interior Secretary Deb Haaland launched the first-ever investigation into Native American Boarding Schools. 

The final boarding school report provided eight recommendations from the Department of Indian Affairs for the federal government that would support a path to healing for tribal communities. 

At the top of that list was a call for the United States to acknowledge and apologize for its role in the federal Indian boarding school policies that have harmed — and continue to harm — Indigenous peoples across the country.

“The president is taking that to heart, and he plans on making an apology to Indian Country for the boarding school era,” Haaland said in an Oct. 23 interview with the Arizona Mirror.

Haaland said she has been pinching herself since she got the news that Biden planned on issuing an apology because of the work put in by so many people to shed light on Native American boarding schools and the lasting impacts it has had on Indigenous communities.

“It’s incredibly meaningful,” Haaland said, because, as part of the boarding school initiative, their department organized the Road to Healing tour, where they visited several Indigenous communities to hear stories about boarding schools.

“They were all heart-wrenching,” Haaland said of stories that were shared by victims and their families. “We sat through so many testimonies from survivors and descendants, and I have a deep understanding of what so many people went through and what our community suffered from.”

The Department of the Interior investigated the federal Indian boarding school system across the United States, identifying more than 400 schools and over 70 burial sites.

Arizona was home to 47 of those schools, which were attended by Indigenous children who were taken away from their families and attempted to assimilate them through education — and, often, physical punishment.

The legacy of the federal Indian boarding school system is not new to Indigenous people. For centuries, Indigenous people across the country have experienced the loss of their culture, traditions, language and land. 

“This is an incredibly suppressed history that so many people didn’t know about and now it’s seeing the light of day,” Haaland said. “I have to believe that people will heal from what we’ve been able to do, and certainly hearing from President Biden, who has been the best president for Indian Country in my lifetime, say that he’s sorry, it’s beyond words.”

Biden plans to visit Indian Country for the first time on Oct. 25, where he will issue that apology alongside Haaland at the Gila River Crossing School. 

“Some of our elders who are boarding school survivors have been waiting all of their lives for this moment,” Gila River Indian Community Gov. Stephen Roe Lewis said in a statement to the Arizona Mirror. 

“It’s going to be incredibly powerful and redemptive when the president issues this apology on Indian land,” he added. “If only for a moment on Friday, this will rise to the top and the most powerful person in the world, our president, is shining a light on this dark history that’s been hidden.”

Haaland said Biden, being the first sitting president willing to apologize, helps Indian Country feel seen because the “horrible history” of Native American Boarding Schools and assimilation policies aimed at pushing Indigenous people out of their communities has been ignored “for so long.”

“It was an outright assault and genocide that our communities went through for centuries, and we’re still here,” Haaland said. “None of anything that the federal government or anyone did throughout those centuries managed to eradicate us.”

“We have persevered,” she added. “I feel so proud the sitting president is acknowledging that. It’s amazing, and I am deeply appreciative.”

Learning that the president is willing to issue an apology, Indivisible Tohono Co-founder April Ignacio said that it is a historic event because they finally acknowledge the government’s role in a national policy of forced assimilation against the first peoples of this land. 

“Never in my life did I think we would be here,” Ignacio said. “This apology is long overdue, and the impact the Boarding School era had on our loss of culture and language must be tied to immediate action through reparations.”

In 2023, Ignacio said, Indivisible Tohono organized a caravan of 18 Tohono O’odham elders who were boarding school survivors and attendees to testify during the Road to Healing Tour organized by the Department of Interior.

Ignacio said she has five generations of boarding school survivors and attendees in her family. She shared her story during the Road to Healing tour. 

“As a co-founder of Indivisible Tohono, I thank President Biden for his willingness to address the historical and ongoing impact of Indian Boarding School policies,” Ignacio said. “This apology is consistent with President Biden’s promise to honor sovereignty, and this historical acknowledgment will be a part of his legacy.”

Praise for Biden’s forthcoming apology is being shared by tribal nations across the country, including the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. 

“President Biden’s apology is a profound moment for Native people across this country,” Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. said in a written statement. “I applaud the President for acknowledging the pain and suffering inflicted on tribes and boarding school survivors, which is long-overdue.”

Hoskin said that Oklahoma was home to 87 boarding schools, which were attended by thousands of Cherkee children. Today, he said, nearly every Cherokee Nation citizen feels the impact. 

“Our children were made to live in a world that erased their identities, their culture and upended their spoken language,” he said. “They often suffered harm, abuse, neglect and were forced to live in the shadows.”

The Cherokee Nation is one of the largest tribes in the United States with more than 450,000 tribal citizens. About 141,000 of them reside within the tribe’s reservation boundaries in northeastern Oklahoma.

“The significance of this public apology by the President on behalf of this nation is amplified and an important step, which must be followed by continued action,” Hoskin said.

He said that the Department of Interior’s recommendations in the boarding school report, especially those focused on the preservation of Indigenous languages and the repatriation of ancestors and cultural items, can be a path toward true healing.

This Arizona Mirror article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: Pershlie Ami, a citizen of the Hopi tribe, shares her experience of attending Phoenix Indian School when she was a kid during the Road to Healing tour hosted by the U.S. Department of Interior at the Gila Crossing Community School on Jan. 20, 2023. Photo by Shondiin Silversmith | Arizona Mirror.

Related posts

• Dozens of children from South Dakota tribes died at boarding schools, Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative report says
• Indian Country News: A final journey home from Carlisle Indian Industrial School to the Oyate
• MN Reformer: Federal investigation seeks to uncover painful history of Native American boarding schools
• ‘They are important to us’: Remains of Sisseton Wahpeton & Spirit Lake children returning home 
• Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate & Spirit Lake Tribe strike historic deal with Army over repatriation of Amos LaFromboise & Edward Upright
• On September 11, US Army began disinterment project to return remains of more children buried at Carlisle to tribal communities
• Update: Amos LaFramboise to be returned to the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, Lake Traverse Reservation from Carlisle Indian School 
• SWO archivist: "We are committed to them . . . to bringing them home like the chiefs that they are" 
• SWO moves closer to bringing ancestors home from Carlisle Indian School with affidavit signing ceremony
• Video: Return of Our Sisseton-Wahpeton Children

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

News digest: no surprise in deep red Rushmore State as Trump polls well in South Dakota

The relative absence of yard signs for either major party presidential contender in South Dakota isn't a surprise. A deep red state, there's little reason for national parties and campaigns to sink much money into the state.

A brief digest of polls underscores the situation.

In results released on Thursday, Emerson College Polling reports in October 2024 South Dakota Poll: Trump 62%, Harris 35%:

A new Emerson College Polling/KELO-TV/The Hill poll of South Dakota voters finds 62% support former president Donald Trump in 2024, while 35% support Vice President Kamala Harris. Voters were asked regardless of whom they support, who they expect to be president in 2025. Fifty-nine percent expect Trump to be president, and 39% expect Harris to be president. 

“Despite Trump holding a 27-point lead over Harris in South Dakota, fewer voters, about a 20-point margin, expect Trump to win the presidency, suggesting some doubt among his supporters about the overall election outcome,” Spencer Kimball, executive director of Emerson College Polling, said.

President Joe Biden holds a 28% job approval among South Dakota voters, while 64% disapprove of his performance in the Oval Office. Governor Kristi Noem has a 52% job approval rating, while 40% disapprove of the job she is doing as governor.  

In the US House election, 64% support incumbent Republican Dusty Johnson, while 28% support Democrat Sheryl Johnson.

The top issue for South Dakota voters is the economy at 42%, followed by abortion access (11%), housing affordability (8%), immigration (8%), healthcare (8%), education (8%), and threats to democracy (7%). 

South Dakota has several issues on the ballot, including but not limited to abortion, establishing a top-two primary system, and legalized marijuana. 

On South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, an initiated amendment establishing a right to abortion in the state constitution in the first trimester, 45% plan to vote to adopt the amendment, white 48% plan to vote against it. Seven percent are undecided. 

“Voters who support the abortion ballot initiative break for Harris over Trump, 65% to 31%, while voters who oppose the measure break for Trump, 90% to 7%,” Kimball noted.

On South Dakota Initiated Measure 29, an initiated measure legalizing the recreational use, possession, and distribution of marijuana,  45% plan to vote yes, to adopt the measure, and 50% plan to vote no. Five percent are undecided. 

“The marijuana ballot initiative has the most support among voters under 30, at 68%, and most opposition among voters over 70, at 64%,” Kimball added.  . . . 

Read the rest at the link. Full Results here.

Much the same story emerges at South Dakota News Watch, which rounded out earlier polling on ballot measures (see related posts below) with Poll: Republicans Trump, Dusty Johnson hold sizable leads in South Dakota. Stu Whitney reports:

Nearly 6 in 10 South Dakotans plan to vote for Republican nominee Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential election, according to a scientific poll of 500 registered voters co-sponsored by South Dakota News Watch.

Trump holds a lead of 59% to 33% over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in the survey, which was also sponsored by the Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota. 

The other two statewide candidate races on South Dakota's Nov. 5 ballot are also lopsided in favor of Republicans, according to the survey, which was conducted Oct. 12-16 by Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. . . .

U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson and Public Utilities Commissioner Kristie Fiegen are well ahead in their re-election bids, with Johnson leading Democratic challenger Sheryl Johnson 61% to 24% and Fiegen polling at 50% in a three-candidate field. . . .

Read the rest at the News Watch.

I met Sheryl Johnson earlier this week and was happy that I'd voted for her, regardless of the prospects of her winning, as she was direct and honest, and able to disagree with civility with an area farmer who supports ethanol carbon pipelines. Refreshing.

Photo: Republican nominee and former president Donald Trump speaks at a South Dakota Republican Party event at the Monument in Rapid City, S.D., on Sept. 6, 2023. Trump has a lead of 59% to 33% over Vice President Kamala Harris in South Dakota for the 2024 election, according to a recent poll. (Photo: Rapid City Journal/via South Dakota News Watch).

Related posts

• South Dakota News Watch poll: Support slips for abortion, open primaries, grocery tax measures
•  Cannabis on South Dakota ballot yet again with IM 29: if voters decriminalize marijuana, lawmakers would make the call on sales  
• SD Amendment G: Supporters seek to restore abortion rights that opponents call extreme
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
•  Initiated Measure 28: What supporters call tax relief, opponents call a budget problem
•  Marketing opportunity for Big Stone County? South Dakota News Watch Poll: South Dakota voters oppose recreational marijuana measure
• South Dakota cannabis legalization ballot measure validated for November 5 election 
• South Dakotans return dope to governor's office, defeat legal pot, preserve Pierre's red swamp 
• Bummer! South Dakota News Watch poll shows referendum on recreational cannabis legalization in South Dakota could fail in November 
• After court defeat, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws keeps working for adult cannabis
• SD Supreme Court strikes down legal cannabis; supporters vow to make the people rule
• Trial for SD abortion ballot measure in limbo as court staff ‘not aware’ of planned start date 
• Coalition of 35 Christian clergy leaders endorse South Dakota reproductive-rights ballot measure
• Update on SD rights: Abortion ballot measure challenge on course for late September trial 
• South Dakota secretary of state now a defendant in Life Defense Fund abortion rights case
• Abortion rights measure likely to appear on South Dakota ballot, but lawsuit could affect election results
• South Dakota State Supreme Court revives legal challenge to abortion-rights ballot measure 
• South Dakota father is leading effort to restore abortion rights in the state
• South Dakota doctors form group to support state abortion-rights ballot measure
• Anti-abortion group appeals judge's ruling on abortion rights amendment to SD Supreme Cour
• Reproductive rights update: former South Dakota legislator establishes Republican group to support abortion-rights amendment 
• What's up with the lawsuit against South Dakota’s abortion-rights ballot measure

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Q&A: Lee Strubinger's Unplanned Democracy podcast retraces SD’s path from ’06 and ’08 abortion votes to new ballot measure

Yet another report on South Dakota's struggle over reproductive rights from South Dakota Searchlight.

Q&A: Podcast retraces SD’s path from ’06 and ’08 abortion votes to new ballot measure
by Seth Tupper

Some South Dakota voters who rejected abortion bans in 2006 and 2008 probably didn’t know there was already a trigger law in place that would end up banning abortion in 2022.

Lee Strubinger puts that hindsight to use in a new podcast, “Unplanned Democracy.” It examines South Dakota’s journey from those elections to this year’s vote on Amendment G, which would restore abortion rights. The measure is on the Nov. 5 ballot.

The new podcast is available now on SDPB’s website and from various podcast platforms.

Strubinger is a politics and public policy reporter for South Dakota Public Broadcasting. He reported, wrote and produced the “Unplanned Democracy” podcast, which is narrated by Jackie Hendry, host of SDPB’s “South Dakota Focus.”

For audio from the ’06 and ’08 abortion fights, Strubinger relied on a 2008 documentary of the same name, produced by the late South Dakota journalist Denise Ross.

Strubinger found the documentary while covering South Dakota’s reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision. The ruling overturned the constitutional abortion rights established by the court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.

A South Dakota trigger law passed by the Legislature in 2005 immediately banned abortions in the state after Dobbs, with one exception for abortions “necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female.” That’s how South Dakota ended up with an abortion ban, after about 55% of voters defeated bans in each of the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Following is South Dakota Searchlight’s conversation with Strubinger about his new podcast, edited for length and clarity.

What did you set out to do with this podcast?

With the ballot question coming up, I felt it was really important that people needed to see kind of what it was like or be reminded of what it was like in ’06 and in ’08. 

So I summarized the documentary a little bit. I would recommend watching the documentary and listening to the podcast, because Denise Ross laid out a lot more of the history than I do, and really showed what happened back in ’06 and ’08. 

And then I kind of attempted to basically bring us from where the documentary ends up to where we are today, in the form of an audio podcast.

What’s it like to look back now at the abortion fights in 2006 and 2008, knowing that a trigger ban passed by legislators in 2005 was going to end up taking effect in 2022?

It’s ironic. Granted, those past elections were under the framework of Roe, so the conditions are a little bit different now, but voters said twice that they don’t want a ban.

And the ballot question in ’08 had exceptions for pregnancies as a result of rape or incest, and the thought was that it would end up passing overwhelmingly, because that was supposedly the big hangup in ’06. But voters rejected the ’08 ban by a similar margin.

I’m interested to see how this particular vote plays out, because I think it’ll give a very clear indication of where the state’s electorate is now.

A former legislator, Joel Dykstra, sponsored the trigger ban in 2005. It ended up taking effect 17 years later. What’s that say about the power one lawmaker can wield?

It stresses the importance of paying attention and staying engaged as to who gets elected and what they’re talking about and what they’re bringing up. 

I don’t know the entirety of the conversation around that trigger law; I’m sure folks with Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union were paying close attention, but I don’t know if the general public was, and it’s kind of interesting that while the ’06 and ’08 questions were being voted on and debated, the trigger law was there the whole time.

Do anti-abortion activists deserve credit for seeing back in 2005 that overturning Roe v. Wade was possible, while abortion-rights activists maybe didn’t see that?

I read a book by some New York Times reporters called “The Fall of Roe.” It basically looks at the last 10 years of America under Roe and the conditions that ultimately led to it coming down. And it wasn’t just folks in South Dakota — it was across the country, in terms of this confidence that Roe would be in place. And you have a group of anti-abortion forces from a bunch of different groups working together for this similar goal, and when you read that book, you realize how persistent they were in making sure that this happened.

Your podcast includes audio from the days and weeks after the Dobbs decision, when people took to the streets to protest. We haven’t really seen that kind of widespread public activism during the campaign on Amendment G, have we? How do you explain that?

If I were to guess, I would say it’s twofold — one being the role of the internet and online social media. I think a lot of it is playing out there. A lot of it is playing out in churches, as well.

Abortion is a very sensitive topic. It’s one of the most personal decisions that a woman can make — how to manage their pregnancy. And I just don’t think people are comfortable saying the word “abortion” right now. That could be for a number of reasons, politically, socially. I think that’s why it’s a little more quiet.

After the election, what’s the future hold for abortion policy in South Dakota? 

I don’t see this as being over anytime soon, regardless of how this vote plays out.

If it passes, I think you’re going to see the state Legislature figure out what is and isn’t allowed, because the legislators aren’t going to change, in terms of the people holding office and their sincere convictions. Most of them are very opposed to abortion and have been for quite a while. They’re going to be trying to figure out what is and isn’t allowable under this new framework. And that’s going to get tested out in the courts. 

Meanwhile, there is not currently a clinic in place that would provide first-trimester abortions like a Planned Parenthood-style operation. And that’s one of the concerns that the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have in relation to this — that if it passes, women in South Dakota would have a right to abortion in name, but maybe not so much a right to abortion in reality. 

And if the ballot measure fails?

You still have a lot of folks in the health care field who want clarity on the state’s current abortion trigger ban. It has an exception for the life of the mother, but that doesn’t put them at ease when they’re facing a Class 6 felony from other language in the law that says you’d be guilty if you helped “procure” an abortion. They don’t know what “procure” means. 

Also, pregnancy is complicated. Lots of things can happen during a pregnancy, and obstetricians I’ve spoken with that support the ballot question view it as giving them options to treat their patients in ways that they can’t right now. And there’s a concern just in terms of some obstetricians not being willing to practice here based on our current trigger law. 

Also, there was an article written in 2022 by Harold Cassidy, a prominent anti-abortion lawyer, that he published before the Dobbs decision came out. He was basically arguing that the Dobbs decision would only take out about a third of Roe, and if you wanted to take out the other two-thirds of Roe v. Wade, you need to look at what they did in South Dakota to restrict abortion prior to the Dobbs decision. 

And the roots of that go back to findings that were established in a 2005 task force on abortion. That task force tried to educate the courts that life begins at conception, and that there is an inherent constitutional right for the relationship between the mother and her fetus, and so I could see that being a framework going forward for maybe even a national abortion ban.

I’m not sure I understand why Planned Parenthood and the ACLU are not supporting Amendment G. Did you gain a better understanding of that during your reporting?

I would take a look at what was in Michigan with that abortion-rights ballot question, which was basically less about abortion and more about reproductive rights in general. It went a lot further than South Dakota’s ballot question goes. It didn’t deal with just abortion; it dealt with in vitro fertilization, it dealt with prenatal and postnatal care, and said the government can’t have a say in determining how you go about that. I think that is viewed by those groups as the direction to go post-Dobbs.

If you also look at other ballot questions that are being considered across the country, most of them are through the second trimester. Amendment G allows for abortion rights through the first trimester, and then restrictions can kick in during the second trimester and the state can ban it in the third with exceptions for the life and health of the pregnant woman. And so I think those organizations view this as more restrictive than what other states are considering.

Also when you look at the framework the South Dakota measure is trying to establish, which is the Roe framework, their argument is essentially that abortion-rights advocates need to look for something better than Roe, that Roe is the floor, but that Roe was ultimately overturned. And so they’re looking for something that is more ironclad than just a Roe framework.

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

 

Photo: People associated with the Life Defense Fund protest outside a Sioux Falls library on May 1, 2024, as an abortion-rights group conducts a press conference inside. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).

 

Related posts

• South Dakota News Watch poll: Support slips for abortion, open primaries, grocery tax measures
• SD Amendment G: Supporters seek to restore abortion rights that opponents call extreme
• Trial for SD abortion ballot measure in limbo as court staff ‘not aware’ of planned start date 
• Coalition of 35 Christian clergy leaders endorse South Dakota reproductive-rights ballot measure
• Update on SD rights: Abortion ballot measure challenge on course for late September trial 
• South Dakota secretary of state now a defendant in Life Defense Fund abortion rights case
• Abortion rights measure likely to appear on South Dakota ballot, but lawsuit could affect election results
• South Dakota State Supreme Court revives legal challenge to abortion-rights ballot measure 
• South Dakota father is leading effort to restore abortion rights in the state
• South Dakota doctors form group to support state abortion-rights ballot measure
• Anti-abortion group appeals judge's ruling on abortion rights amendment to SD Supreme Cour
• Reproductive rights update: former South Dakota legislator establishes Republican group to support abortion-rights amendment 
• What's up with the lawsuit against South Dakota’s abortion-rights ballot measure

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

It ain't South Dakota: Will abortion rights supporters propel MN DFL candidates to victory?

Earlier today, I posted South Dakota News Watch poll: Support slips for abortion, open primaries, grocery tax measures. which showed that support for an amendment to legalize abortion here in South Dakota had slipped drastically.

It's a an entirely different story in Minnesota, as the story below, republished from MinnPost illustrates.

Will abortion rights supporters propel Minnesota DFL candidates to victory?
by Peter Callaghan, MinnPost October 21, 2024

In 2022, the Supreme Court had just overturned abortion rights, helping Minnesota Democrats secure a rare DFL trifecta in state government. But what about two years later?

Earlier in the year DFL lawmakers were debating whether to put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would combine an equal rights amendment with abortion protections. While the measure likely would have passed the Senate after already passing the House, there were skeptics.

Sure, an amendment might attract DFL-leaning voters to the polls. In states where abortion-related measures were voted on, the reproductive rights side not only won but the campaigns helped Democratic candidates. But it also would be expensive and time consuming in an already full-plate election.

Adherents of the latter position stressed that abortion would be on the ballot regardless of whether a constitutional amendment was there.

“Abortion as an issue will be on the ballot,” said state DFL Chair Ken Martin earlier this year. “The extreme positions of the Republicans running for president will drive the electorate, with or without a ballot amendment.”

Those who preached delay prevailed. Legislative leaders first sought to put off a public vote until 2026. Ultimately, the amendment was not voted on in the state Senate. Now, to fulfill Martin’s prediction, the DFL and its affiliates have launched well-funded and well-staffed campaigns to remind voters that the issue that exploded with the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade is still raging.

“You don’t have to look much further than the ads and the mailers and the conversation that is happening, both in this state and around the county. It’s very clear that abortion rights are front and center in this election,” Martin said last week. “It’s one of the issues that continues to animate the electorate. In almost every legislative race it is a critical difference between our DFL candidates and the Republicans. Of course we’re highlighting that.”

State voters are thinking about abortion just as they were in 2022 when the elected the DFL trifecta, said Tim Stanley, executive director of the Planned Parenthood of Minnesota Political Action Fund. “We don’t need to do much to magnify that abortion rights are on the ballot. All we need to do is make sure they know which candidates support a woman’s right to choose and make sure they get to the polls.

“That’s our assignment,” Stanley said.

In 2023, Minnesota DFL lawmakers adopted — and Gov. Tim Walz signed — laws that remove most government restrictions on abortion, instead opting to leave the decision to pregnant women and medical providers.

Gov. Tim Walz signed three bills into law on April 27, 2023, protecting people seeking or providing abortions in Minnesota, banning the practice of conversion therapy, and protecting people seeking or providing gender-affirming health care in Minnesota.

It also shielded from prosecution under other state’s laws women who travel to Minnesota for abortions and medical providers who conduct abortions. It changed what had been called “born-alive” provisions adopted in 2015 and reduced the amount of information abortion providers are required to provide the state.

While a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision found that the state constitution’s privacy provisions protect abortion access and that state medical assistance cannot be denied to women seeking abortions, lawmakers sought to remove from state law provisions that said otherwise. The court is now made up of seven DFL-appointed justices, but the constitutional amendment would prevent any future court from reaching different conclusions about abortion rights.

As a candidate for vice president, Walz has characterized the state’s position on abortion as “mind your own business.”

“In Minnesota, we are ranked first in health care for a reason. We trust women. We trust doctors,” Walz said during the vice presidential debate.

“Minnesotans have proven in election after election, in legislative session after legislative session, that at no point in pregnancy do they believe that politicians are in a better place to make health care decisions than the person in question,” Stanley said.

Planned Parenthood is just one part of the DFL’s campaign apparatus but is the one focused on reproductive rights. It also is the organization that concentrates its efforts on direct voter contact via digital messaging and door knocking (though it does sponsor some advertisements on streaming platforms).

The state Planned Parenthood political committee will spend $1.4 million this election, a massive amount not just compared to what anti-abortion groups will spend but compared to other political committees. That is true across the country as organizations supporting abortion access and engaging in ballot measure campaigns are outraising opponents 8-to-1.

Stanley said 2024 is a different election because there are relatively few contested races to take part in — the presidential election, the special state Senate race in District 45 and a dozen-or-so state House races.

“There’s a smaller number of districts and there’s going to be a lot of concentration from a lot of groups, not only us,” he said. “But direct voter contact is our forte. We go door-to-door, we make the calls, we send the texts, we do massive digital ad campaigns, making sure people know from the top of the ticket to the bottom of the ticket who the Planned Parenthood endorsed candidates are.”

Stanley said the organization concentrates on already identified supporters of abortion access but also tries to broaden those lists by approaching those who, based on their demographics, are likely to be in agreement.

“If Jane is with us, then Jodie her neighbor is probably with us too,” he said.

Abortion rights has been a major focus of the presidential campaign as well. A national 60-stop “Reproductive Freedom Bus Tour” with top Democratic personalities, including Minnesota First Lady Gwen Walz and U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, made two stops in Minnesota in Duluth and Minnetonka in early October. The campaign has had 17 events in Minnesota focusing on reproductive rights since late June.

Counter messaging

Reproductive rights in “all/most cases” have majority support in the U.S. and in Minnesota. Rather than campaign for a ban or strict limits on when abortions can be obtained, opponents here and nationally have focused instead on the details of adopted or proposed laws.

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the state’s leading anti-abortion organization, has sponsored digital ads that make both points. One claims the new state law removed what were called born-alive provisions that required a second physician to be on hand for third trimester abortions and that all steps be taken to “preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.”

The MCCL ads feature a woman who survived an abortion procedure. Another features a woman who gave birth to an infant with disabilities who claims the infant was denied life-saving surgery and died.

 

Another spot shows former network sports announcer Michele Tafoya complaining that the DFL is running ads that say Republicans want to ban abortion. Tafoya, a Republican who backs abortion rights, says the GOP only wants “reasonable abortion laws” and the state Supreme Court would block a ban.

Tafoya’s appearance is notable because her stance on abortion was seen as a liability by Republicans at the 2022 state GOP convention when then-candidate for governor Kendall Qualls had to dismiss floor rumors that she would be his running mate.

“Michele Tafoya is not going to be my lieutenant governor, I want to make sure I dismiss that,” Qualls told delegates. “We’re going to have a lieutenant governor who has our values, that are consistent: A pro-life, 2nd Amendment conservative that wants to return our country back to a constitutional, patriotic way of living.”

Catherine Blaeser is the co-executive director of MCCL and directs the organization’s political committee. While it raises far-less money than Planned Parenthood, it will be devoting its cash to digital ads against DFL incumbents in battleground legislative districts, Blaeser said.

The MCCL message is that the 2023 DFL abortion bills were extreme.

“When we look at the last two years of DFL complete control of the Legislature and the government, we see extreme policies that threaten our most vulnerable citizens,” she said. She defined vulnerable citizens as “not only the unborn, but young women who are victims of sex trafficking and are not being protected with parental notification laws anymore, are not being protected from coerced abortions, women who are not being protected from the dangers of chemical abortions, women who are not being protected by being given reasonable, scientific and medical information and the risks of abortion.”

“We just see extreme policies when we have such lopsided, one sided, extreme legislators,” Blaeser said. “MCCL is working with the constituents of our state who want balanced government and reasonable policies that protect our most vulnerable citizens.”

“When people learn what the law is, they can’t believe it,” Blaeser said.

Late-term abortion

Opponents say, both in Minnesota and nationally, that without statutory gestational limits on abortion, they can occur at any time in the nine-month gestation period. Minnesota repealed its so-called viability threshold last year. But because of federal court rulings in the past, that limit wasn’t enforceable anyway. Viability describes the ability for a fetus to survive outside the womb, which generally occurs around 24 weeks, but some states have lowered that limit to as low as six weeks.

In the vice presidential debate, GOP nominee JD Vance highlighted the GOP attacks after a debate moderator asked Walz this: “Former President Trump said in the last debate that you believe abortion, quote, in the 9th month is absolutely fine. Yes or no? Is that what you support?”

Sen. JD Vance and Gov. Tim Walz shown during the vice presidential debate hosted by CBS in New York.

After Walz said that isn’t what the state law says and described cases in restrictive states where woman died trying to get medically necessary abortions, Vance interjected: “... but as I read the Minnesota law that you signed into law, the statute that you signed into law, it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion, where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide lifesaving care to a baby who survives a botched late term abortion.”

Responded Walz: “These are women's decisions to make about their health care decisions and the physicians who know best when they need to do this, trying to distort the way a law is written, to try and make a point. That's not it at all.

Vance: What was I wrong about? Governor, please tell me. What was I wrong about?

Walz: That is not the way the law is written.

Walz never described the changes to state abortion law or the born-alive sections of state law but the latter changes are best displayed by showing the old-language stricken out and the new verbiage inserted by the Legislature.

Bill sponsors say the new language requires life-saving care if it is consistent with “good medical practice” but that such measures are not legally required for fetuses that are not viable or have fetal abnormalities that do not support life. As a human person with immediate protection under the law, medical personnel would be obligated to take life-saving actions, law supporters say.

Politifact determined that Vance’s description of the Minnesota law was false.

Third trimester abortions are rare in Minnesota and are done only for medical reasons, according to legally required reports from abortion providers.

In 2022, there were 12,175 abortions in the state, with five happening past 23 weeks of gestation and one of those at 32 weeks. According to the required reporting on born alive incidents, there were zero in 2022 and a total of 24 since 2015.

In 2021, for example, the providers gave these reports for the five instances that triggered born alive provisions”

• “In one instance, fetal anomalies were reported resulting in death shortly after delivery. No measures taken to preserve life were reported and the infant did not survive.
•  “In two instances, comfort care measures were provided as planned and the infant did not survive.
• “In two instances, the infant was previable. No measures taken to preserve life were reported and the infant did not survive.”

Blaeser has claimed that only so-called “comfort care” is required by law. Drafters disagree. But the detailed reporting on born alive incidents used by both sides will no longer be required by state law per the 2023 law changes.

DFL lawmakers had considered ending the reporting requirements completely and ultimately limited the questions that must be answered by providers. The law also changed when reports are issued. Before, the report was posted by the Department of Health in June, but is now not reported until December. That means that statistics that might show changes in abortion numbers and gestation months that might result from the new law — as well as whether restrictions in other states increased the number of women traveling to Minnesota for abortions — won’t be known until after the election.

Martin, the DFL chair, said he doesn’t think Democrats should engage in the GOP talking points on late-term abortions, saying they are meant to distract from the fact that, if given political power, Republicans would restrict access to abortion.

“They want to muddy the waters to make it appear they have a more-nuanced position on this when we know many of our Republican candidates favor extreme abortion bans,” he said. “I get why they want to do it. They realize that most Minnesotans are not in the same place where Republicans are on abortion rights.”

In the September MinnPost/Embold Research poll, respondents were asked to choose four issues as the most-important this election, 41% said the overturning of Roe v. Wade. That was second only to the increasing cost of goods, with the highest percentage picking abortion coming from women and voters aged 18 to 34. And it was Democrats, not Republicans, who prioritized abortion as an issue in the poll. A similar poll in 2022 found 43% of Minnesotans listing the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a top priority, again second to the rising costs of goods. 

Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson, R-East Grand Forks, said abortion is an important issue this year but less so than in 2022 when the election was just months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.

“The state did make an adjustment for that decision. We had a lot of legislation involving women’s health,” Johnson said. “Right now, moreso the questions are hitting people’s pocketbooks — family economics and public safety.”

This article first appeared on MinnPost and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Photo: Sen. Tina Smith speaking at a Harris-Walz rally in Minnetonka earlier this month. Credit: Harris for President.

Related posts

• SD Amendment G: Supporters seek to restore abortion rights that opponents call extreme
• Trial for SD abortion ballot measure in limbo as court staff ‘not aware’ of planned start date 
• Coalition of 35 Christian clergy leaders endorse South Dakota reproductive-rights ballot measure
• Update on SD rights: Abortion ballot measure challenge on course for late September trial 
• South Dakota secretary of state now a defendant in Life Defense Fund abortion rights case
• Abortion rights measure likely to appear on South Dakota ballot, but lawsuit could affect election results
• South Dakota State Supreme Court revives legal challenge to abortion-rights ballot measure 
• South Dakota father is leading effort to restore abortion rights in the state
• South Dakota doctors form group to support state abortion-rights ballot measure
• Anti-abortion group appeals judge's ruling on abortion rights amendment to SD Supreme Cour
• Reproductive rights update: former South Dakota legislator establishes Republican group to support abortion-rights amendment 
• What's up with the lawsuit against South Dakota’s abortion-rights ballot measure

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

South Dakota News Watch poll: Support slips for abortion, open primaries, grocery tax measures.

More polling on South Dakota ballot measures and amendments from South Dakota News Watch.

Poll: Support slips for abortion, open primaries, grocery tax measures
by STU WHITNEY, South Dakota News Watch, October 21, 2024

Scientific survey of 500 registered voters also shows opposition to issue on gender in state government references but increase in support for legalized marijuana.

Support for ballot measures on abortion rights, open primaries and repealing the state food tax has dipped since May, according to a statewide poll co-sponsored by South Dakota News Watch.

The Chiesman Center for Democracy at the University of South Dakota also sponsored the Oct. 12-16 scientific survey of 500 registered voters by Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy. Those interviewed were selected randomly from a telephone-matched state voter registration list that included landline and cell numbers. Quotas were assigned to reflect voter registration by county.

One of the main takeaways is that a high-stakes battle over abortion access in South Dakota is too close to call.

Amendment G, a citizen-led effort to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, is supported by half (50%) of South Dakota's registered voters and opposed by nearly as many (47%), with about two weeks left until the Nov. 5 election; 3% are undecided.

That's within the margin of error of 4.5 percentage points and a major shift from a similar poll in May, which found a nearly 20-point margin with 53% favoring Amendment G and 35% opposed, with 11% undecided.

If passed, the amendment would reverse a South Dakota abortion ban enacted when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, leaving states to determine reproductive rights.

The jump in opposition could be a sign that efforts by anti-abortion groups to characterize Amendment G as "too extreme" have resonated with previously undecided voters.

"One of the main points is that voters are now more clear on their stances," said Julia Hellwege, an associate political science professor at USD and director of the Chiesman Center. "A willingness to be undecided on an issue in May has now formed into a stance as the election approaches."

The co-founders of Life Defense Fund, an anti-abortion group formed to provide organized opposition to the amendment, said in a statement to News Watch following the poll in May that more information would lead to shifting opinions.

"The more people learn that this extreme amendment approves late-term abortion and bans physical health protections for mothers, the more they will reject it," Republican state legislator Jon Hansen and longtime anti-abortion advocate Leslee Unruh said in the statement.

Dakotans for Health, the grassroots organization that sponsored the measure, pushed back by saying the amendment uses the same trimester framework as Roe v. Wade, an opinion shared by Hannah Haksgaard, a professor at the University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law.

“The proposed amendment is very closely aligned with the original Roe v. Wade framework,” Haksgaard told News Watch in 2023. “The language mimics the trimester framework of Roe v. Wade and nothing in this amendment indicates any abortion rights more extreme than that.”

The amendment establishes that no regulation would be allowed in the first trimester, regulation must be reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman in the second trimester, and in the third trimester regulation or prohibition of abortion would be allowed except in those cases where the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.

In the News Watch poll, just 26% of Republican respondents said they plan to vote for Amendment G, with 72% opposed and 2% undecided. That's a sizable drop in support from the May survey, which saw 46% of Republicans in favor, 41% opposed and 14% undecided.

It's a sign that moderate or otherwise undecided GOP voters have "come home" on the issue after an acrimonious campaign that included protests at petition sites and a still-pending lawsuit over how signatures were gathered.

Statewide, 55% of female respondents said they support the abortion measure, compared to 44% of males.

Support was also strongest among the youngest age group (18-34) at 60%, followed by age 35-49 with 53%, age 50-64 with 49% and age 65-older with 40%.

South Dakota law makes it a Class 6 felony for anyone “who administers to any pregnant female or prescribes or procures for any pregnant female” a means for an abortion, except to save the life of the mother. South Dakota is one of 14 states whose abortion law does not include exceptions for rape and incest.

Amendment H: Open primaries opposed by 56%

The News Watch poll showed that South Dakotans have begun to sour on Amendment H, a citizen-led proposal to change the way the state conducts primary elections.

The survey showed that just 40% of statewide respondents plan to vote for the amendment, which would establish “top-two” primaries for governor, Congress and state legislative and county races rather than having parties hold separate primary contests. Opposition polled at 56%, with 4% undecided.

The results are a major downturn from the May survey, when 55% of respondents supported Amendment H, compared to 33% opposed and 12% undecided.

South Dakota Open Primaries chairman Joe Kirby has framed the issue as one of fairness, pointing to the fact that all registered voters would be eligible to participate under the new primary model. Currently, Independent voters in South Dakota can vote in Democratic primaries but not Republican contests.

Supporters also said that open primaries will produce officeholders more reflective of the general electorate, rather than incentivizing candidates to take extreme positions to win a partisan primary.

The campaign's message has been well-received by Independents, 58% of whom favor the amendment in the most recent poll, roughly the same as the May survey (59%).

But support has dipped among Republicans (40% in May to 26% in October) and Democrats (82% in May to 56% in October) as both the Republican and Democratic state parties formally opposed the measure.

South Dakota Democratic Party executive director Dan Ahlers said open primaries would be a "permanent, untested revision" to the state constitution and referenced California and Washington, the only other two states with top-two primaries for statewide elections.

"In those states, the minority parties are regularly locked out of elections and there is no evidence to suggest that the change has improved the quality of candidates or increased voter turnout," Ahlers said.

Kirby countered that the "party bosses don't like Amendment H because it would take political power back from them and return it to the voters where it belongs."

IM 28: Support slipping for grocery tax repeal

Another ballot measure with sinking support is Initiated Measure 28, which would prohibit the state from collecting sales tax on "anything sold for human consumption, except alcoholic beverages and prepared food."

The News Watch poll showed that 49% of statewide respondents plan on voting for IM 28, compared to 45% who are opposed, with 6% undecided.

Those numbers, within the margin of error, are a striking change from the May survey, which showed 66% of voters supporting the grocery tax repeal, with 26% opposed and 7% undecided.

The measure still has support from 56% of Democratic and 58% of Independent registered voters, but just 26% of Republicans said they plan on voting for it, a significant decline from the May survey, when 56% were in favor.

The polling shift reflects a coordinated opposition campaign by groups such as the South Dakota Retailers Association and South Dakota Municipal League to raise doubts about the fiscal impact of the measure.

Supporters call the measure a long-overdue effort to take the burden off low-income families and individuals by repealing the state's 4.2% sales tax on groceries. South Dakota is one of just two states, along with Mississippi, that fully taxes food without offering credits or rebates.

Families and individuals who qualify for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, also known as food stamps, are not taxed on purchases made through that federal program.

Opponents criticize the wording of the measure as broader than just groceries. They said it could cause a budget crunch by preventing the state from collecting sales tax on “consumable” items such as tobacco, toothpaste and toilet paper.

Estimates for the loss of state revenue range from $124 million to $646 million annually. Attorney General Marty Jackley stated in his ballot explanation that “judicial or legislative clarification of the measure will be necessary.”

29: Majority opposes recreational pot

The latest attempt to legalize recreational marijuana in South Dakota has seen a slight uptick in support among registered voters, but more than half of those polled still oppose the measure.

Initiated Measure 29 would allow people 21 and older to "possess, grow, ingest, and distribute marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia." Possession would be allowed up to 2 ounces in a form other than marijuana concentrate or other marijuana products.

The News Watch poll showed that 44% of statewide respondents plan on voting yes, while 51% oppose IM 29 and 5% are undecided. That's slightly more support than the 42% who indicated yes in the May survey, while opposition remained a slim majority, moving from 52% to 51%.

While 75% of Democrats and 56% of Independents support legalization, just 26% of Republicans said they will be voting for IM 29, a metric that hasn't moved much since the May survey, when GOP support was 23%.

Recreational marijuana is legal in 23 states and the District of Columbia, with supporters pointing to economic advantages to the state economy from tax revenue. States collected nearly $3 billion in marijuana revenues in 2022, according to the Tax Foundation.

Opponents cite potential social costs and health risks such as a higher risk of cardiovascular problems from marijuana use, as outlined in a recent study in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Both sides have accused the other of exaggerating the benefits or pitfalls of legalization. But South Dakotans should be well-versed on an issue that is on the state ballot for a third consecutive election cycle.

In 2020, pro-legalization Amendment A passed with 54% of the vote, clearing the way for recreational marijuana to be implemented in the state. Medicinal pot was also approved by voters that year in an initiated measure.

Gov. Kristi Noem’s administration challenged the recreational marijuana amendment, saying it violated the state’s requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject. That argument prevailed in the South Dakota Supreme Court.

Supporters tried to pass recreational cannabis again in 2022 and South Dakotans rejected that effort, with 53% of voters against it.

Amendment E: Voters oppose changing male-only references

Amendment E, a legislative effort to change outdated male-only references to South Dakota’s governor and other officials in the state constitution, is not faring well with registered voters in the state.

The News Watch poll showed that 66% of statewide respondents oppose the amendment, compared to 30% in favor and just 3% undecided.

The attorney general's explanation offers the following example: When referencing the governor, instead of saying “he shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state,” the text will be changed to read “the governor shall be commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the state.”

The amendment also includes references to officeholders such as lieutenant governor, Supreme Court justices, and Circuit Court judges as well as general classes of people such as persons, electors and public officers.

Some Republicans have alluded to national conversations about gender pronouns in opposing what is largely a procedural change. The poll found that just 14% of Republican respondents support the measure, compared to 53% of Democrats.

In the secretary of state's ballot question pamphlet, Rep. Liz May, R-Kyle, called the current use of generic male pronouns "proper style and form" and said that the usage does not prevent women from holding public office.

"While this seems like a minor change now, opening up the constitution in order to correct pronouns will not accomplish anything substantive, but will cost taxpayer dollars to reprint materials that are already effective in their current form," May said.

Sen. Erin Tobin, R-Winner, countered that "South Dakota has a long history of strong female representation in all three branches of government, and the Constitution should accurately reflect these esteemed members of our government."

This story was produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit news organization. Read more in-depth stories at sdnewswatch.org and sign up for an email every few days to get stories as soon as they're published. Contact investigative reporter Stu Whitney at [email protected].

This South Dakota News Watch article was republished online under a Creative Commons license.

Photo: Hundreds block a portion of Phillips Avenue in downtown Sioux Falls, S.D., to protest the overturning of Roe v. Wade on June 29, 2022. South Dakotans will have a chance to vote on Amendment G, a citizen-led effort to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. (Photo: Argus Leader/ via South Dakota News Watch.

Related posts

•  Cannabis on South Dakota ballot yet again with IM 29: if voters decriminalize marijuana, lawmakers would make the call on sales  
• SD Amendment G: Supporters seek to restore abortion rights that opponents call extreme
• Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
•  Initiated Measure 28: What supporters call tax relief, opponents call a budget problem
•  Marketing opportunity for Big Stone County? South Dakota News Watch Poll: South Dakota voters oppose recreational marijuana measure
• South Dakota cannabis legalization ballot measure validated for November 5 election 
• South Dakotans return dope to governor's office, defeat legal pot, preserve Pierre's red swamp 
• Bummer! South Dakota News Watch poll shows referendum on recreational cannabis legalization in South Dakota could fail in November 
• After court defeat, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws keeps working for adult cannabis
• SD Supreme Court strikes down legal cannabis; supporters vow to make the people rule
• Trial for SD abortion ballot measure in limbo as court staff ‘not aware’ of planned start date 
• Coalition of 35 Christian clergy leaders endorse South Dakota reproductive-rights ballot measure
• Update on SD rights: Abortion ballot measure challenge on course for late September trial 
• South Dakota secretary of state now a defendant in Life Defense Fund abortion rights case
• Abortion rights measure likely to appear on South Dakota ballot, but lawsuit could affect election results
• South Dakota State Supreme Court revives legal challenge to abortion-rights ballot measure 
• South Dakota father is leading effort to restore abortion rights in the state
• South Dakota doctors form group to support state abortion-rights ballot measure
• Anti-abortion group appeals judge's ruling on abortion rights amendment to SD Supreme Cour
• Reproductive rights update: former South Dakota legislator establishes Republican group to support abortion-rights amendment 
• What's up with the lawsuit against South Dakota’s abortion-rights ballot measure

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Mark Robinson's shadow in South Dakota District 1: campaign mailer rips Manhart for extremism, presence at Dakota First Action fundraiser

 

Republican criticism of the October 1 Dakota First Action political action committee’s Victory Gala featuring video remarks by self-described black Nazi Mark Robinson, the Republican candidate for North Carolina governor, have put in an appearance on a postcard (above) from a Democratic state house candidate in Northeast South Dakota.

Does it matter?

With Democratic, Libertarian and Republican candidates on the ballot, the district did get a mention in Makenzie Huber's South Dakota Searchlight article With Republican control of Legislature assured, Democrats target competitive districts:

District 1: Up until 2018, District 1 was a Democratic stronghold in the northeast corner of the state. Democratic Senate and House candidates went unchallenged from 2008 through 2018. But when Tamara St. John became the first Republican elected from the district since 1998, the district shifted red, with the Republican Party taking the Senate seat in 2020 and both House seats in 2022.

Although Aberdeen Sen. Michael Rohl is uncontested in the general election, St. John was ousted by two Republican challengers in the June House primary. The district will have a six-way House race among two Republicans, two Democrats and two Libertarians:

• Libertarians Josh Dennert and Tamara Lesnar
• Republicans Logan Manhart and Christopher Reder
• Democrats Steven McCleerey (a former representative for the district from 2015 to 2020) and Mark Sumption . . ..

First, some background on the claims in the Mark Sumption For District 1 postcard, which I received in the mail on Friday.

On October 2, Bluestem posted  Mark Robinson's inclusion via video in Sioux Falls fundraiser divides SD Republican Party, which combined a South Dakota Searchlight article with social media posts about the fundraiser from South Dakota District 1 House candidates Logan Manhart and Christopher Reder.

Joshua Haiar reported:

SIOUX FALLS – A political fundraiser featuring a video message from a controversial Republican candidate for governor of North Carolina further divided the factions within the South Dakota Republican Party on Tuesday night.  

The message came from North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson. CNN recently reported that Robinson made racist and sexually explicit remarks more than a decade ago on a pornographic website’s message board. The report said Robinson, who has a recent history of anti-transgender rhetoric, said he enjoyed watching transgender pornography, referred to himself as a “black Nazi,” expressed support for reinstating slavery and praised Adolf Hitler. 

Robinson’s video speech occurred during the Dakota First Action political action committee’s Victory Gala. Toby Doeden, an Aberdeen businessman and founder of Dakota First Action, said his fellow Republicans who are condemning Robinson are hurting the party. . . .

South Dakota House Majority Leader Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre, condemned the event and called those hosting it non-Republicans.

“I spoke out against Nazis when they came to the Capitol this summer,” Mortenson said in a statement, referencing a June march in Pierre by a neo-Nazi group, “and don’t like them any better when they are in Sioux Falls. When you’re throwing a rally featuring a self-described Nazi, you’re not a Republican. You belong to a different party. There’s no room for Nazi sympathy in our party or in our state.” . . . 

Republican former state representative Casey Murschel called Robinson’s inclusion in the Sioux Falls event “an insult to every Republican in our state.”

“It is embarrassing and offensive to have a Republican group, Dakota First Action, celebrating Republican primary election victories by inviting an anti-woman misogynist to South Dakota,” Murschel said in a statement. . . .

The conservative blog SD War College was even more scathing in its posts about Armstrong's presence at the event. Editor Pat Powers recommended the Searchlight article, while sharing his own opinion in SD House Majority Leader Will Mortenson: “When you’re throwing a rally featuring a self-described Nazi, you’re not a Republican.”:

The battle lines for the hearts and minds of the South Dakota Republican Party are being drawn for what kind of Republican people want to identify as. Either you believe that Nazi’s are bad like House Majority Leader Will Mortenson, or you throw in with Toby Doeden, the person who built a rally around someone who is said to have described himself as one. . . .

Universally condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike, the Doeden PAC event still appeared to have several people there who should know better, but seem to be held in thrall by Doeden’s checkbook and are attempting to suck up. In fact, SD Searchlight captured a bevy of them on a video posted to the story. 

I’m immediately picking out State Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer, as well as D1 House Candidates Chris Reder and Logan Manhart in the foreground. It also looks as if Al Novstrup and Carl Perry may be at that table as well.

Is this what some who run under the SDGOP have come to? To cheer on and rally for the worst elements of the far right?

Keep in mind, they are not there to support the candidates and the goals of the Republican Party. They are there to benefit Toby Doeden’s PAC. A Political Action Committee led by a man – whose views might not have appeared on a porn website chatboard like Robinson’s are said to come from – but one whose views seem to mirror Mark Robinson’s . . .

The postcard from the campaign of Democratic candidate Mark Sumption links Manhart to that fundraiser. The front of the postcard is at the top of this post.

Here's the back of the postcard, which summarizes Powers' objection with one bullet point:

Logan Manhart proudly stands with "Black Nazi" Mark Robinson--South Dakota War College

Note that the postcard's last point in that Manhart "attended the January 6 riots." That's not completely accurate. He certainly was in DC on January 6, 2021, but does not appear to have stormed the Capitol, as we noted in In SD District One, GOP candidate & operative doesn't want to talk to press about January 6. He's certainly an election denier.

Extreme? Seems like it.

Manhart withdrew from the ballot in 2022 when it was demonstrated he hadn't lived in the state of South Dakota to run for office.

Related posts

•  Is election denier Logan Manhart working in South Dakota Secretary of State elections office?
• News digest: Manhart pulls out of SD1 race 
• Eligibility questioned, Logan Manhart withdraws from South Dakota District 1 House race
• SD SOS response to 32CIV22-92, asking SD1 House candidate's removal from ballot
• Dakota Free Press post: Manhart voted in Wisconsin in 2021, thus ineligible to run for South Dakota House in 2022
• Manhart candidate integrity questioned: docs from 32CIV22-92; McCleerey vs Barnett
• In SD District One, GOP candidate & operative doesn't want to talk to press about January 6
• Media scrutiny of SD District 1 House Logan Manhart candidate integrity questions continue

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Advocates turn in petition urging acceptance of $69M for energy rebates; no response from Noem

Back in late September, I republished a South Dakota Searchlight article Dakota Rural Action starts petition urging Noem to reconsider rejection of $69 million in federal funding for home energy-efficiency rebates.

What's happened with the petition? 

An update from South Dakota Searchlight:

Advocates turn in petition urging acceptance of $69M for energy rebates; no response from Noem
by Joshua Haiar

A rural advocacy group has turned in its petition signed by 904 South Dakotans urging Governor Kristi Noem to reconsider her decision to reject nearly $69 million in federal funds for home energy-efficiency rebates. 

Noem is the only governor in the nation to reject participation. The petition urges action but is non-binding. 

“We believe this is a misuse of taxpayer money and call on Gov. Noem to promptly seek an extension and apply for these programs on behalf of our state,” reads the petition from Dakota Rural Action, a grassroots organization focusing on family agriculture and conservation. “South Dakota deserves to benefit from our tax dollars.”

In its two-week petition effort, the organization gathered signatures from South Dakotans in 143 communities. The organization told South Dakota Searchlight the governor’s office has not responded. Noem’s office also did not immediately respond to a South Dakota Searchlight request for comment on the petition. 

The Noem administration previously cited concerns about administrative burdens, limited staff capacity, and disagreements with federal policy as reasons for opting out of the Home Energy Rebates program. 

Noem’s commissioner of the Bureau of Finance and Management, Jim Terwilliger, spoke for the administration during a July legislative budget committee meeting.

“We just don’t believe that it’s the right thing for South Dakota,” Terwilliger said.

The national Home Energy Rebates program is funded with $9 billion from the federal Inflation Reduction Act. The program provides rebates for energy-efficient home retrofits and high-efficiency electric appliances.

South Dakota’s allocation is $68.56 million, but the state did not indicate its intent to participate before an August deadline. The state previously passed up $1.8 million to help set up and administer the program.

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Map: A Sept. 24, 2024, map from the U.S. Department of Energy shows South Dakota as the only state not participating in the Home Energy Rebates program.

Related post

• Dakota Rural Action starts petition urging Noem to reconsider rejection of $69 million in federal funding for home energy-efficiency rebates

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

Recreational pot laws in South Dakota: 1000s of charges, few harsh penalties imposed

An in-depth analysis of South Dakota's criminal cannabis laws, republished from the South Dakota Searchlight. As readers know, there's another effort to legalize it on the South Dakota ballot in November.

Pot laws in South Dakota: Thousands of charges, few harsh penalties imposed
by John Hult

Opposing sides make competing claims about impact as voters consider legalization

It’s true that on paper, South Dakota’s cannabis laws are some of the strictest in the nation. It’s also true that judges rarely impose the most severe sanctions available in marijuana cases, and that marijuana charges have dropped off considerably in recent years.

Even so, thousands of South Dakotans continue to pick up charges, including felony ones, for possession of cannabis and cannabis concentrates. 

Defense attorneys say that because the state lacks a mechanism for expunging pot charges unless a judge grants one at the time of a guilty plea, the state’s marijuana laws do damage, with or without jail or prison terms.

“Having a stigma of a felony arrest and facing a felony charge, even if it’s later reduced or dismissed, can often affect your ability to travel, your ability to get a job, and you might lose your job,” said Eric Whitcher, the Pennington County public defender.

In the coming weeks, voters will decide whether to upend or stick with the state’s cannabis norms. Initiated Measure 29, which would legalize cannabis possession for adult South Dakotans, is on the Nov. 5 ballot. Early voting began Sept. 20. 

Backers of IM 29 say the enforcement of “harsh” cannabis laws wastes policing resources and threatens to take away citizens’ freedom for partaking of a drug they call less harmful than alcohol.

Opponents of the measure say those claims are overblown, that cannabis possession alone rarely results in serious penalties or jail time and almost never puts people in prison.

Both sides have valid points, based on a South Dakota Searchlight analysis of data from the Unified Judicial System (UJS), Department of Corrections (DOC), and interviews with prosecutors, defense attorneys, activists and defendants.

A Legislative Research Council fiscal impact statement on IM 29 did not calculate the cost to counties for the prosecution of felony pot charges, but the statement says counties would save $500,000 a year by removing misdemeanor cases from county dockets.

But those savings wouldn’t come by way of avoided jail time for people charged with pot possession. Instead, they’d come from clearing the clutter of pot possession charges from the court system’s lengthy to-do list.

Marijuana and jail, prison

Possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana flower is a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. 

Those penalties are higher than average in the region – the highest fine for similar crimes among South Dakota’s immediate neighbors is $1,500; the longest potential jail sentence is six months – but it’s the state’s felony possession statute that stands out more starkly on the national level.

According to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), South Dakota is one of five states where a person can be charged with a felony for the possession of concentrated cannabis products like vape pens, gummies or hash oil.

Vapes and gummies can also draw felony charges in Florida, Texas, Georgia and Alabama, according to NORML.

In practice, it’s exceedingly rare for South Dakotans to wind up in prison or jail for simple possession of any kind of cannabis product. 

That’s even true for parolees on supervision. Drug use alone can draw mild to moderate sanctions for a parolee, but generally doesn’t constitute a “parole violation” – the sanction that returns a person to prison.

“We do not have any offenders who were violated from parole supervision solely for possession of marijuana,” Department of Corrections spokesman Michael Winder wrote in response to a records request from South Dakota Searchlight. 

“A recommendation to violate parole is the final and most serious sanction available,” he added.

As of June 30, Winder wrote, there were 10 people in state prisons for pot-related crimes. Of those, three were serving sentences for possession of 10 or more pounds of pot. The remaining inmates were serving time on pot as well as other charges, or had violated parole.

County jail time for pot alone is similarly uncommon.

According to the Unified Judicial System, South Dakotans have served 5,450 days in jail on marijuana possession sentences since 2019. But in most of those cases, the defendant was at least initially charged with multiple offenses, often felony drug possession, before being sentenced to jail for pot as part of a plea deal. 

In cases where possession of 2 ounces of pot or less was a defendant’s only charge during that same time period, South Dakotans served 220 days in jail. More than half those days were served by a single defendant who had a lengthy arrest history before picking up a standalone pot charge. She was never released from jail after her initial arrest, and was sentenced to 127 days in jail, which was the amount of time she’d served on the day the sentence was imposed.

Most jail time issued by judges in pot possession cases is suspended on the condition that defendants pay their fines and don’t break the law. In total, since 2019, judges have suspended 205,393 days of jail time for misdemeanor pot possession.

Jail officials in Minnehaha and Pennington County said it’s nearly unheard of for someone to serve time in a county jail for pot possession alone. 

“I can confidently say nobody has sat in jail on just possession of marijuana, 2 ounces or less, since at least 2021,” said Minnehaha County Jail Warden Mike Mattson, who operates the jail serving South Dakota’s largest metropolitan area.

Charges fell after 2020, started climbing again in 2023

A lack of jail terms isn’t for a lack of charges. Since 2019, 23,873 misdemeanor pot possession charges have been filed in South Dakota. 

The highest number in that five-year period came in 2019, when 6,514 were filed. By 2022, that figure had dropped by more than half, to 2,598. 

Charges began to creep back up in 2023, reaching 3,499. By mid-August this year, 2,241 charges had been filed, on pace to once again climb above 3,000 for the year.

That could be the result of the increased availability of cannabis, according to Brookings County State’s Attorney Dan Nelson. Nelson offers nearly all of his first-time pot possession offenders a diversion program that scrubs charges from their records after they take a class, do 10 hours of community service and avoid new criminal charges for 13 months.

The state’s medical marijuana program went live in the summer of 2022, Nelson noted, and there’s growing acceptance of the drug in some quarters as more states legalize it.

“Maybe the why is just because there’s more of it out there,” Nelson said.

A similar trend is apparent in felony marijuana charges, although court data on those charges offer an incomplete picture of their prevalence.

Blind spots in felony pot data

South Dakota’s felony drug possession laws do not distinguish between individual drug types. 

The possession of pot gummies is a violation of the same statute – possession of a controlled substance – that bans heroin, methamphetamine or cocaine, and it’s punishable by up to five years in prison.

But the Unified Judicial System does track drug types, to an extent. The UJS says there have been 56,641 charges filed for possession of a controlled substance filed since 2019, a figure that does not include distribution or ingestion charges. 

“Charges” do not necessarily equate to individual defendants. Individual people can face multiple charges, and charges can be dismissed and refiled for a number of reasons as a case moves through the system.

Of the charges filed for possession of a controlled substance since 2019, 1,795 were for “marijuana” or “marijuana wax.” Those numbers fell in 2021 and 2022, but began to climb in 2023. In 2019, there were 303 felony pot charges; in 2023, there were 420.

Those figures represent a fraction of felony pot charges. The UJS only tracks certain drug types, and prosecutors often file charges using terms that aren’t included in those tracked categories. 

Prosecutors in Minnehaha County, for example, often charge people caught with gummies or vape pens with possessing “delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol,” which is the high-inducing chemical compound in marijuana. In other jurisdictions, indictments use terms like “THC wax” or “hash oil.”

SLUG SLUG SLUG

The UJS doesn’t have a category for any of those terms. As a result, clerks of court might log the drug type in such charges as “other” or “unknown.” 

It’s unclear how many felony drug charges labeled “other” or “unknown” involve cannabis, but a Searchlight analysis of case data suggests a significant figure. 

Taken together, 12,176 charges were filed under “other” or “unknown,” representing the second-largest number of felony possession charges filed since 2019, behind methamphetamine.

The only way to find out which drug is involved in an “unknown” or “other” case is to open the criminal file at a county courthouse and read the indictment or criminal complaint. Those documents are not accessible online.

A random check of more than 200 felony possession cases with charges labeled “other” or “unknown” in the UJS data found 84 that involved cannabis. The tags “other” and “unknown” were also applied to charges for psilocybin mushrooms and prescription drugs like Ativan and Valium, and occasionally to charges for drugs like methamphetamine, which do have a line item in the court system’s database.

The cases with felony pot charges uncovered in those spot checks most often ended in one of two ways: with guilty pleas to misdemeanor pot or ingestion charges in exchange for a dismissal of more serious ones, or with suspended sentence deals in which a defendant admitted to a felony on the promise it be scrubbed from their record after a period of good behavior, the payment of fines and other conditions imposed by a judge.

That’s not a surprise to Roberts County State’s Attorney Dylan Kirchmeier.

“Unless there’s something else involved, my standard approach is to offer a plea to a lesser charge,” Kirchmeier said of felony marijuana cases.

Diversion programs avoid strain on system

Kirchmeier said felony pot cases most often include charges for other drugs or other crimes. That’s why he doubts legalizing gummies or vapes, as IM 29 would do, would save him a ton of time or money.

“I’d be handling those cases anyway,” Kirchmeier said.

Usually, anyway. Standalone felony arrests for vape pens or gummies do land on his desk sometimes. The Sisseton-area prosecutor said his approach to plea deals in those situations “really depends on the defendant.”

“If it’s a young kid that’s never been in trouble before and it’s their first time with any sizable amount of trouble, a lot of times I’ll handle those with deferred prosecution agreements,” he said. “I tell them, ‘Be good, keep your nose out of trouble for a year, and if I don’t see you again, (the charge) is not coming back.’”

Like Kirchmeier and any other prosecutor in the state, Nelson has flexibility in how to manage pot cases. Nelson said his use of diversion in pot cases has probably saved his county a million dollars over the past four years.

With limited tax dollars for law enforcement, he said, pot possession cases are less worthy of investment than drug dealing, theft or violent crime.

“It’s a triage approach, because we only have so much manpower on the policing side, the court system side,” Nelson said. “We can’t just track down every single drug user and not simultaneously neglect some of our responsibilities as it relates to violent crime, or some of the harder drug dealers or on domestic violence.”

The absence of prison or jail terms in most pot possession cases doesn’t equate to a lack of impact. Especially when it comes to felony charges, for which defendants are often assigned county-funded public defenders. 

When asked if legalizing marijuana would save counties more money, Nelson said he’s not sure the savings to law enforcement would be worth the potential costs of legitimizing marijuana use. He’s seen more pot-related DUIs in recent years, and he said legalization wouldn’t improve matters there. He also wonders what legal weed might mean for students, employers or the mental health system.

“Part of it is, ‘What are the societal trade-offs if pot becomes legal?’” Nelson said. “What are the other costs, the hidden costs, if we normalize people using marijuana?”

Impacts on users

Even felony charges that end with deferred prosecutions or diversions can put a strain on defendants, according to Minnehaha County Deputy Public Defender Aaron Gehrke.

A person caught with a joint in Sioux Falls gets a citation and a court date. A person caught with a gummy goes to jail, at least initially.

“You get arrested, your vehicle gets towed, you get hauled in front of a judge, you have to get a bond and all of that,” said Gehrke, who represents clients charged with marijuana felonies.

South Dakota Searchlight reached out to several people charged with felony pot possession after 2019. None of those who responded were willing to speak about their case on the record.

David Blackburn was, though. Blackburn is a manager for Royzzz, a medical cannabis company with dispensaries in Sioux Falls and Yankton. His boss, Roy Nielsen, is pushing for the passage of IM 29 by offering pro-pot information at his dispensaries and contributing to the measure’s sponsor, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws.

Blackburn told South Dakota Searchlight he was working as a welder in Freeman when he was arrested for felony pot possession in 2016. He was on the way to work, but he was late. He’d put on his welding jacket on his way out the door, on top of his winter coat.

“The cop pulled me over because I had my windows down, and he thought it was suspicious that I had my windows down in the winter,” Blackburn said.

He didn’t make it to work. Instead, he found himself in jail in Mitchell and charged with felony pot possession after a drug dog alerted to marijuana flower and “an empty vaporizer cartridge” in his trunk.

He’d lost his job by the next day, he said. He wound up pleading guilty to the felony charge in a deal that suspended two years of prison time in exchange for a period of good behavior, the payment of fines and a court-ordered drug class. 

He struggled to find steady work after that, instead doing “random pick-me-up jobs with whoever would hire me” until South Dakotans voted in 2020 to legalize medical marijuana. 

Not long after that, Blackburn was working for a different dispensary company in Sioux Falls. He moved to Royzzz earlier this year to help open the dispensary he now manages.

“If it wasn’t for the fact that I work where I work now, it would have absolutely ruined my life,” Blackburn said.

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under  Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Photo: Marijuana wax from Dakota Herb, a medical marijuana company headquartered in South Dakota. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight).

Related posts

• Cannabis on South Dakota ballot yet again with IM 29: if voters decriminalize marijuana, lawmakers would make the call on sales
• Marketing opportunity for Big Stone County? South Dakota News Watch Poll: South Dakota voters oppose recreational marijuana measure
• South Dakota cannabis legalization ballot measure validated for November 5 election 
• South Dakotans return dope to governor's office, defeat legal pot, preserve Pierre's red swamp 
• Bummer! South Dakota News Watch poll shows referendum on recreational cannabis legalization in South Dakota could fail in November 
• After court defeat, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws keeps working for adult cannabis
• SD Supreme Court strikes down legal cannabis; supporters vow to make the people rule

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

 

• Cannabis on South Dakota ballot yet again with IM 29: if voters decriminalize marijuana, lawmakers would make the call on sales
• Marketing opportunity for Big Stone County? South Dakota News Watch Poll: South Dakota voters oppose recreational marijuana measure
• South Dakota cannabis legalization ballot measure validated for November 5 election 
• South Dakotans return dope to governor's office, defeat legal pot, preserve Pierre's red swamp 
• Bummer! South Dakota News Watch poll shows referendum on recreational cannabis legalization in South Dakota could fail in November 
• After court defeat, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws keeps working for adult cannabis
• SD Supreme Court strikes down legal cannabis; supporters vow to make the people rule

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

On Facebook, GOP MNHouse 26A candidate distorts Pelowski's views to imply he should take seat

The Republican candidate for Minnesota House District 26A invokes the district's retiring lawmaker but doesn't bother to mention he's endorsed his DFL opponent, Sarah Kruger.

I've been posting about the race to fill retiring Minnesota House Representative Gene Pelowski's seat in Winona for a few months now and am so not surprised by the rhetoric.

Let's look at the most recent episode.

Politico's Paul Demko--who spent a decade as a reporter in Minnesota for Politics in Minnesota and City Pages--recently included the contest for Minnesota House District 26A in Democrats clinging to power in Tim Walz’s Minnesota.

The article was picked up by Republican contended Aaron Repinski, who posted this comment above a link to the article.  Though the headline in the post embedded below is different, the link leads to Demko's article

And yes, I have a screenshot should the post be edited or vanish. On Monday, Repinski brought up the Pelowski remarks in an earlier post, without mentioning where Pelowski stands on this particular race. He should know better.

Pairing the comment made in August (video here) with the Politico article is a slick trick that I'd have asked for a revision back in the days when I taught composition--"Critical Reading and Writing" at a community college in Minnesota. 

Here's Demko's copy about where he stands on the best prospects for HD26A:

. . . Pelowski is backing [Sarah] Kruger, but he’s still causing headaches for Democrats. Republicans have seized on comments he made in August that it would be good for Minnesota if Republicans won control of the House or Senate. “I think we do need divided government to simmer things down,” he said.

But in an interview with POLITICO, Pelowski vigorously defended the legislative achievements of the past two years under total Democratic control. He touted major investments in aid to local governments, higher education and health care, and said he seldom encounters people who want to undo that spending.

“They still have a very good chance of maintaining a majority,” Pelowski said of Democrats, “but it’s going to be close, very close. ...

Perhaps Repinski thinks no one will actually read the article he posts--but doesn't actually quote--on his campaign Facebook page.

Nor is this article the only recent instance where the earlier Pelowski remarks surface. On Thursday, Minnesota Star Tribune columnist Lori Sturdevant noted in Divided government at the Minnesota Capitol may sound good, but …:

What really could result is persistent gridlock and diminished problem-solving capacity. . . .

Dispatches from 135 Minnesota legislative races (134 House, one Senate) have been hard to hear over the presidential-political din. But I didn’t miss reports about the comments of retiring DFL state Rep. Gene Pelowski of Winona in August — and neither did the Republicans striving to regain State Capitol control.

“It would be a good thing for Minnesota if one of the two houses flipped,” Pelowski said at a Minnesota Rural Electric Association summit in Bloomington, as reported by Alpha News. “I think we do need divided government to simmer things down.”

Those remarks caused a minor stir. Advertently or not, Pelowski — the longest-serving member of the House DFL majority caucus — had endorsed a favorite theme among GOP legislative candidates. . . .

Pelowski later clarified that he’s solidly behind Sarah Kruger, the DFL candidate to succeed him in District 26A. It’s one of a handful of swing districts that are likely to determine control of the House, which now has a 68-63 DFL edge with three vacancies.

But the veteran DFLer had given aid and comfort to Republicans in other districts while invoking the spirit of an earlier era in state politics. ...

And the article addresses the genuine Minnesota Miracle:

. . .The most notable legislative achievement of that era — the 1971 “Minnesota Miracle” that beefed up state aid to schools and local governments in exchange for property tax relief — was a bipartisan accomplishment. It was also the product of the longest special session in state history. A half-century later, that five-month ordeal seems like a harbinger of the difficulty that bipartisan governance would later cause. . . .

Read the rest of the column at the Star Tribune for Sturdevant's opinion and the pitfalls of a divided state government.

She links to a Bluestem post--Retiring Rep Gene Pelowski stands by endorsement of DFLer Kruger for his 26A seat --in the column.

Here's part of that Bluestem post:

Given that Pelowski had enthusiastically endorsed Winona DFLer Sarah Kruger in the party's hard-fought House 26A primary, I wondered if he still endorsed her for his seat for the general election.

After all, the Winona Journal had reported on February 9th, Pelowski backs Kruger in House race. Was that still the case?

He returned my call this morning. Nothing has changed in his support for Kruger. "I still support her," he said, referencing her campaign slogan, "Meet Me In The Middle."

Moreover, he believes that his remarks at the Minnesota Rural Electric Association's August Summit are taken out of context by framing them as a hope for this fall's election. "I was engaging in banter with Pat Garofalo," he said.

Moreover, he said that the use of his remarks as a hope for a Republican House majority next session "comes from a group that doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'balance."

He did mention his comments about an "unsession" which are cited in the Alpha News article.

Bluestem also contacted Kruger about Pelowski's continued support. She sent this statement:

I am honored to be the first candidate in 38 years to receive Representative Gene Pelowski’s endorsement for elected office. I greatly value Representative Pelowski’s service to our communities, and I will continue his legacy of putting our district first at the Legislature.

I'd also noted that Pelowski had supported Kamala Harris's selection of Tim Walz as her running mate, . . .

Those visiting Repinski's Facebook page could be forgiven for thinking that Pelowski favors a vote for the Republican candidate to fill his seat.

He does not, and were the Republican candidate honest, he would have made clear exactly which person Pelowski favors: Sarah Kruger.

Photo: Gene Pelowski. From the expired Pelowski campaign site.

Related posts

• Retiring Rep Gene Pelowski stands by endorsement of DFLer Kruger for his 26A seat
• Is Winona's MNHouse seat taking a back seat? 
• A closer look at the abortion debate in Minnesota House District 26A DFL primary
• Land Stewardship Project releases Minnesota House 26A Candidate Survey on Agriculture
• MN House 26A DFL primary: a look at both candidates' environmental action claims
• Watch the July 30 Winona League of Women Voters MN House of Representatives District 26A Primary Forum 
• Who's funding Minnesota House District 26A's pricey DFL primary? Looks like an expensive general ahead too given GOP cash reserves
• Fact checking: Was MN House District 26A candidate Sarah Kruger charged with a felony?
• Winona district write-in candidate seems confused about Pelowski voting record

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

With GOP control of South Dakota legislature assured, Democrats target competitive districts

Bluestem Prairie's world headquarters is located in District 1, one of the districts mentioned in the South Dakota Searchlight articles listed in the article below.

From South Dakota Searchlight.

With Republican control of Legislature assured, Democrats target competitive districts
by Makenzie Huber

It’s no secret that Republicans will keep control of the South Dakota Legislature this election year. The questions heading into the Nov. 5 election are whether the results will widen the party’s internal fracturing and whether Democrats will improve their meager numbers.

All 105 seats in the Legislature are up for election, and Democrats currently hold only 11 of those positions. Republicans are already guaranteed a near majority in both the House and Senate next year, due to Democrats’ failure to field candidates in some districts.

“There’s 12 or 15 races that are going to basically shape what the composition of the Legislature in terms of partisan split will look like,” said House Majority Leader Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre.

Of South Dakota’s 66 counties, those that include Native American reservations have the strongest share of Democratic voter registrations in the state. While nine of the 14 seats representing reservation lands have been won by Republicans in recent years, high turnout expected because of this year’s presidential race could change that.

And in South Dakota’s urban districts, including a handful in Sioux Falls, Democrats are hoping to be competitive.

“I think both sides have put up pretty strong candidates and are trying to run vigorous races in those areas, because I think they know that they’re the most contested areas,” Mortenson said.

Meanwhile, 14 incumbent Republican legislators lost to challengers from their own party in the June primary, leading to speculation about the future direction of the party. Many of the challengers described themselves as more politically conservative than the incumbents.

Following are summaries of some noteworthy legislative races. Voters elect one senator and two representatives in each district, except in split House districts — 26A and B, and 28A and B — where voters select one representative.

Districts with high Native American populations

District 1: Up until 2018, District 1 was a Democratic stronghold in the northeast corner of the state. Democratic Senate and House candidates went unchallenged from 2008 through 2018. But when Tamara St. John became the first Republican elected from the district since 1998, the district shifted red, with the Republican Party taking the Senate seat in 2020 and both House seats in 2022.

Although Aberdeen Sen. Michael Rohl is uncontested in the general election, St. John was ousted by two Republican challengers in the June House primary. The district will have a six-way House race among two Republicans, two Democrats and two Libertarians:

• Libertarians Josh Dennert and Tamara Lesnar
• Republicans Logan Manhart and Christopher Reder
• Democrats Steven McCleerey (a former representative for the district from 2015 to 2020) and Mark Sumption

District 26: The south-central district includes some of the highest Democratic voter registration percentages in the state, including 63% in Buffalo County and 60% in Todd County. The district’s House seats are split between the west (Mellette, Todd and part of Jones counties) and the east (Brule, Buffalo, Lyman and parts of Hughes, Hyde and Jones counties).

Democrats have held the Senate seat since 2004 and the 26A House seat since 2006, following an ACLU lawsuit to protect minority voting rights. Incumbent Sen. Shawn Bordeaux faces Republican challenger Tamara Grove. Bordeaux, a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, won his Senate seat in 2022 with 58% of the vote. Democratic incumbent Eric Emery, also a member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, won his 26A House seat in 2022 with 67% of the vote. He faces Republican Ron Frederick and independent William Craig Lafferty.

District 26B House incumbent Republican Rebecca Reimer has held her seat since she was appointed in 2018. She faces an independent challenger in David Reis, who previously ran unsuccessful campaigns as a Democrat in District 26. The 26B House seat has been filled by a Republican since the district was split.

District 27: Oglala Lakota County is No. 1 in the state for Democratic voter registration, at 65%. Bennett County, No. 8 in the state, reports nearly 38% Democratic registered voters, and Jackson reports 32%. The district also includes eastern Pennington County, which is strongly Republican.

In the House race, incumbent Republican Liz May faces incumbent Democrat Peri Pourier and Democrat Elsie Meeks, both members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Meeks ran as Bernie Hunhoff’s running mate in the 1998 gubernatorial race and is a former member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission. May served in the House for three terms before losing her seat to Pourier and Republican Steve Livermont in 2018 by 51 votes. She was reelected in 2020 when she earned the majority of votes against two Democratic candidates.

In the Senate race, Democratic incumbent Red Dawn Foster faces Republican Anthony Kathol.

District 28: Dewey, Ziebach and Corson counties within the district have some of the highest Democratic voter registration rates in the state, at 53%, 47% and 42.5%, respectively. The other counties in the district — Harding, Butte and Perkins— have some of the lowest Democratic voter registration numbers in the state.

The Senate race is a contest among former lawmaker Sam Marty, a Republican who served District 28B (Harding, Butte and part of Perkins counties) in the House from 2015 to 2022; independent Shane Farlee; and Democratic former lawmaker Dean Schrempp, who represented District 28A (Dewey, Ziebach, Corson and part of Perkins counties) in the House starting in 1993 and ending his last term in 2016.

The longstanding Democratic seat in 28A is also under pressure. With Democrat Rep. Oren Lesmeister opting not to run for reelection, voters are left to choose between Democratic candidate Carl Petersen, a Cheyenne River Sioux tribal member, and Republican Jana Hunt, who is backed by the conservative Liberty Tree PAC and beat longtime Republican legislator Ryan Maher in the June primary.

District 28 was the first split House district in South Dakota, formed in 1991 to protect minority voting rights.

Sioux Falls contests

District 11: Western Sioux Falls could see competitive races in its District 11 Senate and House contests. 

The district is 43.2% Republican, 29.8% “other” and 27% Democratic, according to the Minnehaha County Auditor’s Office. “Other” includes Libertarian, independent, the No Labels Party, and people who registered without any political affiliation.

Republican Sen. Jim Stalzer term-limited out of the Senate, leaving the seat open for current District 11 Republican Rep. Chris Karr to try for the seat. He’s challenged by Democrat Steve Natz. 

In the House race, Republican Brian Mulder is up for reelection in a race that includes Republican Keri Weems and Democrats Aaron Matson and Sonja Mentzer.

District 12: Incumbent Republican Sen. Arch Beal will vie for reelection. Beal won in 2022 with 54% of the vote. Republicans won the Senate seat in 2020 with 54% and won in 2018 by 27 votes. Beal is challenged by Democrat Clay Hoffman, who served as a personal assistant for Billie Sutton in his 2018 gubernatorial campaign and as Senate minority secretary with the Legislative Research Council in 2017.

On the House side, Republican incumbents Greg Jamison and Amber Arlint each took 28% of the vote in 2022, with Democratic challengers taking 22% and 21%. Jamison and Arlint will face Democrats JR Anderson and Erin Royer. This is the third election in a row Royer is running for the Legislature.

According to Minnehaha and Lincoln county auditors, District 12 voter registration is 43% Republican, 30.5% “other” and 26.5% Democratic.

District 14: Democratic Rep. Erin Healy held one of the district’s House seats from 2019 to 2022 before moving to District 10. The Republicans’ share of the district’s Senate vote dwindled from 69% in 2016 to 54% in 2022. The district’s voter registration is 44.4% Republican, 28.2% Democratic and 27.4% “other,” according to the Minnehaha County Auditor’s Office.

Democrat Sandra Henry is challenging Republican incumbent Larry Zikmund for the district’s Senate seat. In the House race, Democratic challengers Keith Block and B.J. Motley face Republican candidates Tony Kayser, who was backed by conservative Liberty Tree PAC during the primary, and incumbent Taylor Rehfeldt.

District 15: Two of the Democratic Party’s leading lawmakers, Sen. Reynold Nesiba and Rep. Linda Duba, are not seeking legislative seats this year, leaving two seats open in District 15.

Former lawmaker and 2022 Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jamie Smith hopes to succeed Nesiba, but faces Republican Brenda Lawrence. Nesiba won his seat in 2020 with 55% of the vote and in 2022 with 53%, which was also against Lawrence.

In the House, Democratic incumbent Kadyn Wittman won her first term in 2022 by 97 votes. Democrats went unchallenged for House seats in District 15 in 2018 and won with 31% and 28% of the vote in 2016. Wittman and fellow Democratic candidate Eric Muckey face Republicans Joni Tschetter and Brad Lindwurm in the current race.

The district has the most “other” registered voters in Minnehaha County at 38.4%, followed by 33.5% Republicans and 28.1% Democrats.

Other noteworthy races

District 7: The City of Brookings’ District 7 reports a 42.6% Republican voter registration, 31.75% “other” and 25.6% Democratic. 

Republican incumbent Sen. Tim Reed is unopposed, but Republican House incumbents Mellissa Heermann and Roger DeGroot face challenges from Democrats Blake Stevens and Fedora Sutton-Butler.

District 18: South Dakota’s longest-serving female legislator Jean Hunhoff was ousted in the June Republican primary by challenger Lauren Nelson, setting a showdown for the Senate race. Nelson will face Democrat Sarah Carda, Yankton School Board president and former Mount Marty University vice president.

District 18 encompasses Yankton County and a portion of Clay County. Voter registration in the district is 49.87% Republican, 26.37% “other” and 23.8% Democrat, according to the Clay County Auditor’s Office and the Secretary of State’s Office.

District 32: The central Rapid City district reports the highest share of Democratic voters in the city. The district is 44.3% Republican, 35% Democrat and 20.6% “other,” according to the Pennington County Auditor’s Office.

Republican incumbent Sen. Helene Duhamel faces independent Karen McNeal, without a Democratic challenger. Republicans Brook Kaufman and incumbent Steve Duffy face Democrat Nichole Uhre-Balk for the House seats.

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. 

Photo: The South Dakota Senate convenes during the 2024 legislative session. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight).

Related post

• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6

 

Video: Candidates for South Dakota's U.S. House seat pledge bipartisanship, clash on key issues

Earlier this week. Bluestem had published a News digest: Dusty Johnson and Cheryl Johnson vie for South Dakota's lone congressional seat along with earlier articles about Mom Johnson.

Tuesday morning, the two candidates debated, in a forum at the South Dakota Public Broadcasting studio in Sioux Falls. Via the South Dakota Searchlight, the SDPB YouTube of the clashing of the Johnsons is embedded below.

Candidates for U.S. House pledge bipartisanship, clash on key issues
by Joshua Haiar

Sheryl Johnson is first Democratic challenger to Rep. Dusty Johnson since 2018

SIOUX FALLS — Republican U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson and Democratic challenger Sheryl Johnson both vowed to work across the aisle during their first and only debate on Tuesday, but revealed sharp contrasts on key issues like climate change, abortion, and gun violence.

Sheryl Johnson is the first Democratic challenger to Rep. Johnson since 2018, when the Congressman beat former judge Tim Bjorkman and a Libertarian Party candidate to secure the state’s lone U.S. House seat.

The debate at the South Dakota Public Broadcasting studio in Sioux Falls saw both candidates emphasize their commitment to pragmatism and civil discourse. 

Dusty Johnson, who has held South Dakota’s sole U.S. House seat since 2018, pointed to his record of negotiating bipartisan legislation, and recognition as a problem solver by organizations like the nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking. 

Sheryl Johnson, a first-time congressional candidate and former Republican, framed herself as a political outsider. She touted her background as a mother of four, a public school employee and the owner of an part time, at-home business. Her campaign slogan, “SD Mom for Congress,” underscores her critique of the political establishment, which she says is out of touch with the needs of ordinary South Dakotans. 

“They’re all fed up with politicians that don’t listen to them,” she said of the those she’s met on the campaign trial.

The debate also revealed the candidates’ ideological differences. 

Dusty Johnson argued against sweeping mandates like the “Green New Deal.” The Green New Deal is a broad outline for revamping U.S. policy to focus on climate change by transitioning to renewable energy sources.

The Representative said Democratic climate policies have had a negative impact on the environment and national security by making the nation and its allies dependent on countries with less strict environmental regulations, like China and Russia. 

Sheryl Johnson said “climate change is real,” and that she’s worried about the droughts and flooding that have increased in frequency in the Midwest as a result.

Even so, she is not comfortable with Summit’s proposed carbon capture pipeline, which she doesn’t see as a workable option to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The project aims to collect and store CO2 from 57 ethanol plants in South Dakota and other neighboring states, collecting federal clean energy tax incentives along the way.

On abortion, Dusty Johnson said the constitutional amendment South Dakota voters are considering this election cycle is not the answer because it allows no restrictions on abortion in the first trimester. 

“Amendment G is extreme,” he said

Sheryl Johnson, however, described it as a reinstatement of Roe v. Wade, referencing the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case protecting abortion rights. The current Supreme Court overturned Roe two years ago in a case called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. 

She called for the restoration of federal protections for reproductive rights, and said current laws in some states make it unclear if and when doctors can perform abortions to protect the life and safety of women.

The candidates also differed sharply on gun violence. Sheryl Johnson said she supports the Second Amendment, but said she’d like to see moderate gun safety measures like stricter background checks.

She said the U.S. is failing its children, and that it’s too easy to get a gun.

“Guns are not toys, and I think we glamorize them too much in today’s society,” she said. 

Dusty Johnson emphasized the need to protect Second Amendment rights. He said the U.S. needs a comprehensive policy to address the mental health crisis he says has contributed to the epidemic of gun violence and suicides.

“President Biden signed a piece of gun control legislation,” he said. “Do any of us really think that has changed the trajectory of this violence?”

Both candidates talked about how their  political experience or lack thereof would be an asset to South Dakotans. Dusty Johnson said his years in Congress have given him the skills to navigate Washington D.C.’s complexities and pass meaningful legislation. Sheryl Johnson argued that her outsider perspective makes her better equipped to address the concerns of everyday South Dakotans.

The founding fathers envisioned a citizen legislature in the U.S. House, she said, noting that she supports term limits for members of Congress.

“We need to send a fresh voice to Washington,” she said during closing remarks.

The candidates thanked one another for a cordial and respectful debate. Dusty Johnson said that in the current political climate, that kind of debate is not guaranteed.

“This could have devolved into a mess, like so many debates do, jagged insult hurling,” he said. “This could have been a Scandinavian knife fight, Johnson versus Johnson, but we, I think, really gave South Dakotans the debate they deserved."

The debate YouTube:

This South Dakota Searchlight article is republished online under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Photo: U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-South Dakota, (left) and Democratic challenger, Sheryl Johnson, face off in a debate on Oct. 15, 2024, in Sioux Falls. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight).

Related posts

• News digest: Dusty Johnson and Cheryl Johnson vie for South Dakota's lone congressional seat
• 'People need a choice:' Democrat Sheryl Johnson's improbable congressional dream
• Update: Congressman Dusty Johnson justifies showing up for infrastructure he voted against
• Dusty Johnson et al sketchy hook-up with Madison rural water earns snarky social media
• In 2020, Dusty Johnson received $500 from GOP donor & alleged sex trafficker Anton Lazzaro

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. 

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6