Bluestem Prairie

Pipeline Fighters Hub: Summit Carbon Solutions numbers don’t add up in South Dakota

A helpful analysis of ethanol CCS from Pipeline Fighters Hub, republished with permission in the hopes it will provide helpful background for voters' decisions on the Referred Law 21 on our ballot.

Summit’s Numbers Don’t Add Up in South Dakota
by Emma Schmit

With Referred Law 21 on the ballot this November, South Dakota voters face a critical decision about the future of carbon pipelines in the state. The referendum, which would repeal a recent law that limits the rights landowners and local communities have over CO2 pipelines, comes as Summit Carbon Solutions continues trying to find a path for their unwanted, hazardous pipeline through South Dakota. The Summit pipeline is a proposed 2,500-mile pipeline crisscrossing North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Iowa. If approved, the pipeline would transport carbon dioxide captured from 57 ethanol plants across the Midwest (including 15 facilities in South Dakota) to be stored underground in North Dakota.

This ill-conceived proposal is a result of the fossil fuel industry co-opting climate change mitigation policy. Faced with growing consumer demand for sustainability and environmental responsibility, the oil and gas sector has managed to redirect the conversation away from reducing emissions to avoid climate disaster. Instead, they’ve convinced the federal government that burying the problem—literally—is the viable solution. By pushing carbon capture and storage, the industry claims that hiding CO2 emissions underground is just as good as eliminating them – nevermind the countless risks that come part in parcel with the technology – technology that we have seen fail time and time again. From monitoring well leaks at the country’s first commercial sequestration operation after less than a decade of operation, to well blowouts that suffocated nearby wildlife and led to six-figure fines, carbon capture and storage is proven to be unsafe, unsound, and unneeded. 

In reality, any claim of CCS being a tool to mitigate climate disaster is a smokescreen designed to maintain the status quo, all the while allowing polluters to be praised for so-called climate action while continuing business as usual. It’s no surprise Summit Carbon founder, Bruce Rastetter, jumped on the bandwagon given his long history of exploiting people and the environment for personal gain.

If you ask Summit, they claim that their hazardous carbon capture scheme would capture, transport, and sequester an amount of carbon equivalent to taking 3.9 million vehicles off the road each year, “provide[ing] the largest and single most meaningful technology‐based reduction of carbon emissions in the world.”

Don Johannsen, a retired engineer and an Iowa landowner impacted by Summit’s proposed pipeline, decided to crunch the numbers to see what truth there was to Summit’s alleged environmental benefits. Here’s what he found:

For starters, the ethanol plants on Summit’s proposed pipeline route through South Dakota produce a significant amount of CO2— 4.16 million metric tonnes per year (mmty). Summit, however, cannot claim they would have a net capture rate of 4.16 mmty from South Dakota because that 4.16 mmty is offset by the loss of 0.61 mmty during the CO2 capture process and the creation of an additional 3.36 mmty of anthropogenic CO2 during the manufacturing process for ethanol. That leaves only a net value of 0.2 mmty, or 4.7%, of biogenic CO2 for sequestration.

To clarify, there are two types of carbon dioxide. There is biogenic, meaning carbon from natural sources like plants, animals, and microorganisms, which is generally considered net zero because it is part of a natural cycle where carbon is absorbed and released without increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. This is the “good” CO2, and what Summit claims they would be capturing from ethanol plants. (Since ethanol releases carbon dioxide from the fermentation of corn, a majority of the CO2 emissions are considered biogenic under the current definition.)

On the other hand, the “bad” carbon, the carbon emissions climate policies generally intend to limit, come from anthropogenic sources, meaning carbon released from human activities like burning fossil fuels which add new carbon to the atmosphere. This is the only type of carbon dioxide emissions the EPA tracks.

For the entire 2,500-mile pipeline, Summit would be paid $1.53 billion dollars per year to sequester 18 mmty of biogenic carbon, but in the process they would create 17 mmty per year of anthropogenic carbon.  In total, Summit would have a net sequestration value of only 1 mmty of carbon dioxide.

For the South Dakota route segment alone, Summit would be paid $302 million to capture and store 3.56 mmty of CO2, but in the process they would create an additional 3.36 mmty of anthropogenic CO2 for a net sequestration value of only 0.2 mmty. 

In total, Summit would produce 3.36 mmty of bad anthropogenic CO2 each year in order to sequester 3.56 mmty of good biogenic CO2 leaving a net value of a whopping only .2 mmty of biogenic CO2, or 4.7%, of total emissions. So, for every net metric tonne of “good” carbon Summit would inject into the ground, 0.95 tonnes of “bad” carbon dioxide would be emitted.

It’s not entirely clear where the benefits Summit claims to offer come into play in this situation. Of course, these figures were calculated using traditional math, not Summit’s math — which somehow always results in numbers that shine a favorable light on the corporation.

If we convert the net sequestration of 1 mmty (18 mmty biogenic sequestered less 17 mmty anthropogenic mmty emitted) for the entire pipeline route into Summit’s favorite measurement – vehicles – Summit’s claim of taking 3.9 million vehicles off the road each year doesn’t quite tally. According to the EPA, “a typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year.” Summit’s proposed net sequestration rate then equates to taking 214,000 vehicles off the road each year. If we consider just the Summit route in South Dakota, the net 0.2 mmty CO2 sequestered would be equal to only 42,300 vehicles. If nothing else, it’s becoming quite evident why Summit prefers to utilize their own special form of mathematics, because the legitimate figures aren’t doing them any favors.

Carbon dioxide emissions aren’t only a South Dakota issue, though. It’s a global concern. How does Summit’s proposed carbon capture project in South Dakota compare on a global scale? In 2023, global carbon emissions were 36,000 mmty. If Summit actually sequestered 0.2 mmty, that would result in a reduction 0.0005% of global carbon emissions. If that’s the best we can get from the “largest and single most meaningful technology‐based reduction of carbon emissions in the world”, we may want to reconsider our approach to climate change mitigation.

Of course, this is not the only issue with Summit’s project. Previous research compiled by Don Johannsen found that just for Summit’s proposed CO2 capture facilities in South Dakota, an additional 1.5 billion gallons of water would be required at each ethanol plant, enough to supply a city of 60,000 people. It would also place an additional burden on the electrical grid – demanding enough additional electricity to provide for a city of 47,000 people. If the total amount of water and energy required for both ethanol production and CO2 capture is considered it would require 6.6 billion gallons of water, enough to supply a city of 260,000 people, enough electricity to provide for a city of 298,000 people and enough natural gas to provide for a city of 973,000 people.

These numbers underscore just how inefficient and unnecessary the Summit carbon capture pipeline truly is. In exchange for an entirely insignificant reduction in carbon emissions, the Summit pipeline would damage tens of thousands of acres of prime cropland, place the lives of the thousands of people living near the hazardous pipeline route at risk, and further undermine and erode fundamental property rights that have served as a foundation for our nation since 1791.

It’s time to put this facade to rest. South Dakotans have the power to end this sham with a simple tick of the box. If you believe South Dakotans’ property rights, prosperity, and peace of mind are more important than the profits of an out-of-state corporation, vote no on referred law 21.

Related posts

• 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
• Company behind proposed Lake Preston jet fuel plant buoyed by federal carbon credit ruling
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
• Summit Carbon Solutions says ethanol carbon pipeline system won’t be operational until 2026
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!

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: Dusty Johnson and Cheryl Johnson vie for South Dakota's lone congressional seat

It's hard for me to resist Blazing Saddles quips when I post about South Dakota's congressional contest between incumbent Republican United States Representative Dusty Johnson and his Democratic challenger Sheryl Johnson.

After all, South Dakota in no way resembles Rock Ridge.

Fortunately, South Dakota Searchlight and South Dakota News Watch are covering this contest in depth. Laws week, I republished South Dakota News Watch's article,  'People need a choice:' Democrat Sheryl Johnson's improbable congressional dream.

Now there's more on Monday, At the South Dakota Searchlight, John Hult added to the Sheryl Johnson story in ‘Mom for Congress’ pins bid to unseat Dusty Johnson on message of pragmatism, public service:

Sheryl Johnson has never held political office. What she has done is raise her four daughters, manage retail operations and work in a public school.

That’s precisely why she thinks voters should check her name on the Nov. 5 ballot and send her to Washington. 

She’s running as the Democratic nominee in a bid to unseat Republican Dusty Johnson for South Dakota’s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

The 61-year-old former Republican, who lives in Sioux Falls, has pinned her hopes for victory on her status as a mother with a range of real-world experiences. She says that makes her a better choice than an opponent whose career is defined mostly by political and government work. 

Her campaign materials use the tagline “SD Mom for Congress.” It began as an offhand quip about her frustration with the U.S. House, its infighting and inability to find common ground. 

“I said, ‘they’re behaving like a bunch of children. They just need a mom there,’” Johnson said. “And that’s kind of helped spur this idea of a South Dakota mom: The fact that there’s such division. It used to be that they could agree to disagree, make compromises and get along.” . . .

. . .Voters deserve a choice, she said, and a chance to vote for someone whose ambitions end with public service.

“My opponent, he’s a nice guy, but he’s running for governor,” she said, foreshadowing the 2026 race when Gov. Kristi Noem will be term-limited. “He needs money for his next election. So I’m not running to be a career politician. I don’t want to be there forever. I’ve got grandkids I want to enjoy someday. But if I could get in there, I’m not really beholden to anyone to toe the party line.” . . .

Read the entire article at the Searchlight. The online news venue pairs the Johnson article with Hult's Rep. Johnson answers criticism by pointing to record and private sector experience:

Republican congressman faces first Democratic challenger since 2018 on Nov. 5 ballot

Republican U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson and his political allies say the accusation that he’s a career politician is an empty one.

His Democratic opponent in the Nov. 5 election, Sheryl Johnson, bases the criticism on narratives that many South Dakotans have heard about the congressman.

His rise from a Republican upstart who hustled his way at age 28 to a seat on the Public Utilities Commission to becoming the state’s lone U.S. House representative has been thoroughly documented.

State- and national-level profiles of Johnson abound with familiar tropes: about his work ethic, his policy wonkery and the self-deprecating humor that had him comparing himself to teenage TV doctor Doogie Howser in the election night speech he delivered when he was first elected to Congress in 2018. 

Johnson also frequently leans into a “workhorse, not a showhorse” narrative by chastising his fellow members of Congress for slinging mud instead of solutions. , , ,

Read about Johnson's record in the article.

The Watertown Public Opinion has republished Stu Whitney;s story from South Dakota News Watch.  The article Dusty Johnson grew up in Pierre. Is he a born politician? reads like a partner to Sheryl Johnson's framing of the race. Whitney reports:

This is the first in a four-part series by South Dakota News Watch about the political journey and Republican Party challenges faced by U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson.

It makes sense to portray Dusty Johnson as a born politician. 

He grew up in Pierre with a family legacy of lobbying and lawmaking and pushing the right buttons to make your voice heard. He immersed himself in the South Dakota Teenage Republicans the way some youth embrace the Boy Scouts, to avoid being lost in the wild.

His grandfather was Bill Johnson, a former broadcaster who turned to Republican politics in the 1960s and became an influential state lobbyist. Bill’s wife, Joan, was also active in the GOP ranks, attending several national conventions as a delegate, serving as party treasurer and working as an administrative clerk in the South Dakota Senate for nearly three decades.

Dusty spent a few afternoons with his grandmother roaming the halls of the state Capitol, across the street from his middle school. On Sundays, when his family attended church at Lutheran Memorial, it was not uncommon to see three or four state Supreme Court justices in nearby pews, solemnly absorbing the sermon.

But the narrative of an idyllic upbringing surrounded by constructive influences is not entirely whole, as Johnson acknowledges. 

There were rough patches that helped mold his political temperament. His parents, Kevin and Jacque, struggled at times to provide for five children during what Dusty, the oldest, describes as a “hardscrabble” existence.

He started working at 14, washing cars at Capital Motors and manning the snack bar at Lariat Lanes bowling alley to be able to afford daily essentials such as socks and deodorant.  . . .

Read the rest in the Public Opinion. The first installment ends with Johnson negotiating the retention of one year of a four-year scholarship with then-Governor Janklow. I'll add updates to this digest as the next three chapters are published.

Photo: Sheryl Johnson, a Democrat running for U.S. House in South Dakota in 2024, poses with her campaign paraphernalia at her home in Sioux Falls. Nice cat in the picture window. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight)

Related posts

• '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

Referred Law 21 & carbon pipelines: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control

Another installment in the controversial Upper Midwest saga of Summit Carbon Solutions efforts to construct a multi-state web of ethanol Carbon pipelines. See related posts below for earlier chapters in South Dakota.

The South Dakota Searchlight ballot measure explainer below on Referred Law 21 lays out the debate over the matter. I voted earlier at the courthouse  by absentee ballot and voted NO, in opposition to the law.

From South Dakota Searchlight.

Referred Law 21: A landowner bill of rights or an undermining of local control
by Joshua Haiar

The measure on South Dakota’s Nov. 5 ballot that addresses carbon dioxide pipelines is either a bill of rights for landowners or a seizure of authority from local governments, depending on the person describing it.

During the last legislative session in Pierre, state lawmakers passed and Republican Gov. Kristi Noem signed Senate Bill 201. Opponents gathered more than 31,000 petition signatures to refer the law to voters. On the ballot, it’s Referred Law 21. A yes vote supports the law passed by legislators and Noem, while a no vote opposes the law.

The law would implement a list of protections and incentives for landowners and counties impacted by the construction of carbon dioxide pipelines. That’s the “bill of rights” part, according to the law’s supporters.

But it would also require local governments to demonstrate to state regulators that their restrictions on pipeline locations are reasonable, rather than the pipeline company having to prove those regulations are unreasonable. That’s the seizure of local authority, according to the law’s opponents.

The path to the ballot

The genesis of the debate over carbon pipelines is a proposal from Iowa-based Summit Carbon Solutions. It has partnered with ethanol producers, including Sioux Falls-based Poet, to capture some of the CO2 emitted by 57 ethanol plants in several midwestern states — including eastern South Dakota — and send it via pipeline for underground storage in North Dakota. The project would capitalize on federal tax credits that incentivize the prevention of climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

Some landowners along the pipeline route oppose the project because they don’t want the pipeline under their land. They oppose Summit’s attempted use of eminent domain to gain court-ordered access to their land and are concerned about potentially deadly leaks of carbon dioxide plumes. Similar debates are occurring in other states on the proposed route. Iowa has granted the project a permit, but it’s contingent on approval in the Dakotas, where Summit has not yet obtained permits.

Legislative sponsors of what became Referred Law 21 described it as a compromise between pipeline opponents and supporters, guaranteeing protections and incentives for landowners while maintaining a regulatory path for pipelines. The compromise effort arose after some legislators failed in their efforts to ban eminent domain for carbon pipelines. Referred Law 21 does not address eminent domain.

Another factor in the debate over the legislation was the role of counties. Some county commissions, prodded by pipeline opponents, have passed local ordinances with strict restrictions on the locations of pipelines. 

Under existing law, those local ordinances apply unless the state Public Utilities Commission decides to declare them unreasonably restrictive. If Referred Law 21 takes effect, the burden would flip. Counties would have to prove to the state commission that their ordinances are reasonable. 

The proposed law says that once the state issues a permit for a transmission project such as a pipeline, it automatically overrides any local rules. Local regulations would no longer be applicable unless state regulators require compliance with local laws as part of the permit.

Some proponents of Referred Law 21 say current state law makes it too easy for a local body opposed to a multi-state pipeline project to hold up construction. They say if local officials are confident their regulations are reasonable, they can rest easy knowing state regulators will uphold them.

“There is no wording in Senate Bill 201, now Referred Law 21, that diminishes the counties’ rights in any way,” said Walt Bones, a proponent of the law, during a September debate in Mitchell. Bones is a former secretary of the state Department of Agriculture.

Opponents are not buying it.

“Senate Bill 201, now Referred Law 21, takes away the voice of those local governments,” argued Jim Eschenbaum, an opponent of the law. Eschenbaum is a Hand County commissioner.

Landowner bill of rights

The law includes landowner protections, coined the “Landowner Bill of Rights” by backers in the Legislature. 

They include requiring carbon pipeline companies, rather than landowners or local governments, to be liable for any damages caused by pipelines. The pipelines would also have to be buried at least 4 feet deep, and companies would have to share their pipeline rupture modeling data.

Counties could also collect a surcharge of up to $1 per linear foot of CO2 pipeline, with at least half of the money going toward property tax relief for affected landowners. The remaining funds could be used at the county’s discretion. 

Plus, local governments could require transmission projects such as pipelines to enter road usage agreements to help pay for the maintenance and repair of roads damaged during construction activity.

“This is all about landowner rights, and getting some funding source back to counties,” Bones said. “That’s all this is. It’s not a referendum on a pipeline. It’s nothing more than this list of landowner rights and protections, and a funding source.” 

Opponents say many of the protections and incentives in the bill are already part of county and landowner negotiations with Summit.

“They call it the ‘Landowner Bill of Rights.’ It is Summit’s bill of rights,” said Eschenbaum during a recent rally in rural Canton. “They said they’d do all that stuff before drafting the bill even started.” 

Eschenbaum added during his September debate with Bones that “the Legislature has no business negotiating terms on peoples’ private property.” 

Proponents counter that landowners could still negotiate the location of the pipeline, how much they will be paid, and additional easement terms.

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

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).

Related posts

• 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
• Company behind proposed Lake Preston jet fuel plant buoyed by federal carbon credit ruling
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
• Summit Carbon Solutions says ethanol carbon pipeline system won’t be operational until 2026
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!

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

Given an allergy, I refrain from using cannabis whether as medicine or recreation, but I support legalized cannabis as a matter of policy.

Perhaps this will be the year when cannabis is decriminalized in South Dakota and we can catchup with our neighbors across the border in Big Stone County, Minnesota.

Though to be honest, with the South Dakota legislature given the discretion to authorize sales should IM 29 pass, cannabis connoisseurs might have to have some patience should they wish to purchase recreational marijuana. As the article below notes, "the free distribution of 2 ounces or less would be legalized by IM 29"," not sales.

I suppose South Dakotans could buy a couple of ounces in Minnesota, then give those lids to friends before they drive home.

From the South Dakota Searchlight.

IM 29: If voters decriminalize marijuana, lawmakers would make the call on sales
by John Hult

Measure offers South Dakotans a third chance to vote on recreational cannabis

The first thing to know about South Dakota’s recreational marijuana ballot measure is what it doesn’t do: legalize marijuana sales.

That would require later legislative action.

Initiated Measure 29 would lay the groundwork for that potential action by legalizing the possession, use and free distribution of up to 2 ounces of marijuana for adults 21 and older, which is currently a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. 

It would also decriminalize marijuana edibles and cannabis concentrates, the possession of which is currently a felony in South Dakota punishable by up to five years in prison.

“Distribution” under IM 29 means “transfer without consideration of not more than the possession limit.” Under South Dakota law, the words “without consideration” mean “for free.”

In other words, only the free distribution of 2 ounces or less would be legalized by IM 29, not sales. The Legislature, during its annual January-to-March lawmaking session, would have the discretion to authorize sales.

The lack of provision for a retail market is tied to what happened the last time a majority of South Dakota voters backed recreational marijuana. In 2020, voters passed a constitutional amendment legalizing both recreational and medicinal marijuana, but it was overturned in court for violating the state constitution’s single-subject rule for ballot initiatives.

“We didn’t want to get dragged back into court on another single-subject challenge,” said Matthew Schweich of South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, which is supporting the Nov. 5 ballot measure.

A separate medical marijuana initiative that passed in 2020 laid the groundwork for the state’s current medical marijuana program. In 2022, voters rejected a recreational marijuana measure.

Backers: Money saved, doors opened

The fiscal note on this year’s measure, prepared by the Legislative Research Council, points out passage would save counties $581,556 a year in prosecution, defense and incarceration costs associated with enforcement of the state’s current misdemeanor marijuana law. The fiscal note makes no mention of the costs associated with enforcement of the state’s felony possession statute for concentrated cannabis.

Distribution of more than 2 ounces would remain a crime under state law, but people 21 and older would be allowed to “gift” up to that amount of marijuana to others of age.

That’s not much different from measures passed in other states, Schweich said. Some marijuana ballot measures outline components of a retail market, but the onus for setting up retail regulations and tax structures for cannabis falls on lawmakers.

“There’s always been a lag period between the legalization of possession and retail sales,” Schweich said.

Fort Pierre Republican Rep. Will Mortenson, the House majority leader, said he’d expect the Legislature to take up regulations if voters pass IM 29. Some legwork has already been done on the issue. The state Senate passed a retail pot law in 2022, a few months after the state Supreme Court overturned the 2020 cannabis amendment. The bill died in a House committee.

“In the Legislature, we owe a duty to the people,” said Mortenson, who told South Dakota Searchlight he plans to vote against IM 29. “They’re our bosses, and if they pass Initiated Measure 29, we need to have a good faith effort to put in place a regulatory scheme.”

Conservative Legislature could punt on sales

That doesn’t guarantee a retail market, though. There are plenty of lawmakers, Mortenson said, who oppose legal cannabis on principle. Many prospective members of the 2025 Legislature rode to victory in the June 4 primary on the strength of more conservative platforms than their competitors.

One of them, Republican Travis Ismay of Newell, is unopposed for the District 28B House seat. Ismay tried unsuccessfully to put a measure on the ballot that would have asked voters to repeal the state’s medical marijuana laws.

Rhonda Milstead represents Protecting South Dakota Kids, a group working to prevent the law’s passage. She said she saw previous legislatures as more pot-friendly than the current one, and that the House and Senate could become even less amenable to marijuana after the election.

“You have a conservative legislature,” Milstead said. “Why would they set up a retail market for something they didn’t want in the first place?”

She expects lawmakers won’t be faced with the decision, though. A recent poll on the measure, sponsored by South Dakota News Watch and the University of South Dakota’s Chiesman Center for Democracy and released in June, showed 52% of voters opposed, 42% supportive and 7% undecided.

Milstead said church leaders, some of whom have also opposed November’s pro-abortion rights ballot measure, are among those working to get her organization’s message out. 

She also thinks the state’s existing medical marijuana program will strike voters as sufficient to meet the needs of patients.

“I don’t think people are fired up about recreational marijuana,” Milstead said.

Opponents: Legal pot comes at a price

Opponents like Milstead are concerned about the increasing potency of marijuana and the impact on public health, upticks in marijuana use by minors in states that have legalized the drug for adults, and the contention that legalization pushes up crime rates. 

“Legalizing marijuana has serious potential harm, risk for individuals, for communities and the state of South Dakota, with no identifiable benefits, as proven by state after state after state,” Milstead said during a recent debate on the measure in Mitchell. “This drug brings more poverty, more crime, more mental health issues, more youth at risk, more violence, more addiction.”

Milstead argues that any tax revenue that might flow into state coffers if lawmakers chose to create a retail market would be eclipsed by increased costs for law enforcement and addiction treatment. The group’s website maintains a list of talking points, studies on cannabis legalization and includes 10 “victims’ stories” involving people hit by drivers high on marijuana and other drugs. The group also points to increases in marijuana-related traffic fatalities in states that have legalized the drug.

Darci Jensen, an addiction counselor from Canton, told a group of reporters at an Oct. 11 press event for Protecting South Dakota kids that all her current underage clients struggled with marijuana. She believes legalization in so many states has changed the way kids view cannabis.

“The perception of harm has gone down across the country,” Jensen said.

Schweich and other proponents reject those arguments. During the debate, Schweich pointed to billions in tax revenue collected since state-level marijuana legalization began to take hold a little over a decade ago. 

He also noted that driving under the influence would remain a crime if IM 29 passes, that legalization would allow lawmakers to regulate potency and product safety, and that the price of prohibition in time and treasure for taxpayer-funded law enforcement is too steep in a nation plodding steadily toward cannabis acceptance.

Thirty-eight states have medical pot, 24 and the District of Columbia have recreational pot, and the federal government is considering a change that would reclassify cannabis as a less harmful drug than its current classification under federal law. 

“Whether we pass Measure 29 or not, cannabis already exists in South Dakota,” Schweich said during the Mitchell debate. “The question is, are we going to be pragmatic and take a common sense approach? Are we going to stick with an obsolete, failed policy of prohibition that has done nothing for us for a century?”

Initiated Measure 29

What it does

• Legalize the possession, use and distribution of 2 ounces or less of marijuana by people 21 or older. It would also legalize cannabis concentrates.
• Allow those older than 21 to have up to six marijuana plants in their home, with no more than 12 plants in a single household. 
• According to the state Legislative Research Council, repealing South Dakota’s prohibition on small amounts of marijuana through IM 29 would save counties $581,556 a year in enforcement and incarceration costs. 

What it doesn’t do

• Set up a legal cannabis market. The word “distribution” in the measure only applies to distribution “without consideration,” meaning “for free.” Lawmakers would need to set up a regulatory framework before recreational dispensaries would appear – something they don’t have to do. Lawmakers could also set tax rates on cannabis, and would be able to decide what cannabis tax revenue would be used for. 
• Regulate the potency of cannabis or place health and safety testing requirements on cannabis products. As with a retail market framework and any accompanying tax scheme, health and safety regulations would come through legislative action.
• Expunge previous marijuana convictions. Under the South Dakota Constitution, only the governor can grant executive clemency to a person convicted of a crime, and the state Board of Pardons and Paroles screens most clemency requests. Those with marijuana convictions could apply for a pardon, but lawmakers couldn’t offer blanket clemency without changing the state constitution to allow it.

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

Photo: Signs for various pro-cannabis lobbying efforts in recent years, on display at the headquarters of South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws in Sioux Falls. The two signs on the left and single sign on the far right refer to recreational marijuana votes on the South Dakota ballot in 2020, 2022, and 2024. (John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight)

Related posts

•  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

'People need a choice:' Democrat Sheryl Johnson's improbable congressional dream

The death this week of former U.S. Senator Tim Johnson reminded South Dakotans that he was the last Democrat to serve in statewide office in the Rushmore State.

Given the state's small population, we only have one US representative--currently Republican Dusty Johnson.

In the South Dakota News Watch article republished below, Stu Whitney reports on the longshot campaign of his Democratic challenger.

'People need a choice:' Democrat Sheryl Johnson's improbable dream
by Stu Whitney, South Dakota News Watch

The former Republican who believes in limited government and a strong border faces long odds against incumbent Dusty Johnson.

BURKE, S.D. – On a September afternoon in this South Dakota ranch town not far from the Nebraska border, Sheryl Johnson sidled down Main Street.

Burke’s commercial center is a sea of pavement dotted with pickup trucks, a post office, the weekly newspaper and Cahoy’s Kitchen, a relatively upscale eatery where Johnson, the Democratic nominee for U.S. House in South Dakota, scheduled a meet-and-greet.

“We sort of had to set it up last-minute,” explained the 61-year-old Johnson, who saw a slow trickle of visitors at Cahoy’s before deciding to get out and explore the town of about 570 residents.

The stroll was not without challenges for a Sioux Falls Democrat making a stop in Gregory County, a staunchly conservative hunting hotbed that gave Donald Trump 77% of the presidential vote in 2016 and 78% in 2020.

Johnson, an overwhelming underdog against three-term Republican incumbent Dusty Johnson, explained to several Burke residents that she’s a former GOP voter who grew up in rural northeast Iowa before moving to Sioux Falls to raise a family.

She picked beans and pulled corn on her grandparents' Iowa farm and learned the value of hard work, she told them, adding that she believes in limited government and a strong Southern border, not your normal progressive campaign planks.

She made it clear, while handing out "SD Mom for Congress" materials, that she's running as a Democrat but considers herself an American first.

'Getting harder and harder to relate'

Some of the folks she encountered on Main Street handed back campaign cards without a glance. Others nodded politely but declined an invitation to attend the meet-and-greet.

Then Johnson entered First Fidelity Bank and made her way to George Kenzy’s corner office, where the conversation picked up.

Kenzy is not only the bank president but also father-in-law to former Democratic state legislator Billie Sutton, who lost a narrow race for governor to Kristi Noem in 2018, the last year a South Dakota Democrat ran a competitive statewide campaign.

Sutton, who grew up in Burke and owns a ranch with a view of the Missouri River, works at the bank along with his wife Kelsea, Kenzy’s daughter. They have three sons, including 2-year-old twins, and hosted a fundraising event for Sheryl Johnson later in the day.

George Kenzy greeted Sheryl in his bank office, decorated with buffalo artwork, a Crazy Horse portrait and a framed vintage rifle. He was asked about the difficulty of the South Dakota Democratic Party gaining traction among voters in rural areas.

It hasn't won a statewide election since 2008.

“This is a Republican state, and you’re out here with very conservative folks,” George Kenzy said, standing behind his desk. “They don’t go for much, but they all have pretty good heads on their shoulders. And Sioux Falls is turning, well, it’s nowhere as big as New York or Los Angeles, but it’s turning pretty blue. It’s getting harder and harder to relate."

Sheryl told him that she’s separating herself from that "urban liberal" persona, highlighting her background as a Navy wife whose husband, Peter, was deployed during Operation Desert Storm in the early 1990s Gulf War. She lived at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina with their young daughter, and they had three more daughters after they returned to the Upper Midwest.

She said that her campaign travels have taught her that people are not quite as far apart as they seem.

Kenzy responded by holding his hands apart, then slowly bringing them together to demonstrate that both sides need to approach the middle before Democrats will find a foothold to relive the days when Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin all represented South Dakota in Washington.

Raising money has been a challenge

Sheryl Johnson is not naïve about her odds, which most campaign pundits rank as somewhere between slim and non-existent. In the jargon of political prognostication, South Dakota’s lone congressional seat is safe and solid red.

She ran a competent 2022 campaign for state Senate in Republican-heavy District 11 but lost with 45% of the vote, following up unsuccessful House bids in 2020 and 2018. Raising $200,000 has been a struggle during this U.S. House campaign, while her future-focused Republican opponent is sitting on an overall war chest of about $5 million.

So daunting is her mission that when she approached her husband about breaking her promise to him to never run for office again, his response was, “I suppose you can try, but you’ll never beat Dusty.”

The quest is about more than winning or losing to Sheryl Johnson, who is retired after working as an education assistant at Roosevelt High School for 13 years and running a small business. After voting Republican for more than three decades, she changed her affiliation to Independent and then Democrat a decade ago after concluding that the GOP didn't align with her "values about caring about people."

When she spoke with South Dakota Democratic Party executive director Dan Ahlers about running for U.S. House, she made her intentions clear.

"I told Dan, 'All right, I'm going to run on one condition: I'm running to win,'" she recalled. "I think they were just looking for somebody to put a name on the ballot."

At a bare minimum, said Jon Schaff, a political science professor at Northern State University, it was important to avoid the optics of allowing another South Dakota Republican to run unopposed by a major party for U.S. House or Senate.

"If the Democrats want to be taken seriously they must reach the lowest rung of the ladder, namely running candidates for statewide races," he said. "I recognize that candidate recruitment for Democrats is very difficult as few want to volunteer for what is most likely a losing effort, but it's where you have to start."

Dusty Johnson, first elected to Congress in 2018, has not faced Democratic opposition in the past two general elections, running instead against Libertarian candidates and winning by margins of 55 and 62 points.

“People need a choice," said Sheryl Johnson. "And I'm just fed up with Washington. They are getting nothing done. They're fighting all the time. They're not willing to compromise. And I think it’s time to try something different.”

Abortion differences help define race

Like her opponent, Sheryl Johnson has an unassuming appearance that comes off as more academic than adversarial. Both candidates are mentally nimble enough to stay on message and occasionally poke fun at themselves.

The difference is that the Republican incumbent is an experienced politician with a wealth of resources, experience and institutional support, while Sheryl has never held public office, employs a skeleton campaign staff and lacks the money for large-scale advertising.

She sees her role as filling a void in a single-party state at a critical time in South Dakota's history. That means trying to make a difference, one town at a time.

When the candidates ran into each other in August at the Turner County Fair in Parker, the Republican incumbent, a tireless campaigner by reputation, shook her hand and paid her a compliment.

“He said, ‘Oh, wow, you're really out here working hard. We see you all over the place,’” recalled Sheryl Johnson. “And I said, ‘Well, Dusty, we're trying to beat you.’”

That means engaging her opponent on wedge issues, with abortion among the most prominent. The candidates will spar on that and other topics in an Oct. 15 debate to be televised on South Dakota Public Broadcasting.

This year's ballot includes Amendment G, which would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution and supersede a 2005 state trigger law that took effect when Roe vs. Wade was overturned.

Sheryl Johnson cited personal experience in lamenting South Dakota’s law, which makes it a 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 10 states that has banned abortion and does not include exceptions for rape and incest.

“Voters can weigh in, but I honestly think it's a federal issue because women's rights shouldn't depend on what state you live in,” she said. “I had a pregnancy years ago and went in for my 4-month checkup to see my ultrasound and it had fetal abnormalities. There was no way it was going to survive, so I had to have a D&C (a procedure to remove tissue from inside the uterus). If that happened to my daughters today, they'd have to go to another state because South Dakota doesn't allow you to end a pregnancy unless the mother's life is in immediate danger.”

Dusty Johnson told News Watch that he will respect the decision of South Dakotans on Amendment G but that he will be voting against the measure.

“I know that there are deeply held opinions on both sides of the issue, but I believe that that baby in the womb is a life worthy of protection,” he said.

Asked for his opinion on South Dakota’s law not including exceptions for rape and incest, Dusty Johnson said such cases are rare and are not his main determinant when weighing the issue.

“I think a lot of people get understandably focused on the exceptions,” he said. “I'm interested in saving babies, and so, as a voter, I have voted for (South Dakota) ballot initiatives that restricted abortion and had exceptions, and I voted for abortion restrictions that did not have exceptions. To me, I think it's most important to focus on the 99% of the issue, rather than the 1%.”

Democrat embraces landowner rights

Sheryl Johnson’s campaign travels have included community meetings on landowner rights, specifically the effort to overturn Referred Law 21, passed in 2024 as part of a legislative package on potential carbon pipeline negotiations.

Summit Carbon Solutions is seeking regulatory approval for a pipeline that would carry liquified carbon dioxide gas from more than 50 ethanol plants in South Dakota and four other states to be stored deep underground in North Dakota.

Sponsors of Referred Law 21 trumpeted a series of landowner protections for potential negotiations between the Iowa-based company and landowners, including mandated payments per linear foot and minimum depth requirements.

Opponents said the legislation paved the way for Public Utilities Commission approval of the pipeline by usurping the regulatory authority of counties.

The Democratic U.S. House candidate sees it as an issue where she can score bipartisan points by emphasizing rural interests against the Republican establishment, which she views as too connected to the ethanol industry to be objective on the issue.

Her campaign manager, James Jacobson, was listed as one of the organizers of a "No on Referred Law 21" meeting she attended in Platte in September.

“There are a lot of Trump voters at these meetings who would normally never vote for me,” said Sheryl Johnson. “But in talking with them, some will support me because I support this issue and can speak from experience. I had an uncle who took over my grandparents' dairy farm and was injured in a tragic farming accident when he was 32. It left him blind and brain-injured and they had to sell off all the cows and eventually they lost the farm. So I understand that relationship to the land, and to think that some private company wants the power to force these pipelines on people and maybe get the power of eminent domain, that is just so unfair to me.”

Dusty Johnson characterized Referred Law 21 as a “mixed bag” with concerns about preemption of local governments but also potentially higher payments for landowners. He added that his opponent is trying to use a polarizing state issue for political leverage rather than focusing on national topics more suited to a U.S. House campaign.

"I would observe that Sheryl Johnson spends a lot of time talking about hot-button state issues because hot-button national topics like inflation and the border crisis are not issues that South Dakotans agree with her on," Dusty Johnson told News Watch.

Dormant Farm Bill draws controversy

Another point of contention is the Farm Bill, currently in limbo in Congress until after the election, a delay that Sheryl Johnson attributed to the inefficiency of Republican House leadership.

The legislation was criticized by the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for curtailing potential funding increases in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) over the next decade, “weakening SNAP’s effectiveness in reducing food insecurity and poverty.”

Dusty Johnson called those claims inaccurate, saying that the Farm Bill locks in SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, funding based on inflationary increases and merely prevents an administration from unilaterally imposing increases at a higher rate.

“Clearly, we're a rich enough country that we need to have robust programs to make sure that nutritional needs are met,” said Dusty Johnson, who serves on the House Agriculture Committee. “And that's why I was happy that in the Farm Bill, we locked in increases for SNAP over the entire period of the bill.”

His opponent called for more flexibility of spending to tackle the problem of child hunger. Feeding South Dakota, the state’s largest hunger relief organization, estimates that about 106,000 people in South Dakota, more than 11%, are food insecure. Of that number, 1 out of 6 are children.

“To me, there's a big difference between just spending money as an expense and spending money as an investment,” Sheryl Johnson said. “ I believe we need to invest in the next generation. I worked at Roosevelt High School and saw kids coming to school without breakfast. They have a hard time learning, they're not focused. We need to make sure we're adequately addressing these problems before they get worse."

Republican's future plans questioned

Sheryl Johnson took a brief respite from the campaign trail when her father, Gene Knoploh, died Aug. 15 at age 84 in Iowa. The banker and part-time farmer was a stoic presence in her life whose homespun wisdom she likened to the old EF Hutton commercials.

When he spoke, people listened.

"He was a staunch Republican, but he gave me $500 (for the campaign), and my parents didn't have a lot of money," Sheryl said. "He was very wise and raised us to believe that if you work hard and treat people right, you can do anything in this world.”

That includes running against Dusty Johnson, a political wunderkind who grew up in Pierre, was elected to the Public Utilities Commission at age 28, served as former governor Dennis Daugaard's chief of staff and is seeking a fourth term in Congress at 48.

Sheryl Johnson chastised her opponent for raising money with the implicit goal of running for governor in 2026. She compared it to when Noem announced she was running for governor six days after her 2016 re-election to the House, beating a deadline to transfer campaign funds.

“Dusty’s a nice guy and he's done some good things, but he's more focused on running for governor now," Sheryl Johnson said. "Why should we elect somebody and let him have a taxpayer salary for two years while he spends that time raising money and running for governor?”

'The proof is in the pudding'

Dusty Johnson bristled at that criticism, citing his work on agricultural trade in Congress and efforts to strengthen the review process for purchases of U.S. farmland by the Chinese Communist Party.

His pragmatic approach as chairman of the Republican Main Street Caucus has earned him a seat at the table for often-testy negotiations over funding packages, with Johnson seeking bipartisan agreement to avoid shutdowns.

"The proof is in the pudding," he said. "I'm consistently ranked as one of the most effective members of the House, particularly in areas that really impact South Dakota. And I think anybody who knows me knows that I am driven every single day to be effective. No matter what the future holds, nothing's going to change that."

The man that House Agriculture Chairman Glenn Thompson calls "whip smart" and a "consensus builder" has been a force in South Dakota politics for nearly 20 years and will likely remain so for at least 20 more.

That reality wasn't on the mind of Sheryl Johnson and her staff as they left Cahoy's Kitchen in Burke and piled into a Chevy Equinox with a "SD Mom for Congress" sticker on the door. They were bound for the next town, with the conviction that fighting for every vote is worth it, regardless of wins or losses.

This story was produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit news organization. Republished online with permission.

Photo: Democratic U.S. House candidate Sheryl Johnson stands on Main Street in Burke, S.D., during a campaign stop on Sept. 18, 2024. The 61-year-old former Sioux Falls School District employee is running against Republican incumbent Dusty Johnson. (Photo: Stu Whitney / South Dakota News Watch).

Related posts

• 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

Initiated Measure 28: What supporters call tax relief, opponents call a budget problem

Another South Dakota Searchlight explainer for a ballot question here in the Rushmore State. 

When I first moved to South Dakota, I was flabbergasted by the sales tax on groceries, never mind that something had to fund the state government in the absence of a state income tax.

From the Searchlight:

Initiated Measure 28: What supporters call tax relief, opponents call a budget problem
by Joshua Haiar

Backers of a ballot measure intended to remove sales taxes on groceries say it’s about helping people with low incomes. Opponents say the measure would affect more than groceries and could cut hundreds of millions in revenue from the budget of an already low-tax state, with no plan to replace it.

The ballot question committee Dakotans for Health gathered the petition signatures to put Initiated Measure 28 on the Nov. 5 ballot, where it’s one of seven statewide questions under consideration by voters.

Rick Weiland, chairman of Dakotans for Health, said during a recent debate in Mitchell that opponents are mischaracterizing the measure. 

“It’s a campaign of fear, and it’s a campaign of hypotheticals,” he said. 

Scope of measure disputed

Initiated Measure 28 would remove the 4.2% state sales tax on goods for “human consumption,” excluding alcohol and prepared food. Opponents say the term “human consumption” would cover a broader range of goods, not just groceries as the bill’s backers intend.

The South Dakota Legislative Research Council estimates the measure could cause state revenue losses between $134 million and $646 million annually, depending on how it’s interpreted. 

Attorney General Marty Jackley has warned that the measure could impact the state’s $22 million annual legal settlement with tobacco companies intended to reduce smoking. That’s because state law defines tobacco products as intended for human consumption, and collecting the settlement money requires a sales tax on tobacco. South Dakota collects about $43 million annually in tobacco taxes.

If only tobacco and grocery sales taxes were eliminated, the state could face an approximately $176 million budget reduction, according to the Legislative Research Council. Republican legislative leaders estimate the state would need to cut 7% from its budget, or 5% if revenue growth is strong.

“IM 28 is going to hurt those people who depend the most on public services,” Sanderson said during the Mitchell debate. “It impacts low-income South Dakotans the most.”

Those potential cuts have the South Dakota Education Association opposing the measure, too. South Dakota is 49th in the nation for average teacher pay. Association President Loren Paul said in a statement to South Dakota Searchlight that schools are making progress addressing a teacher shortage, thanks to recent increases in state funding for education.

“IM 28’s cuts would undermine this progress, potentially returning South Dakota to its previous position of 51st in the nation for teacher pay,” Paul said.

Concerns about budget problems also inspired Initiated Measure 28’s opponents to hold a press conference in July calling the measure “a trap” that could ultimately result in a push for an income tax to replace the lost revenue. Supporters of the measure say South Dakota’s Republican-dominated Legislature and electorate would never support an income tax.

Weiland has little empathy for the budget concerns, considering the state, by its own admission, already has $1.4 billion worth of sales and use tax exemptions for various categories of businesses and services.

“There are even pipeline sales tax exemptions in here,” Weiland said during the debate. “There are sales tax exemptions for bull semen and rodeo clowns. We’re talking about families in South Dakota that are struggling.”

What’s described by his opponents as a loss of state revenue can also be described as tax relief for low-income people, Weiland added.

“We hear a lot from special interest groups in the Capitol every year,” he said, “but it’s time that we lobby on behalf of the taxpayer.” 

Effect on cities also in dispute

The measure states it would not affect the ability of cities to impose their own sales taxes on human consumption goods. 

Opponents dispute that point. Existing state law says cities can’t impose sales taxes on anything the state doesn’t tax. That law and Initiated Measure 28 would be in conflict if the measure passes, opponents say, and the conflict might have to be settled in court. Opponents say that would put $51 million of annual city sales tax revenue at risk.

According to the state’s Legislative Research Council and Neal Fulton, dean of the Knudson School of Law at the University of South Dakota, new state law generally supersedes old state law when conflicts arise. 

The South Dakota Municipal League does not want to risk cities’ budgets on a judge’s interpretation. It too is part of the effort to defeat the measure. 

Meanwhile, the South Dakota Democratic Party issued a press release in support of the measure, calling it immoral to tax people for buying food. 

Among the 45 states that collect a statewide sales tax, South Dakota is currently 36th in combined state and local rates, making it one of the lowest, according to the nonprofit and nonpartisan Tax Foundation. South Dakota and Mississippi are the only sales-tax states that apply their full tax rates to groceries.

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

Photo: Nathan Sanderson, left, executive directors of the South Dakota Retailers Association, and Rick Weiland, chairman of Dakotans for Health, participate in an election forum on Sept. 19, 2024, at Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)

Related posts

•  SD grocery tax repeal validated for the ballot 
• Group says it’s filing petition signatures to put grocery tax repeal on South Dakota ballot
• Budget reckoning looms in Pierre as Governor Kristi Noem talks tax cuts and discipline
• South Dakota News Watch: Gov. Kristi Noem pulls support for grocery tax measure over jeopardized tobacco money
• A tale of two states, two sales taxes: Jensen and Noem share very different campaign promises
• SD lawmakers (like Dem gubernatorial contender Smith) tried cutting grocery sales tax before 

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

SD Amendment G: Supporters seek to restore abortion rights that opponents call extreme

An analysis of the abortion amendment on the South Dakota ballot, part of a series of ballot measure reviews from the South Dakota Searchlight.

Amendment G: Supporters seek to restore abortion rights that opponents call extreme
by Makenzie Huber

Opponents of Amendment G say it’s an extreme measure that would allow unrestricted and unregulated access to abortion. Supporters say it would restore broadly supported and safe abortion rights that stood for 49 years prior to 2022.

The state constitutional amendment is one of seven questions on South Dakota’s Nov. 5 general election ballot. Two of the most visible people in the Amendment G campaign are anti-abortion activist Caroline Woods and abortion-rights supporter Nancy Turbak Berry.

When they debated last month in Mitchell, Woods argued the amendment’s wording would allow abortion up to birth. That’s because the amendment would allow the state to enact a third-trimester abortion ban but would require an exception when a physician determines an abortion is necessary to preserve the “life or health of the pregnant woman.”

Woods pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Doe v. Bolton, which said a physician assessing a pregnant woman’s health may take into account all factors relevant to her wellbeing — “physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age.”

“This means for nearly any reason, an abortion doctor can justify an abortion,” Woods said.

Turbak Berry countered that South Dakotans lived under the Supreme Court’s definition of health for nearly 50 years until the state banned abortion in 2022. 

“Abortion up to birth is a slogan, not a reality,” Turbak Berry said. “If a woman is approaching term and for some reason can’t continue pregnancy, the doctor doesn’t abort the fetus — they deliver the baby.”

When most abortions occur

Babies are generally considered viable — able to survive outside the womb — as they near the third trimester (27 weeks of gestation), but other factors can impact survivability, leading to earlier or later viability. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established nationwide abortion rights allowed for bans after viability, unless an abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

The vast majority of abortions in the United States, according to the Pew Research Center, occur in the first trimester. In 2020, 93% of abortions occurred in the first trimester. About 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation. Gestation lasts 40 weeks.

On average, 92.3% of abortions in South Dakota between 2014 and 2022 occurred in the first trimester of pregnancy.

The state Department of Health’s annual abortion report did not separate abortions by gestational age in the second and third trimesters. Between 2014 and 2019, an average of 33 women a year terminated a pregnancy after 13 weeks, which is the start of the second trimester.

Former, current and proposed abortion law

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the national right to an abortion in 2022. When that happened, a trigger law adopted by the South Dakota Legislature in 2005 immediately banned abortion in the state, with one exception to “preserve the life of the pregnant female.”

Disputes over the meaning of that exception have caused consternation among some South Dakota physicians who worry they will be charged with a felony if they act too quickly to intervene on behalf of a pregnant patient’s life.

The state Department of Health released an informational video in September explaining when a medical provider could perform an abortion within the state’s exception. Some doctors said that the video did not address their concerns, and that the advice was not legally binding and they still fear repercussions.

A ballot question committee, Dakotans for Health, gathered petition signatures earlier this year to put Amendment G on the ballot. Turbak Berry leads a group affiliated with Dakotans for Health, the Freedom Amendment Coalition.

An opposing ballot question committee, the Life Defense Fund, for which Woods is a spokeswoman, has filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate Amendment G. The suit, which is not scheduled to be resolved until after the election, claims Dakotans for Health violated laws that govern the circulation of petitions. 

Amendment G would prohibit first-trimester regulations on “a pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its effectuation.” In the second trimester, it would allow regulations “reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.” In the third trimester, it would allow an abortion ban with a mandatory exception to “preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.”

Proponents say the amendment is supported by voters, citing a Chiesman Center for Democracy and South Dakota News Watch poll showing that 53% of respondents support the amendment. They also point to 2006 and 2008, when South Dakota voters defeated abortion bans with about 55% against a ban each time.

South Dakota is one of 10 states with an abortion-rights measure on the ballot this fall. Voters in six other states have already adopted abortion-rights measures since the 2022 Supreme Court decision.

‘Back alley’ claims, safety and parental consent

Amendment G opponents highlight language in the measure that says, for example, “the state may not regulate a pregnant woman’s abortion decision and its effectuation” in the first trimester.

Woods said such language could prohibit the state from enforcing health and safety protections such as licensing requirements for physicians and parental consent for minors seeking abortions.

“This is going to put a lot of women’s health and livelihoods in jeopardy,” Woods said. “That’s not what South Dakotans want.”

That would “take us back to the dark ages,” Woods said during the September debate.

“You don’t have to be a doctor to perform an abortion,” Woods added. “It can be on the black market.”

That would legalize “back alley abortions,” Woods claimed.

Turbak Berry said general public health laws and administrative rules would still apply, including for safety, licensing and informed consent.

Abortion is generally considered a medical procedure. It is recognized as such in South Dakota law under the public health and safety title.

Under Roe v. Wade, which Amendment G backers say their measure emulates, and in the U.S. Supreme Court decision Connecticut v. Menillo (1975), Turbak Berry said, states may require that only a physician licensed by the state can prescribe an abortion. South Dakota law requires physicians to be licensed in the state to practice medicine.

States can require parental consent for a minor’s abortion based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Belotti v. Baird in 1979, Turbak Berry said. South Dakota law requires unemancipated minors to have parental consent before receiving any medical care, except in emergencies and for sexually transmitted diseases.

During the Roe era, South Dakota passed laws restricting abortion in the state, including a mandatory 72-hour waiting period in which a woman seeking an abortion had to receive counseling and material to discourage an abortion before the procedure could be completed. South Dakota law before the abortion ban was triggered in 2022 required a parent of a minor be notified 48 hours before an unemancipated minor or incompetent female received an abortion.

Ultimately, if Amendment G passes and there is a disagreement about what state regulations can be implemented, that would be settled in court. The attorney general wrote in his official ballot explanation that “judicial clarification of the amendment may be necessary.”

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

Photo: Caroline Woods, left, and Nancy Turbak Berry participate in a forum about an abortion-rights ballot measure on Sept. 19, 2024, at Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight)

Related posts

• 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
• Mifepristone ruling digest: SCOTUS rejects attempt to limit access to abortion pill; doesn't change South Dakota’s existing ban
• SD News Watch poll shows South Dakota abortion amendment holds nearly 20-point lead
• South Dakota's Republican Secretary of State Monae Johnson runs afoul of anti-abortion groups after labeling their phone calls a ‘scam’
• ACLU, Planned Parenthood North Central States, SD Justice Empowerment Network don’t support ballot measure aiming to restore abortion access 
• At SD Democratic Party reproductive rights rally, Sioux Falls Rep. Duba shares her abortion story
• In South Dakota, where abortion is now outlawed, college students ramp up activism
• SD News Watch:SD women evade abortion ban by accessing medication in neighboring states
• View from the Coteau: a tale of two states in the wake of SCOTUS's Dobbs v. Jackson decision 
•  Abortion poll: Is South Dakota the next Kansas?

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

 

IA Supreme Court hears landowner case against Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline surveys

Yesterday Bluestem republished North Dakota regulators inch closer to Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline decision but missed this new chapter from Iowa in the Upper Midwest ethanol carbon pipeline saga.

From Iowa Capitol Dispatch.

Iowa Supreme Court hears landowner case against Summit pipeline surveys
by Cami Koons

Affected landowners and pipeline opposers protest at Capitol

Iowa Supreme Court justices and an uncommonly large audience heard oral arguments Tuesday on the constitutionality of an Iowa law that allows a carbon pipeline company to enter and survey a Hardin County landowner’s property.

“We can’t allow Iowa landowners to be subjected to the mere convenience of a for-profit company intruding on their land against their will,” said Brian Jorde, the attorney who represented the affected landowner, following the hearing. “I don’t know if that point was getting across to (the justices).”

Iowa Supreme Court justices heard arguments in the historic Iowa Supreme Courtroom at the Iowa State Capitol, which was filled with attendees who overflowed to two additional rooms at the Capitol.

The district court in Hardin County ruled in May 2023 that landowner Kent Kasischke could not interfere with Summit Carbon Solutions’ attempts to enter his land to survey for its pipeline project. The company plans to build a pipeline that would transport sequestered carbon dioxide from ethanol plants to underground storage in North Dakota. 

Kasischke is appealing the Hardin County decision on the argument that it is unconstitutional for a pipeline company to undertake land surveys and examinations before it is vested with eminent domain.

“You wouldn’t want someone just roaming around your backyard, just for the heck of it, and that’s what this statue really allows,” Jorde said. 

The Iowa Utilities Commission issued a permit in August and granted eminent domain to Summit Carbon Solutions for the initial phase of the project of nearly 700 miles of pipeline through Iowa. Summit Carbon did not have the ability to condemn property when the dispute over surveying in Hardin County initially occurred. 

“You can not have a pre-condemnation survey exercised by an entity that does not have condemnation, and is not vested with the power of eminent domain,” Jorde said in oral arguments. 

Justices questioned Jorde on the scope of the surveys that are permitted and how other entities, like a utilities company, conduct surveys for easements. 

Jorde argued that the Iowa statute is too broad and allows entities to perform “anything, anytime, invasive or otherwise.” 

He asked the court to find Iowa Code 479B.15 unconstitutional or to at least narrow the scope of surveys to be “minimally invasive,” as he said the Supreme Court did in South Dakota. 

Ryan Koopmans represented Summit Carbon Solutions in the oral arguments and said the law could not be considered unconstitutional unless it would be “unconstitutional under any application, under any set of facts.”

“If we were to hold that this statute was an unconstitutional taking, what effect would it have on all the other Iowa statutes that allow survey access for private and governmental entities?” Justice Thomas Waterman asked. 

Koopmans said it would be an “on or off switch.”

“If we don’t have it, then Iowa (Department of Transportation) doesn’t have it, railroads don’t have it, electric utilities don’t have it,” Koopmans said.

He said without the statute, companies and entities would have to go through the condemnation process just to survey the land to see if it fit a proposed project. 

Summit asked the court to uphold the district court’s ruling that granted its injunction to enter Kasischke’s land for the purposes of surveying. Koopmans clarified that an injunction is not guaranteed by the law, but that because of the landowner’s refusal and the determinations of the district court, “an injunction is warranted.” 

The Supreme Court has until the end of its term in June to make a decision on the case, though it will likely come sooner. 

Not the first case of its kind

The Hardin County district court ruling did not align with a similar case, also in May 2023, dealing with a Clay County landowner along the now-abandoned Navigator CO2 Ventures pipeline. In that case, the district judge agreed with landowners that the Iowa law was unconstitutional, since landowners were not compensated for intangible damages of allowing a survey on the land. 

Jorde has worked with many landowners in opposition to the Summit and former Navigator pipelines, including a similar survey-related case in South Dakota. In that case, the state Supreme Court ruled in August that Summit Carbon had not proven itself as a common carrier, and sent the issue back to the lower courts.

Landowners and pipeline opponents gathered outside of the Iowa Capitol, prior to the Tuesday hearing, in protest. Ed Fischbach, an active pipeline fighter, spoke about his efforts opposing the pipeline in South Dakota. 

“Summit has nothing in South Dakota at this point in time that they can claim a victory for,” Fischbach said. “I’m here to say, ‘Summit, no means no, and it’s time to pack up and go home like Navigator did.”

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

Photo: Close to 80 people gathered outside the Iowa Capitol Oct. 8 for a demonstration against the Summit Carbon pipeline before a Supreme Court hearing. (Photo by Cami Koons/Iowa Capital Dispatch)

Related posts

• North Dakota regulators inch closer to Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline decision
• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• In Iowa: Summit Carbon Solutions begins outreach for expansion ethanol carbon pipeline; both sides more informed this time around
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• North Dakota Public Service Commission staff outlines legal option for landowners in Summit ethanol carbon pipeline fight 
• Livestreaming today at 1:30, ND regulators to hold work session to discuss Summit pipeline
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• Breaking news: Iowa Utilities Commission issues ethanol carbon pipeline permit for Summit Carbon Solutions
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• More carbon pipeline news: Summit jumpstarts pipeline efforts with purchase of old land easement agreements in Iowa
• IA Rep. Miller-Meeks says carbon pipelines will help Iowa ethanol industry stay competitive
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Carbon capture news from elsewhere: New Illinois law lays out safety requirements for future carbon sequestration projects
• Broad array of groups object to Summit pipeline permit approval by Iowa Utilities Commission
• Iowa ethanol carbon pipeline opponents poised for Summit Carbon Solutions permit challenges
• 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
• News digest: District 1, the edge of the primary election political earthquake in South Dakota
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
• Company behind proposed Lake Preston jet fuel plant buoyed by federal carbon credit ruling
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
• ND GOP resolution against CCS pipelines decries "false premise of looming climate apocalypse
• Summit Carbon Solutions says ethanol carbon pipeline system won’t be operational until 2026
• Some Iowa landowners were confused by Summit Carbon Solution eminent domain process
• Navigator CO2 pulls its ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Illinois
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!

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

Aaron Repinski, GOP House 26A candidate, says he’s open to an abortion ban at ‘5 or 6 weeks’

Bluestem is never amazed at the things that get said at Republican United State Senate candidate Royce White's gatherings.

From the Minnesota Reformer.

GOP House candidate from Winona says he’s open to an abortion ban at ‘5 or 6 weeks’
By Madison McVan

A Republican candidate for the Minnesota House said he believes abortion should be limited, and expressed openness to abortion bans after the 5th or 6th week of pregnancy — before many women know they’re pregnant — according to a recording obtained by the Reformer. 

Aaron Repinski is a Winona business owner and city council member running against DFL candidate Sarah Kruger to fill the seat vacated by DFL Rep. Gene Pelowski, an anti-abortion Democrat who retired this year after serving in the Legislature for 38 years.

During a side conversation at a town hall for GOP Senate candidate Royce White, Repinski said there should be stricter limits on abortion. Repinski’s campaign manager said the candidate was unaware he was being recorded.

“I don’t know what the exact time frame is, but there needs to be a compromise and a conversation from both sides, and so maybe it is 5 to 6 weeks — I don’t know,” Repinski said. 

A study of more than 17,000 women who were pregnant between 1990 and 2012 found that the average woman was 5.5 weeks pregnant when she became aware of the pregnancy. Women with unintended pregnancies — those more likely to be ended by abortion — learned they were pregnant an average of 2 weeks later than women who were trying to conceive.

Given this data, a ban on abortions after 5 or 6 weeks would constitute a near-total abortion ban. Minnesota law doesn’t regulate when a person may have an abortion, and lawmakers removed obstacles to the procedure like mandatory waiting periods in the 2023 legislative session.

“There has to be a compromise and there has to be…there are instances where that’s probably the right choice,” Repinski continued. “You know, I’ll be honest with that, but that’s a conversation between a patient and a doctor and there has to be a limited, and I say limited, amount of time that that’s acceptable. Not 20 weeks or 24. No, no, it has to be a limited amount of time.”

Repinski’s views on abortion are not listed on his campaign website, but he recently attended a memorial for the “pre-born lives lost to abortion” in Winona, according to his campaign Facebook account. 

Repinski declined the Reformer’s request for comment. 

House District 26A is a swing district that will help determine which party controls the House. Protecting abortion access is one of Kruger’s priorities — a key difference from Pelowski, although the area’s former DFL representative has still endorsed her.

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

Photo: Aaron Repinksi. Campaign photo.

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?

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

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

North Dakota regulators inch closer to Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline decision

 

Another installment in the controversial Upper Midwest saga of Summit Carbon Solutions efforts to construct a multi-state web of ethanol Carbon pipelines. See related posts below for earlier chapters.

From the North Dakota Monitor.

North Dakota regulators inch closer to Summit pipeline decision
by Jeff Beach

A North Dakota state agency on Monday moved closer to making a decision on what developers are calling the world’s largest carbon capture pipeline project. 

During a work session on the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline, the North Dakota Public Service Commission directed staff to prepare an order for the commissioners to vote on. 

North Dakota is the end point of a five-state pipeline network linking 57 ethanol plants to an area in Oliver, Morton and Mercer counties. Carbon emissions captured from the plants would be permanently stored deep underground. 

It has been more than a year since the three-person commission first voted to deny Summit a route permit. The commission gave Summit a chance to amend its application and held another round of public hearings.  

Summit’s changes include moving the route farther east of the city of Bismarck.  

Commissioners on Monday did not discuss another work session or when a vote might take place. Commissioner Sheri Haugen-Hoffart requested an update from Summit on its efforts to obtain voluntary easements from landowners along the proposed route. 

Summit says it has obtained about 80% of the route it needs through voluntary easements, with landowners receiving a payment in return for that right-of-way. 

Without a voluntary easement, Summit may try to use eminent domain, which is getting a court order to force landowners to provide a right-of-way, though they would still receive some compensation.

Eminent domain has been a main point of contention from landowners who have voiced concerns about pipeline safety, damage to farmland and lower property values. 

Summit and ethanol industry advocates say the carbon capture pipeline is needed to help lower carbon emissions and keep the ethanol industry competitive. 

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

Photo:  Administrative Law Judge Hope Hogan, left, and Public Service Commissioner Sheri Haugen-Hoffart conduct a hearing April 22, 2024, in Mandan on the Summit Carbon Solutions pipeline. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor)

Related posts 

• Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition 
• In Iowa: Summit Carbon Solutions begins outreach for expansion ethanol carbon pipeline; both sides more informed this time around
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• North Dakota Public Service Commission staff outlines legal option for landowners in Summit ethanol carbon pipeline fight 
• Livestreaming today at 1:30, ND regulators to hold work session to discuss Summit pipeline
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• Breaking news: Iowa Utilities Commission issues ethanol carbon pipeline permit for Summit Carbon Solutions
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• More carbon pipeline news: Summit jumpstarts pipeline efforts with purchase of old land easement agreements in Iowa
• IA Rep. Miller-Meeks says carbon pipelines will help Iowa ethanol industry stay competitive
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Carbon capture news from elsewhere: New Illinois law lays out safety requirements for future carbon sequestration projects
• Broad array of groups object to Summit pipeline permit approval by Iowa Utilities Commission
• Iowa ethanol carbon pipeline opponents poised for Summit Carbon Solutions permit challenges
• 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
• News digest: District 1, the edge of the primary election political earthquake in South Dakota
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
• Company behind proposed Lake Preston jet fuel plant buoyed by federal carbon credit ruling
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
• ND GOP resolution against CCS pipelines decries "false premise of looming climate apocalypse
• Summit Carbon Solutions says ethanol carbon pipeline system won’t be operational until 2026
• Some Iowa landowners were confused by Summit Carbon Solution eminent domain process
• Navigator CO2 pulls its ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Illinois
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!

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 Amendment E: Expanding the state constitution’s scope beyond men

It's not often that I agree with Governor Kristi Noem, but this common-sense reform of the South Dakota state constitution has my yes vote.

From South Dakota Searchlight.

Amendment E: Expanding the state constitution’s scope beyond men
by Seth Tupper

Measure is one of seven on statewide ballots for South Dakotans

The South Dakota Constitution includes a 135-year-old assumption that everybody worth mentioning in the document is a man, but voters could choose to modernize that language.

Amendment E is one of seven statewide questions on the Nov. 5 general election ballot. It would replace male pronouns in the constitution such as “he,” “him” and “his” with neutral words and phrases such as “the governor,” “the lieutenant governor,” “the officer,” “the elector,” “the accused,” and so on.

Amendments to the constitution require voter approval. Legislators voted last year to place the amendment on this year’s ballot. The vote was 35-0 in the Senate and 58-12 in the House.

Sen. Erin Tobin, R-Winner, was the bill’s prime sponsor. She also submitted the proponent statement for the official ballot-question pamphlet.

“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,” Tobin wrote.

One of the 12 no votes in the House came from Rep. Liz May, R-Kyle. She wrote the opposition statement for the ballot-question pamphlet.

“The reference to ‘he’ in our constitution is simply a singular pronoun,” May wrote. “The historic use of generic male pronouns in our constitution is proper style and form and clearly does not exclude or hinder women from holding public office.”

Similar legislation last year changed male pronouns to neutral words and phrases in the state’s codified laws, which are not part of the constitution and don’t require voter approval to amend. Lawmakers approved that legislation by wide margins and Kristi Noem — the state’s first female governor — signed it into law.

While signing that bill, Noem, a Republican, voiced support for updating the constitution.

“Every little girl in South Dakota should realize that she can grow up to do whatever she wants to do – to be whoever she wants to be,” Noem said. “We are fixing our laws and South Dakota Constitution so that they reflect the fact that women and men can both attain offices like governor.”

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

Photo: Governor Kristi Noem – South Dakota’s first female governor – signs a bill March 27, 2023, at the Capitol that replaces male pronouns in the state’s codified laws with neutral words and phrases such as “the governor.” (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

 

Two Matts attempt to school Red Lake Tribal voters on behalf of MNHouse 2A GOP candidate

Update 10/9: The Matts' Missive discussed below, first published in the Red Lake Nation News on October 4, has now seen the light of day as a paid political letter dated October 9 on the Bemidji Pioneer website: Paid political letter: Duran will be a strong voice for Northern Minnesota, law enforcement, and our veterans. end update

Late in September, Bluestem Prairie noted that the Minnesota Star Tribune reported Rep Grossell resigned MNHouse seat last year as ethics of 2A GOP candidate swirl.

Bidal Duran, a retired law enforcement member, is the Republican candidate running to replace Matt Grossell, R-Clearbrook, who announced his retirement earlier. 

There was some confusion about that in Minnesota's leading newspaper. According to the Strib:

The 2A seat was previously held by Rep. Matt Grossell, R-Clearbrook, who resigned after pleading guilty last year to drunk driving in his fourth and final term. 

As I noted in the post, Grossell continues to serve, though he announced his retirement earlier this year. 

yes, he's still here--indeed, he's the author of a letter, with his colleague Matt Bliss, R-Pennington, in the Red Lake Nation News, Duran will be a strong voice for Northern Minnesota, law enforcement, and our veterans. 

Bluestem is surprised the Republican House caucus trotted out Grossell to defend his honor, given that the 2023 drunk driving conviction was merely the latest offense on the retired law enforcement officer's record, as I noted in Matt Grossell cited for DWI. Apparently diversion program for 2019 disorderly night wore off.

Though to give Grossell credit, his offenses happened after he retired, whereas the ethically questionable behavior by Duran reported in the Strib's  State 2A House race pits terminated sheriff deputy against Bemidji homeless shelter director and the Minnesota Reformer's Judge says Minnesota GOP House candidate lied on search warrant as Hubbard County sheriff’s deputy occurred during his tenure in law enforcement.

The later news article noted that that Duran had:

A Republican candidate for a state House seat who is running on his experience in law enforcement was excoriated by a state judge last fall for “intentionally or recklessly mischaracterizing the truth” on a pair of affidavits in a felony drug case. . .

Last fall, Duran was also given a written reprimand for turning off his body camera twice during an interaction with a member of the public, who told investigators Duran threatened them with jail unless they answered his questions. . . .

In Duran will be a strong voice for Northern Minnesota, law enforcement, and our veterans, Bliss and Grossell say of the information--though not mentioning either article or place of publication:

Democrats may be slinging mud and digging through his record trying to smear his service, but we know the truth: Bidal’s experience in both the military, law enforcement, and as a dedicated husband and father demonstrates a lifetime of dedication to serving others.

As I suggested above, perhaps Grossell isn't the best character witness.

I haven't seen the letter published online in any other newspapers or media outlets in the district. Perhaps the letter was sent to the Red Lake Nation News because it published the extended lede of the Strib article as State 2A House race pits sheriff's deputy who was terminated against Bemidji homeless shelter director, as well as the extended lede of the Reformer story, Judge says Minnesota GOP House candidate lied on search warrant as Hubbard County sheriff's deputy.

Why else might the tribal news outlet be selected? Duran has some history with tribal members, the Star Tribune reported:

. . . But Olson and his supporters are concerned with Duran’s time as a Bemidji police officer. Duran fatally shot Vernon May, 34, of Red Lake, during a 2018 traffic stop. Duran was cleared of criminal charges as May was armed, but the killing provoked tensions and protests. . . .

That news is known to the tribal community. In December 2018, it published Man killed by Bemidji police, officers identified, which id'ed tribal member Vernon May as the man killed in a traffic stop,

In January 2019, the tribal media outlet published Body Cam Footage- Bemidji Police Officers Cleared In Shooting Death Of Vernon May, a Lakeland News story:

The Beltrami County Attorney's Office has announced that they have cleared Bemidji Police Officer Bidal Duran and Beltrami County Sheriff's Deputy Brandon Newhouse in the officer-involved shooting death of Vernon Andrew May. The shooting happened on November 28th, 2018.

The incident was investigated by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). The BCA submitted its file to the Beltrami County Attorney's office for review of whether the actions of the law enforcement officers involved were justified, and therefore legal, under Minnesota Statute § 609.066.

The evidence gathered by the BCA shows that on November 28, 2018 Officer Duran attempted to arrest Vernon May on an outstanding felony warrant. Vernon May had a gun. A struggle ensued for control of the gun. Vernon May had primary control of the gun and repeatedly stated "shoot me." Ultimately, Officer Duran, in fear of his life, made the decision to fire his gun at Vernon May. Deputy Newhouse assisted Officer Duran during the incident and observed that Vernon May appeared intent on hurting someone, Deputy Newhouse also fired his gun at Vernon May. A total of 10 shots were fired, nine by Officer Duran and one by Deputy Newhouse.

Beltrami County Attorney David Hanson announced today that he has concluded, after a thorough review of the facts surrounding the death and determined Officer Duran and Deputy Newhouse were legally justified when they used deadly force that resulted in Mr. May's death.

Access to the evidence obtained by the BCA during their investigation into this incident, as well as other investigative reports compiled in this case may be accessed by contacting the BCA Public Information Officer Jill Oliveira at 651-793-2726.

A YouTube of the police body cam footage is included in the Red Lake Nation News item:

There's more on the death in the Bemidji Pioneer. It reported on November 30, 2018 in UPDATED: BCA releases names in shooting death; group protests in downtown Bemidji:

By the time officials released the name of Vernon May on Friday, the world already knew he was the man killed during an officer-involved shooting two days before.

And, in that brief time, his name became a rallying cry on the Internet, the focus of local debate about whether law enforcement was justified in his shooting death, and the spark for a protest through downtown on Friday night.  . . . 

By Friday, a protest had begun forming through social media, ultimately bringing upward of 60 people to the Paul and Babe statues in downtown Bemidji on Friday night. A drum circle filled the winter night with the sound of Native singers. . . .

Before the officers were cleared, the Pioneer reported in  January 2019's Beltrami County attorney begins reviewing fatal shooting:

 . . .The shooting has caused substantial unrest within the Native American community, which has called for more clarity regarding what happened during the traffic stop. Because of that, Police Chief Mike Mastin issued a statement Dec. 14, indicating that the footage from Duran's body camera eventually would be made public. . . .

Did the county attorney's findings settle matters for Red Lake Tribe's community members? In December 2019, the Pioneer reported in Deadly-force meeting in Bemidji explores Native American treatment in justice system:

One after another, multiple Native American activists stepped forward Tuesday, Dec. 17, to air grievances about the deep distrust they have with law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system overall.

Held on the BSU campus, Tuesday's session was just one of several meetings held statewide by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, focusing on ways to reduce deadly force encounters between law enforcement and local residents. .  . .

Police-involved shootings have been a major source of debate in Minnesota and across the country in recent years. Contrary to the perception that it's an urban issue, Ellison said a large number of the deadly force encounters occur in greater Minnesota. One of those happened just over a year ago when a Bemidji Police officer and a Beltrami County Sheriff's deputy shot and killed 34-year-old Vernon May of Red Lake during a traffic stop, which created substantial backlash from the Native community. . . .

Has Duran gained the trust of tribal members? Will the letter have an impact on their votes?

Update October 8: This post has been republished by Red Lake Nation News. [end update]

Photo: A crowd marched along Minnesota Avenue in downtown Bemidji in 2018, protesting the shooting death of Vernon May, 34, by local law enforcement. (Jordan Shearer | Bemidji Pioneer).

Related posts

• Minnesota Star Tribune reported Rep Grossell resigned MNHouse seat last year as ethics of 2A GOP candidate swirl
• Matt Grossell won't run for MNHouse in 2024; sold his house on September 5, 2023 
• MN state representative Matt Grossell enters guilty plea to February DWI charge
• Update: Rep. Matt Grossell arraigned for DWI
• Matt Grossell DWI update: implied consent hearing petition filed & more from MCRO
• Matt Grossell cited for DWI. Apparently diversion program for 2019 disorderly night wore off
• State DFL responds to Matt Grossell Facebook post
• In early morning Facebook post, Matt Grossell frets about alter agenda coordinated attack
• Snipe hunt of war: Grossell spent night out with patriot buds waiting for phantom buses.
• Beltrami Co. Sheriff addresses rumors and misinformation; Grossell presence confirmed
• Was Minnesota state representative Matt Grossell out with vigilantes during Bemidji curfew?
• Minnesota state representative Matt Grossell may not want any more Muslim colleagues elected 
• In more sober moments than Saturday morning, lawmaker has more respect for hospital staff

Photo: From the Pioneer Press, Grossell front and center during the Pledge of Allegiance on opening day.

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

Standing Rock Tribe is latest to sue social media companies for alleged mental health effects

My partner's tribe, the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate, is one of the tribes for which Robins Kaplan filed a similar lawsuit, according to the South Dakota Searchlight story below.

Standing Rock Tribe is latest to sue social media companies for alleged mental health effects
by John Holt

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North and South Dakota has filed a lawsuit in California against the parent companies of Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube and TikTok.

The lawsuit, which alleges the tech companies’ social media apps are addictive and contribute to a mental health crisis on tribal lands, is the latest in a series filed by Native American tribes through the Minneapolis-based Robins Kaplan law firm. 

In April, the Spirit Lake Tribe in North Dakota and the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin filed the first two lawsuits to make the allegations of deceptive, harmful practices and demand compensation “in an amount to be determined in a trial.”

The lawsuits all allege that the social media companies have preyed upon teens for profit by offering up content through algorithms designed to hook users and keep them online for an unhealthy amount of time. 

Recent research “draws a direct line from harmful features on social media to the youth mental health crisis happening in this country,” Robins Kaplan attorney Tara Sutton said in an April press release on the initial complaints.

That press release also pointed out that tribal teen suicide rates are roughly 3.5 times higher than the national average in the United States, according to the Center for Native American Youth.

According to Robins Kaplan, the firm has filed similar lawsuits on behalf of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa in Minnesota, Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of South Dakota, Spirit Lake Nation in North Dakota, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians based in North Dakota.

The social media companies have also been sued by 33 state attorneys general for their alleged targeting of teens. South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley is among the plaintiffs in that case. 

The companies involved have pledged to improve their protections for young people. A representative from Meta, Facebook’s parent company, appeared in Pierre this week to trumpet the protective measures on its Instagram app. The representative also said it would support an effort by lawmakers in South Dakota to implement app store-based age verification. 

The Standing Rock complaint, filed on Oct. 1, charges the social media companies with being a public nuisance, negligence and deceptive practices.

“Defendants’ conduct has created a public health crisis in Plaintiff’s communities,” the complaint says. “There has been a surge in the proportion of youth in Plaintiff’s community who are anxious, depressed, or suicidal.”

Requests for comment sent to the social media companies by South Dakota Searchlight were not immediately returned.

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

Image: The flag of the Standing Rock Tribe.

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

 

Evergreen Acres Dairy to pay $250,000 to resolve wage theft case brought by MN attorney general

The New Testament Book of James condemns wage theft. I'm not sure if this settlement is entirely just for the workers.

Bluestem last looked at this case of wage theft by republishing a Minnesota Reformer article  No criminal charges brought in Evergreen Dairy $3 million wage theft case. Was there a crime? in January.

News about the case in Thursday's Minnesota Reformer.

Minnesota dairy farm to pay $250,000 to resolve wage theft case brought by attorney general
by Max Nesterak

Evergreen Acres Dairy will pay $250,000 in back wages and make repairs to its worker housing to settle a lawsuit brought by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, who alleged the dairy’s owners underpaid hundreds of workers while charging them for squalid, cockroach-infested housing.

The settlement with Evergreen Acres, which operates 18 facilities across central Minnesota, represents a rare victory in the fight against wage theft, one of Ellison’s signature priorities.

“Today, we send a strong message that dairy farms like Evergreen and all employers in Minnesota cannot illegally profit off the backs of workers,” Ellison said in a statement on Thursday.

Yet the agreement also reflects the paltry price employers can expect to pay for cheating workers, if they’re penalized at all. The $250,000 settlement amount is less than one-tenth of the $3 million Ellison’s office said workers were owed in the lawsuit filed in January.

Fe Y Justicia Worker Center Executive Director Ma Elena Gutierrez, who helped the workers bring their complaints to the attorney general, said she was glad the abuses came to light but disappointed by the settlement amount.

“It’s not fair. It’s not justice,” Guitierrez said. “I think the workers deserve more.”

Brian Evans, a spokesman for the attorney general, said they believed the settlement was the best deal they could get for workers “given the financial struggles that many in the dairy industry are facing.” Evans said the office is still working to identify which workers are eligible for compensation so could not say how many workers will receive back pay.

Evergreen Acres owners Keith Schaefer and his daughter Megan Hill did not have to admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, and it’s unclear if they will face any criminal charges, even though stealing wages in excess of $1,000 is a felony under a 2019 Minnesota law.

A spokesperson for the Stearns County Attorney’s Office said no criminal case involving Schaefer or Hill had been referred to them.

An attorney for Schaefer and Hill did not respond to an email seeking comment.

The lawsuit was one of the largest wage theft cases brought by the Attorney General’s Office, and alleged horrific abuses of the dairy’s immigrant workforce that went far beyond stolen wages.

When one employee did not report to work because of an injury, Schaefer allegedly “grabbed him by his neck, pushed him against the wall, and told him that if he didn’t go to work, he had to leave Evergreen within 10 minutes.”

Another employee was fired for taking a day off to go to a clinic after he got chemicals in his eyes while on the job, according to the complaint.

Schaefer allegedly threatened to kill one employee and reminded the workers of a dog he recently killed. He told other employees — many of whom are undocumented immigrants — that he would call the police on them, according to the complaint.

Other details read like they were ripped from the pages of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” or George Orwell’s “Down and Out in Paris and London”: Some employees who worked 12-hour day shifts shared the same bed with others who worked 12-hour night shifts, and they had their wages automatically deducted for rent.

Evergreen employees regularly worked six days a week for $12.50 to $17.50 per hour until Evergreen Acres made them salaried employees, according to Ellison’s lawsuit.

Workers lived in garages, barns and other buildings unfit for human habitation. Some lived with bedrooms and bathrooms covered in mold, while others didn’t even have toilets.

Ellison accused Evergreen Acres of exploiting workers’ vulnerabilities, saying many are from the Oaxaca region and speak Zapotec as their first language and Spanish as their second. Many have limited or no English, nor understanding of their rights as workers, regardless of immigration status.

Ellison’s office noted the various tasks workers have to do — corralling cows, breeding cows, cleaning manure — are “physically demanding and run the risk of death and serious injury.”

In March, Ellison’s office announced a temporary injunction in which the dairy agreed to keep proper records of employee hours; stop charging rent for substandard housing; and pay for a housing inspector to document any housing code violations.

As part of the settlement dismissing the case, the Attorney General’s Office will be able to monitor the Minnesota dairy and its related companies, Evergreen Estates and Morgan Feedlots, for future violations for the next three years. Schaefer and Hill must submit regular payroll records to the Attorney General’s Office and allow inspections of its employee housing to ensure it meets basic habitability standards.

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

Photo: At one farm, workers lived in a converted barn that was infested with cockroaches. The “kitchen sink” was a utility sink next to a water heater. Photos from civil complaint, via Minnesota Reformer.

Related posts

• No criminal charges brought in Evergreen Dairy $3 million wage theft case. Was there a crime?
• Minnesota dairy farm faces $3 million wage theft lawsuit involving hundreds of workers
• Draz never heard term "wage theft" before 2019; Office of Revisor of Statutes? No later than 2015
• Session Daily: Updates to food processing, ag worker labor laws clear key committee 
• DOL investigates JBS & Turkey Valley Farms contractor for hiring minors for cleaning jobs

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

Indigenous: Harris-Walz campaign launches coalition to engage Native American voters

I'm just back from a drive to look at the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate's buffalo herd here on the Lake Traverse Reservation with a friend who is a tribal elder--and pleased to read about a coalition to energize the indigenous voter. 

From the Minnesota Reformer.

Harris-Walz campaign launches coalition to engage Native American voters
by Michelle Griffith

Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan on Wednesday helped launch the Harris-Walz campaign’s new Native American coalition, seeking to energize the often overlooked but increasingly important Indigenous vote.

“Native people will absolutely help decide the results of this election,” Flanagan told the ballroom of Native leaders and attendees at the Mystic Lake Center in Prior Lake. “Native voters in Arizona in 2020 absolutely helped to deliver the presidential race for Biden-Harris, and that’s why I’m so grateful to be here with you … to talk about everything that we can do in this moment.”

Flanagan — a member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe — would become the nation’s first Native American woman to serve as governor if Gov. Tim Walz is elected vice president. 

In August, Vice President Kamala Harris made an appeal to Native voters at a rally in Arizona, telling the crowd that as president she would honor Native American treaties.

“I will always honor tribal sovereignty and respect tribal self-determination and fight for a future where every Native person can realize their aspirations, and every Native community is a place of opportunity,” Harris said.

Native issues have been at the forefront of federal policy in recent years, especially in the courts. Last year, U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, which established federal standards aimed at keeping Native American children in the foster care system in the care of Native families. The Supreme Court that year also ruled in a 5-4 decision that the U.S government didn’t need to ensure the Navajo Nation’s access to water in the drought-ridden Colorado River system, despite an 1868 treaty guaranteeing a permanent home on the reservation.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, a member of the Pueblo of Laguna, is the nation’s first Native American cabinet secretary. In 2021, she launched the Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative, which aims to recognize the government’s role in forcibly removing Native children from their families and assimilating them in boarding schools.

On Wednesday, Flanagan said Walz would also be a good partner to Native people and defender of tribal sovereignty if elected vice president. She cited his record as governor, noting that he was the first Minnesota governor to visit all 11 tribal nations within the state’s borders; helped open the country’s first office for missing and murdered Indigenous relatives; and signed off on historic investments for tribal nations.

She also noted that in 2023, the Walz-Flanagan administration, with the help of the Minnesota Legislature, returned the land in the Upper Sioux State Park back to the Upper Sioux Community — a land transfer that the tribal community had requested for years.

Flanagan said over the next 34 days, she’ll campaign for Harris and Walz, including in Michigan.

“I’m so proud that we have two incredibly strong advocates for Indian Country on the ticket,” Flanagan said.

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

Photo: Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan spoke at the Harris-Walz Native American national coalition launch at Mystic Lake Center in Prior Lake on Oct. 2, 2024. Photo by Michelle Griffith/Minnesota Reformer.

Related post

• Interior Secretary Deb Haaland's father had Norwegian-American roots in New London, MN 

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 inclusion via video in Sioux Falls fundraiser divides SD Republican Party

Both of the Republican House candidates on the ballot in District One, home to Bluestem Prairie's world headquarters, are endorsed by Dakota First Action. 

I'm curious whether Logan Manhart or Christopher Reder attended this event.

UPDATE 2: As this post on his Facebook page reveals, Christopher Reder was also at the fundraiser:

UPDATE: It looks as if Logan Manhart was there, as the background--the stage, podium, backdrop and rail on the stage--matches that in the South Dakota Searchlight YouTube. From his personal Facebook page:

End update

From South Dakota Searchlight.

North Carolina candidate’s inclusion in Sioux Falls event divides SD Republican Party
by Joshua Haiar

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.

“CNN has no substantive proof,” Doeden said. “Republicans will eat their own. If he were on the left, not a single Democrat would have called for him to step down.”

Other Republicans react

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.”

Doeden considered but ultimately decided against challenging U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-South Dakota, in the June primary election. Doeden said he organized Tuesday’s event to celebrate the “America First conservatives” who won their June legislative primary elections, and to rally support for their general election campaigns. 

Current state Republican leaders “aren’t conservatives,” Doeden alleged. 

“They’re liberals that register as Republicans because they can’t get elected as Democrats,” he said. “These people are hacks. They’re clowns. They’re disgusting. I started my PAC to eradicate hacks like that from serving in the Legislature – period.” 

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.

She was referring to Robinson’s abortion rhetoric and his support for an abortion ban. Murschel currently serves as chair of Republicans for Freedom Amendment G. That’s the Nov. 5 ballot measure that would re-establish abortion rights in South Dakota. 

Robinson’s abortion comments have included saying, “Abortion in this country is not about protecting the lives of mothers, it’s about killing the child because you were not responsible enough to keep your skirt down.”

About 150 people attended the Sioux Falls event, including some Republican state lawmakers and legislative candidates. Robinson was originally billed as an in-person speaker, but ended up appearing by video as North Carolina recovers from severe damage caused by Hurricane Helene.

In his brief speech, Robinson criticized Democrats as people wanting to turn the country into a “socialist hellhole.”

“We’re no longer dealing with JFK, we’re no longer even dealing with Bill Clinton, we’re now dealing with confirmed socialists, confirmed communists,” Robinson said.  

Ticket prices ranged from $250 for general admission to $20,000 for a “Chairman’s Sponsorship.” Doeden did not say how much money was raised, but said proceeds would go toward Dakota First Action’s mission. The next campaign finance reporting deadline in South Dakota is Oct. 21.

Doeden said inviting Robinson to speak was an obvious choice. 

“He’s the top public speaker in the nation right now. We’re having a gala. You want the speaker to amp up the crowd,” Doeden said. “And he’s running for governor of North Carolina as an America First warrior.”

NAACP conducts protest

Robinson’s involvement was met with a protest organized by the Sioux Falls chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Julian Beaudion, a Sioux Falls NAACP member, said Robinson’s rhetoric is harmful to marginalized communities. 

“We can debate about the posts that were reported by CNN,” Beaudion said. “Or we point to the words that come directly from his mouth on stage. Those are the things we cannot dispute. Calling the civil rights movement a farce, saying Martin Luther King was weak – there’s clear hatred that’s been spewed by him.” 

HuffPost reported in January that its review of Robinson’s past Facebook posts found descriptions of King as a “communist” and the 1960s civil rights movement as “crap.”

Doeden’s own controversial comments

Doeden has a history of controversy himself. 

While he was publicly considering a challenge to Johnson, reporters called attention to some of Doeden’s social media posts. He encouraged the shooting of immigrants in gangs, used a profane insult to describe President Joe Biden, and labeled statistics about hatred of Jewish Americans as “fake.”

Doeden stood by the comments. But after the comments were reported, he opted against a run for Congress and switched to targeting what he calls “fake Republicans” in the state Legislature. His political action committee seeks to replace them with candidates who align with the “America First” agenda popularized by former President Donald Trump.

Doeden’s Dakota First Action PAC has faced scrutiny due to a $100,000 contribution from Doeden himself. Following concerns raised about state campaign finance laws — particularly the $10,000 limit on individual contributions to PACs — Doeden amended the report, stating that the money was a loan rather than a donation.

During the leadup to the June primary election, Doeden’s PAC spent about $25,000 on data acquisition and $15,000 supporting candidates. His efforts contributed to 14 losses by incumbent Republican legislators.

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

Photo: Toby Doeden speaks during Dakota First Action’s Victory Gala on Oct. 1, 2024, in Sioux Falls. (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

Summit Carbon Solution's ethanol carbon pipeline takes #2 spot on Heatmap's The Most At-Risk Projects of The Energy Transition

What progress is Summit Carbon Solutions' ethanol carbon pipeline making? As readers know, Bluestem isn't a fan.

Just up on October 1, 2024, it's at the #2 position of Heatmap's Risk Index. In The Most At-Risk Projects of the Energy Transition, there's this:

Summit Carbon Solutions is trying to build what would be the largest pipeline designed to carry carbon dioxide in the United States. The project would collect CO2 captured from ethanol plants throughout the five states that it passes through and deliver the liquified greenhouse gas to an injection well in North Dakota where the CO2 would be sequestered underground.

To date, the developer has signed up 57 separate ethanol plants to hook up to the line. Summit says the pipeline will enable ethanol producers to access new, low-carbon fuel markets, including for “sustainable aviation fuel.” But the project faces mounting opposition from a diverse range of stakeholders, including landowners who don’t want it to pass through their property, environmental groups like the Sierra Club who view it as a “false solution” to climate change, and Republican legislators who question the project’s merits on the grounds that climate change is merely a “hypothesis.” Presidential nominee Donald Trump has also said he’d help fight the pipeline if elected.

The fight escalated this summer after the Iowa Utilities Commission granted Summit the right to use eminent domain to build on the properties of unwilling landowners. Now, many of the opposition groups, including a group called Republican Legislative Intervenors for Justice, are suing to reverse the decision. The Iowa Commission also granted Summit a permit to begin construction, but it’s contingent on the company getting permits in North and South Dakota first — both of which rejected the project the first time Summit applied. The company has since altered its route in South Dakota and reapplied, but its fate in that state is also dependent on a measure on the November 5 ballot that would allow state regulators to override local ordinances and zoning laws designed to keep the pipeline out. Meanwhile, the company is also still awaiting approvals in Minnesota and Nebraska, as well as a permit to drill a Class VI CO2 storage well in North Dakota. The process of acquiring permits and easements has taken so long that one of the project’s suppliers, a pipe welding company, has also sued Summit for delaying production. —Emily

Heatmap's About Us page describes the group:

Heatmap News is climate news for the real world. We tell the inside story of the race to fix the planet, with deep reporting on emerging decarbonization trends, like electric vehicles, clean hydrogen, and carbon capture, in addition to climate change and its impact on our economy, politics, and society. (You can read more about us here.) ...

 

The winner of Adweek's 2024 Hot List for Sustainability, Heatmap has built an influential audience of hundreds of thousands of climate, energy and sustainability professionals. Our community is not just passionate about climate change and decarbonization; it's also an international network of business leaders, government officials, climate tech entrepreneurs, VC's, investors, legal and policy experts, academics, journalists, and concerned citizens.  . .. 

Screenshot: From Heatmap's At Risk page.

 

Related posts

• In Iowa: Summit Carbon Solutions begins outreach for expansion ethanol carbon pipeline; both sides more informed this time around
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news: Attorneys differ on meaning of common carrier law in Summit case
• North Dakota Public Service Commission staff outlines legal option for landowners in Summit ethanol carbon pipeline fight 
• Livestreaming today at 1:30, ND regulators to hold work session to discuss Summit pipeline
• Summit Carbon Solutions pipelines won’t capture all carbon emitted by ethanol plants
• Breaking news: Iowa Utilities Commission issues ethanol carbon pipeline permit for Summit Carbon Solutions
• Ethanol carbon news digest: Summit Carbon pipeline in MN, Iowa & North Dakota media
• South Dakota Supreme Court ruling complicates Summit Carbon Solution’s push for land
• Public can comment on Otter Tail – Wilkin Co section of ethanol carbon pipeline until Sept. 11
• Summit Carbon Solutions CEO asks for prayer, while MN PUC wants public comment on FEIS of Otter Tail – Wilkin portion of CO2 Pipeline
• More carbon pipeline news: Summit jumpstarts pipeline efforts with purchase of old land easement agreements in Iowa
• IA Rep. Miller-Meeks says carbon pipelines will help Iowa ethanol industry stay competitive
• VIDEO: Carbon capture in Minnesota: public lands, fast money, and pipe dreams
• Summit pipeline segment enters final permitting stages in Minnesota; CURE raises objections
• Referred pipeline law puts Summit Carbon Solution's permit quest in limbo
• Carbon capture news from elsewhere: New Illinois law lays out safety requirements for future carbon sequestration projects
• Broad array of groups object to Summit pipeline permit approval by Iowa Utilities Commission
• Iowa ethanol carbon pipeline opponents poised for Summit Carbon Solutions permit challenges
• 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
• News digest: District 1, the edge of the primary election political earthquake in South Dakota
• South Dakota District 1 GOP House primary news round-up: carbon pipeline politics major issue
• New Midwest battles brew over CO2 pipelines
• Company behind proposed Lake Preston jet fuel plant buoyed by federal carbon credit ruling
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!
• ND GOP resolution against CCS pipelines decries "false premise of looming climate apocalypse
• Summit Carbon Solutions says ethanol carbon pipeline system won’t be operational until 2026
• Some Iowa landowners were confused by Summit Carbon Solution eminent domain process
• Navigator CO2 pulls its ethanol carbon pipeline permit application in Illinois
• Ethanol carbon pipeline news digest: Gevo aviation fuel needs Summit Carbon Solutions and more!

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