SOUTH DAKOTA PRISON BILL HITS A ROADBLOCK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PIERRE, S.D. (Todd Epp / SDBA) – The South Dakota House rejected a bill Friday that would have transferred $148.1 million toward a new men’s prison in Lincoln County, voting 34-35 against the measure.

House Bill 1025, stripped of its original construction authorization through an amendment, would have added funding for the proposed $825 million facility planned between Harrisburg and Canton.

“We’ll have roughly $790.1 million available for the prison project, but we have separated the funding from the construction while we analyze and discuss the overall project,” amendment sponsor Rep. Jack Kolbeck, R-Sioux Falls, said.

Rep. Will Mortenson, R-Pierre, defended the spending.

“This prison isn’t a want, it’s a need,” he said. “I’d much rather be giving this money back to taxpayers, but we need to build this facility.”

Rep. Aaron Aylward, R-Harrisburg, voiced concerns about the site selection.

“Some folks woke up one morning, read in the newspaper that this thing was going in their yard, and they’ve been fighting it like crazy,” he said.

Rep. Peri Pourier, D-Rapid City, questioned whether the state should examine the root causes of incarceration.

“We don’t have enough money to feed our kids in the summertime,” she said. “They are hungry, they are trying to fill their own way out, and what does that look like?”

Rep. Mary Fitzgerald, R-Spearfish, cited public safety concerns regarding recent violent crimes.

“No one wants to build a prison, no one wants to spend the money, but I’m sorry, people continue to hurt other people,” she said.

Rep. Liz May, R-Kyle, emphasized fiscal constraints.

“We argue back and forth here over a few million dollars for this and a few million dollars for that,” she said. “I really don’t want to build a billion-dollar prison.”

The Department of Corrections requested the new facility to replace the aging state penitentiary in Sioux Falls.

The amended bill would have freed up approximately $34 million to fund other needs in the Fiscal Year 2026 budget.

The legislature is approaching one of its most important deadlines–“Crossover Day.” Tuesday, all bills from the house of origin must be passed or killed. This deadline puts additional pressure on legislators to devise a solution or compromise on prison funding.

Bill supporters asked for reconsideration of the measure on Monday.

 

MEASURE TO TRANSFORM BRAND BOARD CLEARS OUT OF THE HOSUE WITH A VETO-PROOF MAJORITY

PIERRE, S.D. (Austin Goss / SDBA) – The latest attempt to steer control of a crucial commission away from the governor’s office is on its way to the State Senate for further consideration.

The South Dakota State House gave a strong endorsement to House Bill 1266, which would move the state’s Brand Board out from under the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) and under the Office of School and Public Lands (S&PL).

A bevy of lawmakers past and current have made a run at like reforms over the years, responsive to concerns from South Dakota ranchers that the board — responsible for registering and regulating livestock brands, and ensuring new brands do not conflict with existing registered brands in the state — has not been actively fulfilling its obligations.

During the measure’s first committee hearing in the House’s Agriculture and Natural Resources committee, ranchers from across the state holding brands approved by the Brand Board laid into it about delays in service, cattle rustling complaints going unanswered and unsolved, and the pace at which members had been appointed to the four-member board.

“Producers are growing increasingly frustrated with the Brand Board under DANR,” said freshman Rep. Jana Hunt, the bill’s prime sponsor. “Fees have been increasing, and stock barns and producers want to know why.”

Hunt pointed out too, that the office hasn’t been audited since 2008. Moving it under S&PL Commissioner Brock Greenfield could open the door to that.

“Producers deserve to know how their money is being spent,” Hunt continued.

Opposition to the measure focused on the new governor’s commitment to finding solutions. A policy advisor with the governor’s office assured committee members during HB 1266’s committee hearing that Gov. Larry Rhoden, a brand holder himself, was focused on patching up problems. The legislation could create bureaucratic hang-ups too, noted the governor’s office, if the governor were to maintain appointment authority while another statewide elected office handled operations.

“Give the governor, a rancher, time to sort this out,” said Rep. Tim Goodwin. “He’s only been on the job two weeks. He can figure this out. He’s a West River guy.”

But patience, particularly amongst policymakers representing largely agricultural communities, has run thin. Rep. Liz May of Kyle — a longtime proponent of sweeping changes to the Brand Board — pointed out that Rhoden has been a member of the executive branch since 2019, and the problems faced by ranchers have only continued to get worse.

“Right now, voices are not being heard,” said May, noting that instances of cattle theft have continued to rise. “He has been in this fight as long as I have, and he has had opportunities to do something different and he has not… We are trying to look for the largest part of our agricultural industry, the number one industry in the state.”

The House’s Native American lawmakers too said that inefficiencies had particularly harmed their constituents.

“Producers, time and time again, have come to the Legislature wanting change, and it hasn’t happened,” said Democrat Eric Emery. “I think the time has come that it is beyond the governor’s control, we need to listen to our cattle producers and advocate for their needs.”

Lawmakers voted 47-22 to advance the bill to the State Senate. That gives them just enough to uphold the measure, should Rhoden have the opportunity to veto it.

Reform to the DANR based commission has long been a goal of various lawmakers. Just last year, a measure failed in the Senate that would have required Brand Board members to be elected by brand holders, instead of appointed by the governor.

 

SOUTH DAKOTA GOP ELECTS NEW LEADERSHIP AT WEEKEND MEETING

PIERRE, S.D. (Austin Goss / SDBA) – The Central Committee of the South Dakota Republican Party sent another message of opposition to a proposed carbon capture pipeline by electing a leader of the anti-carbon pipeline movement as its chairman.

Members of GOP county leadership from across the state elevated Miller’s Jim Eschenbaum to the top spot in the party Saturday, replacing outgoing Chair and former State Sen. John Wiik. Eschenbaum — a Hand County Commissioner who led the movement to repeal Senate Bill 201 at the ballot box last November with Referred Law 21 — defeated former lawmaker Lee Qualm and anti-Amendment H campaign leader Ezra Hays to seize the nomination. Notably, both Qualm and Hays were opponents of the carbon capture pipeline proposal as well.

Qualm was knocked off on the first ballot, receiving just five fewer votes than Hays in order to make it into the run-off race. Eschenbaum beat Hays on the second ballot by a vote of 103-98.

Janet Jensen, wife of lawmaker Phil Jensen and a longtime party activist herself, received the nod to become the party’s vice-chair, replacing Rep. Mary Fitzgerald in the role. Meanwhile, fellow lawmaker Tina Mullaly — who headed the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance with Eschenbaum in opposition to RL 21 last year — will serve as the party’s treasurer. Starla Russell ran unopposed to become the party’s next secretary.

Eschenbaum did not immediately respond to a request for comment from South Dakota Broadcasters Association. The carbon pipeline opposition stance was reinforced by a vote by the Central Committee to support House Bill 1052, which would effectively bring an end to Summit Carbon Solution’s bid to build a carbon pipeline connecting ethanol plants in eastern South Dakota.

The GOP’s new leadership will be tasked with finding footing for the party right away. Though Republicans continue to dominate the Rushmore State’s elected offices, the state party apparatus has lagged in fundraising over the last several years. The party reported about $57,500 cash on hand to the Federal Elections Commission this month. Eschenbaum and his team will have to deal with staffing changes as well. Current South Dakota Republican Party Executive Director Reggie Rhoden posted to social media Friday that he would not seek the job under the next chair.

Rounding out the regional advisory board for the party was: Tom Pischke in District 1, Ben Krohmer in District 2, Doug Post in District 3, Rich Hilgemann in District 4, Tom Bruner in District 5, and Ezra Hays in District 6.

All members of party leadership will serve two-year terms.

 

REPUBLICAN LAWMAKER SEEKS A CRACKDOWN ON CITIZEN-BACKED BALLOT MEASURES

PIERRE, S.D. (Joshua Haiar / South Dakota Searchlight) – Some Republicans, many of them aligned with anti-abortion groups, are tired of South Dakotans petitioning their ideas onto the ballot.

“There are things being put on the ballot that they can’t get through the Legislature,” said Brian Gosch, a Republican former state lawmaker who lobbies for clients including South Dakota Family Voice Action, which opposes abortion rights. “They’re trying to bypass that process to go around it and then get their way through some other means.”

Gosch was testifying recently on behalf of legislation that would limit how often similar ballot questions can be proposed to voters. The bill is one of many that Republican lawmakers have proposed during the current legislative session at the Capitol in Pierre to crack down on citizen-backed ballot measures. The bills include efforts to reduce the time for signature gathering, to require signatures from every legislative district in the state, to raise the threshold to pass a constitutional amendment to 60%, and more.

Rep. Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls, said citizens putting issues on the ballot that their lawmakers will not entertain is a good thing.

“They’re trying to let the people decide; they’re trying to participate in democracy,” Healy said. “And Republicans here in this building continue to try to completely just squash their voice, and that’s wrong, and that’s undemocratic, and I’m tired of it.”

Nancy Turbak Berry is a Democratic former legislator who is co-chairing an effort to bring an abortion-rights measure to the ballot in 2026.

“The Legislature knows they are out of touch with what most South Dakotans want,” she said. “So, they want to limit our ability to put stuff into law. Plain and simple.”

The “Protect Our Initiatives Coalition” was recently launched in response to the wave of ballot measure legislation.

“The sponsors of these bills attacking our initiative process say they are trying to stop out-of-state money from flooding our elections, but we don’t buy that the solution should be a systemic attack on the initiated process itself,” said Chase Jensen of Dakota Rural Action, one of 10 coalition members.

The state has three types of statewide ballot measures: constitutional amendments, initiated measures and referendums.

To be placed on the ballot, citizen-backed constitutional amendments need petition signatures from registered voters equal to 10% of the votes cast in the last election for governor. The current signature requirement is 35,017. State lawmakers can also send constitutional amendments to the ballot.

Initiated measures propose an ordinary law, and referendums put a law passed by legislators on the ballot, with each requiring signatures equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last governor’s race. That threshold is 17,508 signatures.

This year’s legislation includes:

• A bill that would move the deadline for filing ballot measure petition signatures from May up to February, shortening the time available for signature collection.
• A bill that would require signatures for constitutional amendments to be gathered from every legislative district in the state.
• A resolution that would ask voters to raise the approval threshold for constitutional amendments from a simple majority to 60% of votes cast.
• A resolution that would ask voters to require defeated questions to wait for one general election – before being submitted again.
• A bill that would prohibit paying people to gather signatures for ballot measures and make violations a felony.

All of the bills are pending in various parts of the legislative process.

Signatures in every district

Rep. Rebecca Reimer, R-Chamberlain, is sponsoring the bill to require petition signatures from all legislative districts in the state. She said the bill addresses concerns that ballot measures advance with signatures concentrated in Minnehaha and Pennington counties, the two most populous in the state.

“This ensures amendments have real statewide support before they go to the voters,” Reimer said.

The bill was supported by the state’s most prominent anti-abortion group, South Dakota Right to Life, which played a leading role in defeating a ballot measure in November that would have restored abortions rights in the state.

“We believe that we will continue to see – unless there’s a change – those who do not share our pro-life values using the current signature requirement mechanism to try and skew the process,” said Dale Bartscher, South Dakota Right to Life’s executive director.

The bill’s opponents said South Dakotans from across the state already have their voices heard on ballot measures when they vote. They said the bill would make it harder for citizens to put a question on the ballot.

60% to amend the constitution

Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, is sponsoring the effort to raise the vote threshold for constitutional amendments to 60%. He said the bill would make it harder for nonresidents of the state to change the state’s constitution.

“This ensures only amendments with overwhelming public backing are adopted,” Hughes said.

Hughes pointed to the 2024 abortion-rights ballot measure receiving large donations from Think Big America, an issue-advocacy nonprofit launched by Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker with a focus on supporting abortion rights. Pritzker’s wife was raised in South Dakota. The measure was rejected by 59% of voters.

Less time for signatures

Another bill proposes amending the deadline for filing petitions to initiate a law or constitutional amendment in South Dakota. Rep. Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, introduced it. He serves on South Dakota Right to Life’s board of directors.

Hansen’s bill would move the deadline from May to February of a general election year, shortening the period petition sponsors could collect signatures by three months.

Hansen said the purpose of the change is to ensure sufficient time for legal challenges and verification of signatures. Hansen helped lead an effort to challenge the signatures for the 2024 abortion-rights measure.

“Six months is just not long enough to litigate these disputes,” Hansen told fellow representatives in the House.

During the bill’s committee hearing, opponents argued the changes would limit South Dakotans’ ability to bring forward ballot measures, making the process more difficult.

Waiting period

A proposed constitutional amendment introduced by Republicans would require any new but similar ballot measures rejected by voters in the prior election to wait until at least one general election has passed before the question could appear on the ballot again.

Zebediah Johnson is with the Voter Defense Association of South Dakota and testified against the measure. He said the bill would unduly restrict the initiative process while not imposing similar restrictions on the Legislature.

“A defeated initiative is not without merit,” he said. “If the people of South Dakota decide to petition their government for change, they should be allowed to do so.”

Former state Sen. Reynold Nesiba, a Sioux Falls Democrat, returned to Pierre during a committee hearing on the legislation. He mentioned South Dakota’s status as the first state to allow initiatives and referendums in 1898, and he called citizen-backed ballot measures a safeguard against big money and power influencing the Legislature.

“Under God, the people rule,” Nesiba said. “This is a fundamental part of who South Dakota is.”

Bartscher, with South Dakota Right to Life, spoke in favor of the bill. He said abortion-rights groups continue to push for ballot measures.

“People are telling us across the state, they want a break,” Bartscher said. “South Dakotans are tired. They’re fatigued of all the campaigning, of all the commercials, and the postcards.”

State lawmakers don’t appear to be heeding that alleged fatigue. They have introduced 11 bills of their own this legislative session that would appear as questions on the 2026 ballot.

Other bills that would impact the ballot measure process include legislation that would require petition signers to list the address and county where they are registered to vote, rather than merely the address where they reside, and prevent the Secretary of State’s Office from counting signatures without the information; change how petitions for ballot initiatives are formatted; allow fiscal estimates for ballot measures to be updated closer to elections; and require the secretary of state to review ballot initiatives for compliance with the state’s single-subject rule. That review is already required for constitutional amendments.

 

A DEEPER LOOK AT SOUTH DAKOTA’S PRISON QUESTIONS

PIERRE, S.D. (Todd Epp / SDBA) – South Dakota lawmakers currently face a prison proposal worth $825 million, representing the classical economic theory of competing resources, or the ‘guns versus butter’ model.

The House’s failure last week to pass House Bill 1025, which sought to allocate $148.1 million for a new men’s prison in Lincoln County, manifests the conflict between the state’s financial capacity and the need for public safety (Dakota Scout, 2025).

“This prison is a need,” said Rep. Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre, in a House debate Friday, taking the “guns” side. “But to say it’s a need that we don’t need is wrong. I will tell you, it’s an unwanted need.”

This is the core economic problem of infinite wants with finite resources (Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 2003). The Department of Corrections has argued that the new facility is required to address the aged state penitentiary in Sioux Falls. According to Corrections Secretary Kellie Wasko, the conditions are hazardous for the staff and the inmates.

However, the $825 million price tag—plus roads and other infrastructure–has raised questions about where resource allocation fits during a time of financial strain.

Rep. Liz May, R-Kyle, shared her concern about the fiscal issue during the House debate.

“We argue back and forth here over a few million dollars for this and a few million dollars for that,” she said. “I really don’t want to build a billion-dollar prison.”

This hesitation is the economic principle that spending more in one area means cutting back in another.

The situation is similar to when societies had to choose security over domestic needs. While the Soviet Union’s overemphasis on military expenditure resulted in the shortage of domestic products and services, South Dakota is in the same position but to a lesser extent (Investopedia, 2024).

And South Dakota is a free market democracy, not a communist command economy.

Part of the prison issue is NIMBY—Not in my backyard. Many Lincoln County residents oppose the site between Canton and Harrisburg. As Rep. Aaron Aylward, R-Harrisburg, said in the debate, “Some folks woke up one morning, saw this thing was going to be in their backyard, and they’ve been fighting it ever since.”

Rep. Peri Pourier, D-Rapid City, also raised other critical social needs, taking the “butter” side. She mentioned feeding children during the summer months. She argued that there is not enough money to feed the children, which is why she is living it.

“We don’t have enough money to feed our kids in the summertime,” Pourier argued during the House session.

The motion to reconsider the bill in the House is scheduled for Monday.

In context, the South Dakota incarceration rate is 426 per 100,000 population (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2023), and the three-year recidivism rate is 38% (South Dakota Department of Corrections, 2024). The South Dakota Department of Corrections budget for the 2023-2024 fiscal year was approximately $220 million.

Comparison of South Dakota with Its Neighbor States

North Dakota: The incarceration rate is about 277 per 100,000 population (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2023); the Department of Corrections budget is around $180 million for the 2023-2025 biennium. The three-year recidivism rates are between 30% in North Dakota (North Dakota Department of Corrections).

 Montana: The incarceration rate is 388 per 100,000 population. The Montana Department of Corrections spent about $300 million in the fiscal year 2023. The three-year recidivism rate in Montana is 35% (Montana Department of Corrections).

Wyoming: More people are in jail than in South Dakota, at 568 per 100,000 population. The Wyoming Department of Corrections budget for the 2023-2024 biennium was $270 million. The three-year recidivism rate in Wyoming is 28% (Wyoming Department of Corrections).

Nebraska: The incarceration rate is 418 per 100,000 population. The Nebraska Department of Correctional Services had a budget of $500 million for the 2023-2025 biennium. The three-year recidivism rate in Nebraska has been 32% (Nebraska Department of Correctional Services).

Based on these comparisons, it can be seen that the prison project the Rhoden Administration hopes to implement is one of the most significant investments compared to its neighbors. However, it is also worth noting that some studies say increased spending does not necessarily lead to reduced recidivism or incarceration rates; therefore, according to the studies, other options deserve attention. However, as noted below, there is evidence that new prison construction can decrease recidivism.

Evidence-Based Programs and Recidivism Reduction: A Review of the Literature

It also creates a problem of whether reform and rehabilitation or incarceration is the most effective way of fighting recidivism and whether there are better alternatives, such as programs that are based on evidence. It has been established that particular interventions and programs can reduce the rate of recidivism significantly (Byrne, 2020).

However, with a contrary view, a study on prison construction in Colombia showed that better prison conditions, such as reduced overcrowding and better services, led to lower recidivism rates. The study speculated that this might be due to reduced contact with other criminals in prison (Tobon, 2020).

First Step Act: This act is significant in recognizing the federal Bureau of Prisons’ programming as a recidivism reduction strategy and contains sentence reduction for eligible inmates who participate in “evidence-based recidivism reduction programs.” (Byrne, 2020). A minimum of two quasi-experimental studies with positive findings are required to classify a program as evidence-based (or working).

Thus, South Dakota may reduce its recidivism rate and, therefore, the need for new prison spaces by investing in evidence-based recidivism reduction programs like substance abuse treatment, employment training, and education (Byrne, 2020). This approach is consistent with a more expansive criminal justice system focusing on rehabilitation, reintegration, and punishment.

This moment in the legislature illustrates the fundamental economic problem of allocating scarce resources among competing and desirable uses. It is also a modern version of the guns vs. butter dilemma that drives many policy choices.

Whatever decision South Dakota makes regarding its prison system will affect the state’s budget and its philosophy on public safety and community wellness now and into the future.