HOUSE COMMITTEE PASSES BILL TO REDUCE PENALTIES FOR DRUG INGESTION

PIERRE, S.D. (SDBA) – The South Dakota House Judiciary Committee voted 10-3 today (Wednesday) to send a bill reducing penalties for drug ingestion to the floor without recommendation, following contested testimony from both sides of the issue.

Senate Bill 83 would change ingestion of controlled substances from a felony to a Class 1 misdemeanor for first and second offenses, with a third offense within ten years becoming a Class 6 felony.

Rep. Brian Mulder, R-Sioux Falls, the House prime sponsor, emphasized rehabilitation over incarceration.

“We are the only state right now in the nation that has ingestion as a Class 6 felony,” Mulder said. “We cannot expect to continue to do the same thing and get different results.”

Sen. Tamara Grove, R-Lower Brule, the bill’s prime Senate sponsor, cited statistics showing South Dakota ranks ninth highest in incarceration despite being the 41st most populated state.

“Our current inmates, as of December 31, 2024 — 150 people cost $24 million, 123 people cost $8 million, and 112 are repeat offenders. We’ve already spent at least $6.5 million on them,” Grove said.

Opponents argued the change would weaken tools needed to address addiction effectively.

“If you take away the threat of imprisonment, they’re going to have no incentive to show up for court,” Stanley County State’s Attorney Tom Maher testified. “We’re going to have bench warrants. We’re going to have people that don’t show up.”

Attorney General Marty Jackley opposed the bill but said most first-time offenders don’t serve time.

“Rarely, if ever, are you going to the state penitentiary on your first ingestion case,” Jackley said.

The committee’s initial vote on a do-pass motion failed 5-8. A motion to kill the bill by sending it to the 41st day deadlocked 7-7, also failing. Rep. Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre, then moved to send the bill to the full House without recommendation, which passed 10-3.

Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, who initially planned to oppose the bill, ultimately supported it.

“When are we going to stop the stupidity of locking people away with addictions?” Hughes asked. “Labeling them as a felon, they can’t get a job, they can’t rent an apartment.”

Rep. Tim Reisch, R-Howard, a former South Dakota State Penitentiary warden, supported the bill.

However, fellow District 8 House member, Rep. Tim Wahlburg, a former Lake County sheriff, did not support it.

“We’ve got to have those people to do that treatment in order to make this work,” Wahlburg said. “The only way that I broke out of that cycle is I had to take myself away from those people that I hung around all the time that were using this drug.”

The bill previously passed the Senate by a narrow 18-17 vote. The full House will now consider the measure.

 

PROPERTY TAX ROLLBACKS PICK UP STEAM IN THE SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE

PIERRE, S.D. (Joe Sneve / The Dakota Scout) – It appears tax relief is coming to South Dakota homeowners.

Legislators at the state Capitol on Tuesday advanced a trio of proposals aimed at addressing sustained calls for action from constituents burdened with increasing tax assessments in recent years.

“If we don’t get some real property tax relief for our citizens, I will help lead the charge to get something on the ballot to provide our citizens with some real relief,” Sen. Taffy Howard said on the Senate floor while urging her colleagues to support Senate Bill 191, among nearly two dozen proposals that have been considered this year by the state Legislature.

Those measures come in response to ballooning property tax valuations in high-growth areas of the state, a result of county tax assessors using recent home sales to determine how much other nearby properties should be taxed.

And with an influx of new residents since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, property tax bills have jumped more than 10 percent in a single year in multiple South Dakota counties.

That’s why SB 191 proposes rolling back property valuations to 2020 levels for those who purchased their homes before November 2020 while also applying a 3 percent compounding increase for each year since. Anyone who bought a home since 2020 would be assessed a tax bill based on the value of their property when they acquired it, under the bill, which also extends the 3 percent cap to those homeowners.

It also stipulates that all future valuation increases for all homes would be limited to 3 percent as well, unless the property is sold, transferred, or undergoes major renovations or additions of more than 40 percent of the property’s original value. Home improvements valued at less than 40 percent of the property’s worth would not prompt a reassessment.

Sen. Amber Hulse, who crafted the legislation, acknowledged that her bill could result in county assessors replacing any loss in tax revenues with higher tax bills on agricultural land. But the Hot Springs Republican said that can’t be helped if the Legislature wants to address property tax increases being applied to single-family dwellings.

“They got a really sweet deal, and over the years their burden has actually shifted onto owner-occupied and non-ag,” she said, referring to agricultural landowners and the way property tax assessments have been applied to that land-use designation. “(This) ensures families can budget, plan and stay in their homes without being taxed out of it.”

Her colleagues voted 35-0 in favor of SB 191.

While its support wasn’t as resounding, Gov. Larry Rhoden’s tax relief proposal, unveiled earlier this month, also earned the blessing of a majority of senators.

Receiving a 30-5 vote of approval, Senate Bill 216 would limit the increase in owner-occupied assessments to 3 percent countywide for the next five years, cap the amount taxing districts and school capital outlay budgets can increase as a result of new construction, and increase the maximum income limits for the assessment freeze program to $55,000 for single-member homes and $65,000 for multi-member homes. The bill also increases the maximum eligible home value to $500,000.

Both measures will next be considered in the state House, which also passed a measure aimed at addressing property tax values Tuesday.

That iteration of property tax relief came in the form of House Bill 1235, legislation that its author — Rep. Greg Jamison — says “sends a message to local taxing districts, and that message is give me a break.”

Right now, the amount of revenue from property taxes counties, cities, and schools collect cannot increase by more than 3 percent or the rate of inflation — whichever is less — in a single year. The Sioux Falls Republican’s proposal, however, would change that yearly increase cap to 2.5 percent or the rate of inflation.

Jamison said although the measure would still allow taxing districts to opt out, its passage would force local elected officials to think harder about what they’re spending money on.

“It’s a local issue. Those spending taxing authorities and what they spend is what directly impacts property taxes. It’s not what we do here,” he said.

While it also passed, HB 1235 faced the most opposition of any of the tax-relief legislation that earned approval in the Legislature this week.

Of the House’s 70 members, 31 voted against it.

For Rep. Mike Stevens, the financial plight of counties is a sticking point.

“Our counties have the least means available to finance the mandated obligations that they have,” the Yankton Republican said, noting that 27 percent of all property taxes paid by South Dakotans go to the counties, while the rest go to the schools and municipalities.

At the same time, nearly 80 percent of county budgets are spent on functions they are obligated by law to provide. That reality, Stevens said, leaves only infrastructure like roads and bridges as expenditures counties could consider cutting.

Jamison admitted that HB 1235 would cause pain but contended his bill still allows counties to generate additional tax revenues by opting out of the cap, a maneuver that is subject to a public vote.

“They just can’t increase their budgets over and over and over again at that 3 percent,” he said.

 

SOUTH DAKOTA’S PRISON FUNDING REFLECTS A SHIFT IN PRIORITIES OVER THE PAST CENTURY

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Todd Epp / SDBA) — The 144-year evolution between Dakota Territory’s original prison construction and South Dakota’s current replacement debate highlights a fundamental transformation in government spending priorities and public attitudes toward correctional facilities.

In 1881, territorial lawmakers approved a $50,000 prison investment — equivalent to approximately $3.4 million today — as an essential step toward self-governance. Contemporary legislators, however, have rejected initial funding for an $825 million replacement facility despite documented infrastructure needs at the aging penitentiary.

Historical records reveal near-unanimous political support for the original facility. Public discourse in territorial newspapers actively promoted the prison as a moral and economic necessity, with territorial officials arguing that housing prisoners elsewhere drained resources and undermined Dakota’s governance capabilities.

Territorial legislators viewed the prison as an investment that would pay dividends through reduced prisoner transportation expenses and the establishment of prison industries. The 1877-1881 debate centered on how quickly to build the facility, not whether it should be built.

Today’s legislative discussions have shifted dramatically to focus on competing budget priorities and skepticism about large government expenditures. The South Dakota House’s two rejections this session against a $148.1 million transfer reflect concerns about fiscal restraint that would have been alien to territorial leaders.

The modern proposal has also generated geographic opposition that is absent from territorial debates. Lincoln County residents have actively resisted having the replacement facility in their community — a stark contrast to Sioux Falls’ enthusiastic embrace of the original prison.

Department of Corrections Secretary Kellie Wasko defended the proposal in January, telling the Joint Appropriations Committee: “We’re taking this population of bad players and putting them in a very good physical plant,”.

Funding mechanisms reflect the most significant shift. While territorial lawmakers readily issued bonds for their modest facility, contemporary legislators have debated whether bonding across generations represents responsible fiscal policy for the much larger modern prison. The Noem/Rhoden Administrations have pushed for paying cash as a long-term cost savings measure. However, the final “payment” that the Rhoden Administration wants has come with significant proposed budget cuts to South Dakota Public Broadcasting, the South Dakota National Guard, the South Dakota Civil Air Patrol, and a host of social safety net programs.

The territorial prison symbolized progress toward statehood and self-sufficiency, with newspapers and officials framing it as an essential infrastructure necessary for Dakota’s political and social development. Today’s debate centers on whether such facilities represent the best use of limited resources when weighed against other needs. It has also prompted a reexamination of sentencing laws in the state, such as South Dakota’s one-in-the-country felony drug ingestion law.

Despite documented deterioration at the 1881 facility, legislators remain divided on the scale, timing, and necessity of replacement. This position would have been incomprehensible to territorial leaders, who viewed prison construction as an unquestionable step toward statehood and civilization.

In the time it took Territorial legislators and governors to plan, fund, and build the Sioux Falls prison between 1881 and 1883, from 2003 to present, the South Dakota Legislature is still trying to fund a replacement. They also can’t agree on a location. “Back in the day,” Sioux Falls wanted the prison; today, Lincoln County is not as enthusiastic, with groups like Neighbors Opposing Prison Expansion (NOPE), waging legal and political war on the proposed site between Canton and Harrisburg.

The outcome of today’s debate will determine not only the future of one of the nation’s oldest active state prisons but also reflect South Dakota’s dramatically evolved approach to major infrastructure investment–and corrections–since territorial days.