CIMPL’S MEATS IN YANKTON CLOSES ITS DOOR AFTER 76 YEARS

YANKTON, S.D. – Cimpl’s Meats in Yankton closed its doors on Monday after 76 years.

CIMPL’S, LLC. operated as part of American Foods Group’s fresh meats division.

City leaders as well as over 250 employees were informed of the closure on Monday morning.

The closure comes after American Foods Group said the location was not profitable and that it would move operations to Missouri.

Chief Executive Officer of Yankton Thrive Nancy Wenande expressed their thoughts on the closure.

“Yankton Thrive is both surprised and saddened by the decision to relocate beef processing operations from Yankton, South Dakota, to the American Foods Group’s new facility in Missouri. Established in 1949, Cimpl’s Meats has been a cornerstone of our community. This transition will undoubtedly have significant economic implications for our area. However, our primary concern lies with the dedicated employees and their families affected by this decision,” said Wenande.

Wenande says that Yankton Thrive has been in contact with the Labor Department as well as the Governor’s Office of Economic Development.

American Foods Group released a statement addressing the closure.

“Today, we made the tough decision to idle harvest operations at our Cimpl’s facility, affecting over 250 employees. We recognize the profound impact this has on our team members, their families, and the community. Our top priority is supporting those affected during this transition. This week, team members from our other locations are on-site to provide guidance and discuss relocation opportunities. In addition to offering affected employees opportunities at other AFG facilities, we plan to provide continued pay and benefits during the transition. We are committed to standing by our employees and doing everything we can to assist them through this challenging time,” said Louie Kohlbeck, President of American Foods Group’s Fresh Meats Division.

All other American Foods Group facilities will remain operational, and customers’ supply chains will not be interrupted.

 

LEGISLATURE SEEKS TIGHTER LIMITS ON VOTER QUALIFICATIONS WITH HOST OF ELECTION INTEGRITY BILLS

PIERRE, S.D. (Makenzie Huber / South Dakota Searchlight) – Lawmakers introduced more than 50 bills during the 2025 legislation session proposing to alter South Dakota’s election laws.

Almost half are “election integrity” bills, aimed at election security, technology and voter qualifications. Seven of those bills are on the governor’s desk.

Instead of regulating the process, with bills such as those that would have shortened the voter registration deadline and prohibited automatic tabulators, lawmakers this session favored tighter controls on who can participate in South Dakota elections. That includes bills redefining residency for voter registration and creating a federal-only ballot for people such as full-time RVers, whose vehicle registration and use of a mail-forwarding service might be their only connections to the state.

Sen. John Carley, R-Rapid City, introduced a handful of election bills.

“The legislators feel closest to the people, so they see the people-oriented bills as ones they can support more strongly,” Carley said. “Some of the election process-related items are more related to auditors and the secretary of state, which have people arguing against these bills more.”

Senate Majority Leader Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre, said during a press conference that the recounts and post-election audits in recent elections show that elections “are running pretty much as they should.”

“We have paper ballots, we have voter ID laws and we have post-election audits in place,” Mehlhaff said. “I think our process is pretty good and I think it’s proven to be pretty effective.”

The changes may seem small with each bill, said Samantha Chapman, advocacy manager with the American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota, but could lead to voter disenfranchisement.

“Taken as a whole, I think voters should see this as a serious threat to our democracy.”

Reacting to residency laws, approving federal-only ballot

People who register under the Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, or list a post office box or mail forwarding service as their address because they don’t live permanently in the state, will only be able to vote on federal races — not local or state elections — if the governor signs House Bill 1208. The legislation mandates the creation of a separate, federal-only ballot for U.S. presidential and congressional races.

House Bill 1066 changes the definition of a South Dakota resident eligible to vote in state and local elections to someone who lives and “usually” sleeps in the same place for 30 consecutive days.

The legislation would also require voters who register using a mail-forwarding service or other post office box as their address to additionally list “a description of the location of the individual’s habitation” to be able to vote in state and local elections. Individuals who leave the state must “intend to return” to qualify as a resident, HB 1208 says.

Hughes County Finance Officer Thomas Oliva said the bills lack the tools and structure for auditors to verify applicants meet residency requirements, so he plans to continue evaluating residency requirements with the “honor system.” He added that HB 1208 would allow an applicant to put in whatever description they want for their living situation to get a state and local ballot without requiring the auditor to verify it.

“If there’s a description of where they’re living, I take it as I’m to accept that. I’m not to investigate and go to the Walmart parking lot and ask for 30 consecutive days of security footage of that RV sitting there,” Oliva said.

Or, an auditor could determine the voter doesn’t qualify as a resident, and refuse to give the voter a state or local ballot.

Lawmakers who voted against the bills said the changes disenfranchise South Dakotans who choose to travel after living most of their lives in South Dakota, as well as other professionals who don’t stay in the state at least 30 consecutive days, such as truckers.

House Minority Leader Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls, attempted to amend HB 1208 to include statewide elections and ballot questions that affect fees or taxes on the separate ballot. Without including those amendments, it would subject South Dakotans living out-of-state to “taxation and governance without representation,” she said. Her effort failed.

“These voters will still continue to pay state sales tax, they’re going to continue to pay motor vehicle registration fees, they’re going to continue to pay driver’s license fees, they’ll continue to pay county wheel taxes, and there’s still the chance they could be summoned and report for jury duty,” Healy said.

The ACLU sent Gov. Rhoden a letter asking him to veto HB 1208.

Oliva said he hopes the state can “come up with something better.” He added that the bills would add more work for his office to inform voters of the changes as they register to vote or apply for absentee ballots.

Reviewing and challenging SD voter residency

Members of the South Dakota Canvassing Group supported most of the “election integrity” bills introduced this session. The group has reviewed the state’s voter rolls in recent years and unsuccessfully challenged the residency of some absentee voters in the June 2024 primary election.

House Bill 1062 designates a county’s master registration files as public records. The files include voter registration information and absentee ballot information, such as the address an absentee ballot was mailed to and the dates it was requested and returned. The bill also requires the Secretary of State’s Office to update its statewide voter registration file weekly and reduces the cost to access a copy of the state’s voter registration list.

It currently costs $2,500 to purchase a list of South Dakota registered voters, according to the Secretary of State’s Office. HB 1062 would create an electronic spreadsheet option for $225.

In making voter information more public, Chapman said she worries the change will threaten domestic assault survivor safety and will “embolden” targeted misinformation campaigns in South Dakota, inaccurately leading registered voters to believe they can’t vote if they no longer reside at their voter registration address.

The South Dakota Supreme Court denied a request by members of South Dakota Canvassing Group last year to order Secretary of State Monae Johnson and county-level election officials to disqualify 132 primary election ballots cast in Minnehaha County on the grounds that those voters did not meet residency requirements. The boundaries of the two precincts targeted include mail forwarding companies in Sioux Falls.

Senate Bill 185, introduced by Sen. Amber Hulse, R-Hot Springs, would change the challenge process. The bill allows a person to challenge someone’s residency status on grounds other than “identity,” which is what the group used to challenge the 132 ballots last year, or that a person is a felon or mentally incompetent. Challenges could also be based on residency, voting or being registered in another state, or being deceased. Challenges could only be made in the months ahead of the election, not on Election Day. Oliva and Chapman said they worked with Hulse to reach a sufficient end result.

If a county auditor determines a challenge is credible, the challenged person would have to fill out a “verification request” within 30 days to document their qualifications as a registered voter. The state Board of Elections will establish the process by which an auditor researches voters, establishes validity of a challenge and determines what documentation is needed to prove residency qualifications, Hulse told South Dakota Searchlight.

The auditor must remove the person from the voter list if they don’t respond with sufficient evidence and don’t vote between the verification request and immediately after the next general election. An auditor can’t cancel voter registration for a residency challenge within 90 days before an election.

Limiting voting to U.S. citizens

Other bills passed by both chambers are largely a reaction to 273 non-U.S. citizens being removed from South Dakota’s voter roll last year. The noncitizens marked “no” to the citizenship question on their driver’s license application, but were added to the voter roll due to human error, the Secretary of State’s Elections Director Rachel Soulek said at the time.

Noncitizens can obtain a driver’s license or state ID if they are lawful permanent residents or have temporary legal status. There’s a part of the driver’s license form that allows an applicant to register to vote. That part says voters must be citizens.

Soulek said one of the 273 noncitizens cast a ballot. That was during the 2016 general election.

Rep. Kadyn Wittman, D-Sioux Falls, criticized and voted against the bills that arose in response to that situation.

“If we are bringing legislation to try and address something that happened nearly a decade ago by a single individual with this piece of legislation,” Wittman told lawmakers, “I cannot think of a larger form of virtue signaling than this.”

South Dakota’s voter registration form already requires a voter to certify they’re a citizen of the United States. Senate Bill 73 would require people be South Dakota residents when they register to vote while applying for a South Dakota driver’s license.

Senate Bill 75 would require U.S. citizenship status be placed on a driver’s license or nondriver identification card, allowing poll workers to more easily identify if a voter is eligible. Democratic lawmakers argued the bill would lead to discrimination against noncitizens outside of elections.

Senate Bill 68 increases the penalty for voting illegally in the state. Rep. Logan Manhart, R-Aberdeen, carried the bill in the House, calling it an “election integrity” bill and saying it would deter fraudulent voting and keep noncitizens from voting in elections.

Chapman said it intimidates already-registered voters who might not meet new residency requirements approved by the Legislature.

“The goal here is not to protect voters or ‘election integrity.’ The goal is to intimidate,” Chapman said. “The state Legislature should not be using its position to intimidate voters out of participating in our elections.”

Senate Joint Resolution 503 sends a constitutional amendment to South Dakota voters clarifying a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote in the state.

The resolution doesn’t require the governor’s approval. All of the other bills await Gov. Larry Rhoden’s consideration.

 

TRUMP, MUSK TARGET RURAL STATE LAWMAKERS WHO WANT TO KEEP DRUG PRICES DOWN

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) – A group backed by Trump adviser Elon Musk is running ads targeting conservative Republican legislators in several states over their support of a federal drug pricing program. No one seems as surprised about the effort as the lawmakers themselves.

The video ad by Building America’s Future is titled “Trump Underminers.” It focuses on the federal 340B program, saying it “is now a disaster” and to “let Trump fix 340B.”

The ad groups together five lawmakers in Kentucky, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Tennessee whom it accuses of trying to mandate expansion of the program. It is one of the first signs since Trump returned to the White House of a group linked to Musk going after Republicans in individual states.

The legislators say they want to help rural hospitals and don’t understand what is behind the criticism or why the group, of which Musk is a major donor, is singling them out.

Here’s a look at the ad’s claims and the mystery behind them:

What is the 340B program?

Under the program, drug manufacturers are required to provide discounts to hospitals caring for uninsured and low-income patients, according to the American Hospital Association. The program was expanded to rural hospitals in 2010.

The ad airing on local television says, “Some Republicans in your state are undermining Trump and trying to mandate expansion of 340B.”

The message goes on to say the program “helps fund gender transitions for kids, abortion procedures and health care for illegals.”

Nebraska state Sen. Brian Hardin, who is named in the ad, said there is no truth to those claims.

The program has been at a center of a yearslong lobbying battle between hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, with each side attempting to enlist lawmakers in maintaining or reforming the benefit.

What do the lawmakers think?

The claims in the ad lead Hardin to wonder whether pharmaceutical companies might be behind the effort.

“It only fuels my speculation that somebody brought a modicum of actual information to Musk and said, ‘Please throw your money behind us,’” Hardin said.

North Dakota Republican Rep. Jon Nelson said the only truthful statement in the ad is the spelling of his name. Nelson said he introduced a bill this session with a goal of continuing the 340B program as it exists.

Nelson said the pharmaceutical industry wants to get rid of the program because “long story short, they don’t want to sell their drugs at a discount.”

It’s all puzzling, Nelson said, because he doesn’t know of any organized effort to end the program.

“There’s absolutely no undermining that’s taking place here because there’s been no action from Washington to change 340B that I’m aware of,” Nelson said. “We’re not undermining anything that’s taking place in Washington.”

Kentucky Republican state Sen. Stephen Meredith said his legislation is not about the 340B program.

“My bill is about the fact Kentucky healthcare providers who serve a disproportionate number of economically disadvantaged people; predominately in rural communities, are being discriminated against by pharmaceutical manufacturers who are arbitrarily and capriciously withholding 340B drugs and 340B discounts which are legally due to these qualifying healthcare providers,” Meredith said in a statement.

Like the others, Hardin said he is being targeted for his bill that would preserve Nebraska hospitals’ access to the program.

Hardin said the ad has been running in Nebraska for about three weeks, but has done nothing to hurt his bill. It advanced last week from the first of three rounds of debate 41-0.

Tennessee’s Rep. Esther Helton-Haynes said in a statement that the 340B program had “helped health care providers all across the state.” The Republican dismissed the latest ad attacking her support of the program as a tactic to “take attention away from the patients that need assistance.”

However, in a move that seemingly acknowledged the Musk-backed ad, Helton-Haynes added to her bill an amendment that stated that her proposal would not conflict with the Republican-led state’s gender-affirming care for minors ban, abortion ban or any immigration laws.

“Let’s stay focused and not be misled by deceptive ads,” she said.

Why is this group doing this?

That’s unclear. Building America’s Future didn’t respond to an email seeking information about their effort. A spokesperson for another Musk-funded political group acknowledged a phone message but did not respond to questions. Building America’s Future’s X profile could not be messaged.

A spokesperson for the PhRMA pharmaceutical trade group said the organization has neither given nor plans to give funds to Building America’s Future.

“Our position on this issue has been clear: Big, tax-exempt hospitals and clinics are using 340B medicine markups to boost their profits at the expense of patients, employers and taxpayers,” said Sarah Ryan, senior manager of public affairs for PhRMA.

The ad has aired in broadcast markets in Nashville, North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska, according to media tracking firm AdImpact.

Building America’s Future is also behind misleading ads and text messages to voters in a consequential upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court election. The group also was the single funder of a political group that pushed opposing ads last year in Michigan and Pennsylvania on then-Vice President Kamala Harris’ position on Israel.

Building America’s Future posted a photo to X in February of a large truck outside the North Dakota Capitol in Bismarck, bearing the messages “Tell North Dakota Republicans: Stop subsidized gender transitions for kids,” and “340B is subsidizing gender transitions for kids.”

In 2023, then-Gov. Doug Burgum – who now serves Trump as Interior Secretary and Chairman of the newly formed National Energy Council – signed a law banning gender-affirming surgeries and treatments for transgender kids.