NEW WOODBURY COUNTY JAIL NOW OCCUPIED AND FULLY OPERATIONAL

SIOUX CITY, IA – The new Woodbury County Jail in Sioux City is up and running at its new location.  Inmates were moved starting Friday night and as of 8am on Saturday morning, according to a news release from the Woodbury County Sheriff’s Office, the new jail was determined to be fully operational.

Sheriff Chad Sheehan stated that the staff had been planning and training for the move for over a year and that he was incredibly proud of them and the job they have performed.

The move to the new jail began on Friday, Oct. 11 at 10 p.m. when deputies began to transfer 210 inmates from the old LEC building to its new location at 3701 28th St. in Sioux City.

The first inmates were removed from the old building at 11:15 p.m. The last inmates were moved to the jail’s new location at 6:15 a.m.

Deputies say there were no incidents during the moving process. Calls of service were handled by Iowa State Patrol during the move.

The transfer process also included the move of 70 Woodbury County Correctional Officers, 2 prison guards from the Iowa Department of Corrections, and 40 Woodbury County deputies and reserve deputies.

The following agencies helped the sheriff’s office with the moving process.

Iowa Department of Corrections

Iowa State Patrol

Sioux City Police Department

Sioux City Fire & Rescue

Woodbury County Communications Center

Woodbury County Emergency Management.

 

SUPPORTERS CALL IT TAX RELIEF, OPPONENTS CALL IT A BUDGET PROBLEM: LEARN MORE ABOUT INITIATED MEASURE 28

SOUTH DAKOTA (Joshua Haiar / South Dakota Searchlight) – 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.

 

IM 29 IN SOUTH DAKOTA: VOTERS WILL MAKE THE CALL ON RECREATIONAL CANNABIS, BUT LAWMAKERS WILL DETERMINE IF IT CAN BE SOLD

SOUTH DAKOTA (John Hult / South Dakota Searchlight) – 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.

 

PROPONENTS SAY IT’S A LANDOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS AND OPPONENTS SAY IT UNDERMINES LOCAL CONTROL, WHICH SIDE DOES RL 21 FALL ON?

SOUTH DAKOTA (Joshua Haiar / South Dakota Searchlight) – 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.