South Dakota prison project faces legislative, legal hurdles
South Dakota's plan to build an $825 million men's prison complex in rural Lincoln County has sparked clashes of opinion not just among property owners in the area but within different levels of government.
A major legislative showdown is evolving in Pierre as state lawmakers and Gov. Larry Rhoden debate whether to pass the final funding piece to begin construction on the prison on farmland between Harrisburg and Canton.
Members of Lincoln County's Board of County Commissioners have been swept into controversy, either fighting for county zoning authority or taking heat from residents for not speaking out more forcefully.
Arguments also reached the legal system due to the efforts of Neighbors Opposed to Prison Expansion (NOPE), a group of landowners that fought the state's effort and sued to prevent the project from moving forward.
To help sort it all out, News Watch sought different perspectives of some of the key people involved.
Of all the opinions surrounding the decision to build a new prison on Lincoln County farmland, the most consequential was delivered Oct. 23.
It came in the form of a court decision from the Second Judicial Circuit, where Judge Jennifer Mammenga granted the state's motion to dismiss a lawsuit from opponents of the project, including members of NOPE.
The ruling, since appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, was a blow to organized efforts to stop or delay construction. Those efforts were re-channeled to the legislative and public relations arena after Mammenga's decision came down, nearly a year after the lawsuit was filed.
The crux of the complaint was that the state's prison plans violated Lincoln County zoning laws and clashed with the county's comprehensive plan.
The state argued that the landowners bringing the lawsuit lacked standing and the state was protected by the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, which puts limits on when the government can be sued.
That doctrine in state law, according to judicial precedent, dictates that sovereign immunity exists when a state agent's duty is discretionary (allowing for flexibility of action) rather than ministerial (rigidly following orders).
Mammenga characterized House Bill 1017 from the 2023 legislative session as allowing the DOC to purchase property for the prison but not mandating where or when to do it, calling the duties conferred by the law 'discretionary and properly delegated."
As for the question of state authority versus county ordinances, the judge stated that 'a county by its very nature is a legislative creation, and therefore seemingly lacks the authority to preempt state law.'
On Feb. 5, moments after the House of Representatives adjourned for the day at the Capitol in Pierre, legislators Will Mortenson and Aaron Aylward walked down the hallway stride for stride.
Anyone who expected the Republican colleagues to be in lockstep regarding the state prison project, however, hasn't been paying attention to party politics in South Dakota.
Mortenson, a Fort Pierre lawyer and former House majority leader, is viewed as part of the GOP establishment, with connections to U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson. He supports House Bill 1025, which would provide the final funding piece to green-light construction on the chosen site.
Previous legislation has funneled $567 million into an incarceration construction fund (an estimated $643 million with interest), which means the commitment in one-time dollars from 2025 would need to be $182 million to reach $825 million.
"This has been four years coming, and if it's four more years, it's going to cost a billion dollars or more," said Mortenson. "If you think it's expensive now, just wait."
Aylward, a job recruiter from Harrisburg who represents Lincoln County, serves as vice chair of the South Dakota Freedom Caucus, which touts limited government and landowner rights as part of the party's recent populist wave.
He staunchly opposes the funding bill, which would authorize the DOC to spend $763 million on prison construction on top of the $62 million appropriated last year to prepare the site and arrange for electric, sewer and water utilities.
"It's not looking good right now," said Aylward when asked about HB 1025 getting the two-thirds vote it will require from both houses to reach the governor's desk. "Things are so tight budget-wise right now that people can't justify going forward with this."
The proposed site of a new men's prison in rural Canton, S.D., near the corner of 278th Street and 477th Avenue. The project has sparked clashes of opinion not just among property owners but within different levels of government.
The bill suffered a setback on Feb. 12, when the House State Affairs Committee sent it to House Appropriations without an affirmative "do pass" recommendation, with ongoing operational costs one of the key concerns.
The push for new prison facilities gained urgency during former Gov. Kristi Noem's time as governor and is linked in many ways to her legacy, for better or worse.
The Legislature has already committed $87 million to build a new women's prison in Rapid City, with a likely completion date of early 2026.
In her final budget address Dec. 3, Noem spoke of the state men's penitentiary 'falling down' and being older than the state itself, urging legislators to pass a final funding package so that construction on a new facility can begin.
Enter Rhoden, sworn in as the state's 34th governor on Jan. 27, two days after Noem was confirmed as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Meade County rancher and legislative veteran faces a tough political scenario, especially with a likely run for re-election looming in 2026.
Populist groups touting landowner rights have become a rising political force in South Dakota, with the massive rural prison project one of their top concerns.
Rhoden must balance those objections with the fact that he was Noem's lieutenant governor and inherited the role as 'chief wrangler' to push the final funding through the Legislature.
Any inkling that Rhoden would waver in this role was answered during his introductory press conference Feb. 6, when News Watch asked him about his approach to getting the bill passed and what happens if the effort falls short.
'I'm not prepared to discuss it not happening,' Rhoden said. 'I believe that it will.'
This story was produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit organization. Read more stories and donate at sdnewswatch.org and sign up for an email every few days to get stories as soon as they're published. Contact Stu Whitney at stu.whitney@sdnewswatch.org
This article originally appeared on Watertown Public Opinion: South Dakota prison project sparks backlash from residents
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
BlackRock calls antitrust claims "unprecedented, unsound and unsupported"
(Reuters) -An attorney for BlackRock called antitrust claims by Republican-led states "unprecedented, unsound and unsupported" on Monday and said they had failed to show how the firms' involvement with industry climate groups interfered with market competition. Gibson Dunn attorney Gregg Costa spoke as BlackRock and co-defendants Vanguard and State Street seek to dismiss the claims in the closely watched antitrust case brought by Texas and 12 other states.
The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats are drawing closer to the crypto industry despite Trump divisions
WASHINGTON (AP) — As President Donald Trump builds a crypto empire — including hosting a private dinner with top investors at his golf club — Democrats have united in condemning what they call blatant corruption from the White House. But the Democratic Party's own relationship with the emerging crypto industry is far less cut and dried. Work in the Republican-led Senate to legitimize cryptocurrency by adding guardrails has drawn backing from some Democrats, underscoring growing support for the industry in the party. But divisions have opened over the bill, with many demanding it prevent the Republican president and his family from directly profiting from cryptocurrency. 'I'm all on board with the idea of regulating crypto,' said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn. 'But at this moment, when cryptocurrency is being so clearly used by Donald Trump to facilitate his corruption, I don't think you can close your eyes to that when you're legislating.' The legislation is moving ahead more rapidly than Congress usually acts when an industry is new. But the big money and campaign donations flowing from cryptocurrency firms have made them a new powerhouse on the political scene, one that's increasingly gaining allies and capturing the attention of lawmakers. A look at what to know about the industry's clout and the political fight over what's known as the GENIUS Act: To understand the growing clout of the crypto industry, look no further than the 2024 election. Fairshake, a crypto super political action committee, and its affiliated PACs spent more than $130 million in congressional races. Fairshake spent roughly $40 million supporting Republican Bernie Moreno in Ohio in an effort to defeat Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. Brown, who lost to Moreno by more than 3 percentage points, was seen as a chief critic of the industry as the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. 'DC received a clear message that being anti-crypto is a good way to end your career, as it doesn't represent the will of the voters,' Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, wrote in a social media post the day after the 2024 election. Coinbase — the largest crypto exchange in the U.S. and biggest contributor to Fairshake — does not view support for its industry as partisan, according to Kara Calvert, the company's vice president of U.S. policy. The industry also spent heavily to support Democrats Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin in their races for open Senate seats in battleground states. Fairshake spent $10 million in support of Slotkin during her successful Senate run against Republican Mike Rodgers, and Slotkin, who won the Michigan race by fewer than 20,000 votes, spoke in favor of crypto on the campaign trail. Slotkin declined to be interviewed. Similar dynamics are setting up ahead of 2026 in contested House and Senate races. Fairshake said in January that it already had $116 million in cash on hand aimed at the 2026 midterm elections. 'We're not slowing down, and everything remains on the table,' Josh Vlasto, a spokesperson for Fairshake, told The Associated Press. Hours before a May 19 vote to move forward on cryptocurrency legislation in the Senate, an advocacy group tied to Coinbase sent an email to the offices of U.S. senators warning that the vote would count toward their crypto-friendliness scores. 'What the spending does is put crypto on the map. It lets members know that this is not a phase, this is real industry, with real dollars, that is developing its hold in Washington,' said Calvert. A significant number of Democrats, 16, joined Republicans in advancing the crypto legislation. The GENIUS Act would create a new regulatory structure for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency typically pegged to the U.S. dollar. It is viewed as a step toward consumer protections and greater legitimacy for the industry. The sticking point for many Democrats is that while the bill prohibits members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins, it excludes the president from those restrictions. Trump, once a skeptic of the industry, has vowed in his second term to make the U.S. the global capital of crypto. Meanwhile, he and his family have moved aggressively into nearly every corner of the industry: mining operations, billion-dollar bitcoin purchases, a newly minted stablecoin and a Trump-branded meme coin. Days after Trump's interests in the industry became public in early May, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York urged the Democratic caucus to unite and vote against the package to have a stronger hand in negotiations, according to a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity to discuss private discussions. On May 8, a bloc of Senate Democrats who had previously backed the GENIUS Act reversed course — ultimately voting to block the bill from advancing. Negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans followed. The White House was also involved, and in contact with senators' offices on both sides of the aisle, according to a senior official granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. The new version of the bill is now expected to pass the 100-member Senate this month. Amendments are still possible. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. has filed an amendment — cosponsored by Schumer — that would bar the president and his family from profiting off stablecoins, though it's unlikely to pass. 'There is room for improvements as there often is with a lot of legislation. But with this in particular, we've got issues with the president,' said Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona 'Having said that, this was negotiated with Democrats and Republicans. We got to a place. We voted on it. I expect this is the version we're going to pass.' Still, the legislation is stirring unease. Schumer, asked if he's urging members to vote against the bill, noted that he has opposed the legislation and said 'there's division in our caucus on that issue.' 'There's a gaping hole in this bill that everybody sees,' Murphy said. 'After it's passed, it will be illegal for me to issue a cryptocurrency, but it's legal for the president of the United States.' 'If this bill passes, we kind of go from a dirt road to a paved road,' he said. If the Senate approves the stablecoin legislation, the bill will still need to clear the House before reaching the president's desk. Crypto advocates say the next priority is pushing Congress for market structure legislation, a far more sweeping effort than simply regulating stablecoins. 'Stablecoin is one step of the path. Then you need market structure. We're hopeful that the Senate works together to pass something quickly,' Calvert said. Some Democrats view the legislation as a chance to impose basic guardrails on a rapidly growing industry that's particularly popular among men and younger voters, two groups that drifted from the party in 2024. ___ Associated Press writers Alan Suderman, Lisa Mascaro, Matt Brown and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
GOP lawmakers push to jack up proposed tax on money migrants send home after threat by Mexico
GOP lawmakers are pushing to jack up a proposed new tax on money migrants earn in the US and send back home to family — after being threatened by Mexico's president. Nestled in the proposed One Big Beautiful Bill Act making its way through the Senate is a 3.5% tax on 'remittances' from noncitizens in the US, or money transferred back to relatives and family in the migrants' home country. Over the weekend, footage of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum blasting the planned tax during a speech last month went viral. 'If necessary, we'll mobilize. We don't want taxes on remittances from our fellow countrymen. From the US to Mexico,' Sheinbaum warned in the clip. It is not entirely clear what she meant by 'mobilize.' 4 Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum is griping about the impact a new US tax on money Mexico's migrants send home would have on her country. Carlos Santiago/Eyepix Group / Shutterstock 4 GOP Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri proposed now imposing a tax on of 15% instead of 3.5% because of Sheinbaum's comments. Getty Images But her salvo was enough to prompt several Republican lawmakers to promptly call on the Senate to jack up the proposed tax on remittances. 'The House's Big Beautiful Bill addressed the urgent need for a remittance tax. But we can go further. I'm introducing legislation to quadruple the proposed remittance tax — from 3.5% to 15%,' Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) seethed on X. 'America is not the world's piggy bank. And we don't take kindly to threats.' The tax on remittance is estimated to haul in about $26 billion over the next decade, according to an estimate from the Joint Committee on Taxation. Remittances are generally a huge revenue stream for developing countries. Mexico is the second largest receiver of remittances in the world behind India thanks to cash flows from the US, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 4 Rep. Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas, backed the idea of raising the tax on remittances in response to the Mexican leader's threat. Getty Images Some estimates indicate that Mexico received about $64.7 billion in remittances last year, although transfers to Mexico have begun to wane in recent months amid President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. 'New reason to amend the Senate bill to tax remittances at a lot higher rate…' Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) wrote on X in response to the clip of Sheinbaum. 4 Mexico has been grappling with economic fallout from President Trump's tariffs. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) added, 'Raise the remittances!!' Mexico is the largest US trading partner, according to recent data from the US Census Bureau. Earlier this year, Trump slapped 25% tariffs on imports from both Mexico and Canada that are not subject to the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Trump claimed the new tariffs were necessary to leverage Canada and Mexico to crack down on the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigration into the US. The president has since fired off a flurry of tariffs on other countries as well.
