Governor prevails in dispute over penalties for supervisors who stay silent on misdeeds
South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden speaks during a press conference Feb. 6, 2025, at the Capitol in Pierre with Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen. (Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight)
South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden's preferred version of a bill to punish supervisors who hide misbehavior by state employees is headed to his desk.
Senate Bill 62 is part of a legislative package from Attorney General Marty Jackley as a response to a host of state employee malfeasance cases since last summer.
On Wednesday at the state Capitol, the Senate voted 20-14 to agree with Rhoden-supported changes applied to the bill earlier by the state House of Representatives.
Jackley wanted supervisors who fail to report employee misdeeds to face felony charges – even if the misdeeds in question amounted to misdemeanor crimes.
Lawmakers target government supervisors who stay silent on misconduct, but not with a felony
The bill's basic outlines were broadly popular in both chambers, but the clause on felonies for supervisors proved divisive. Rhoden's lobbyists unsuccessfully pushed to reduce the penalty for supervisors to a misdemeanor in both the House and Senate judiciary committees. Senators narrowly rejected an effort to do the same during SB 62's first appearance on the floor in that chamber.
Earlier this week, the House voted 38-31 to go Rhoden's way.
The Senate was asked Wednesday to concur. Senators could've appointed a conference committee in hopes of hammering out the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.
A handful of senators, including Pierre Republican Jim Mehlhaff, wanted to restore Jackley's preferences and hoped a conference committee could pull that off.
'This was an unfriendly amendment,' Mehlhaff said of the House's actions.
The majority of his colleagues, however, decided against another volley.
'I'm not sure a conference committee will resolve this, and I'd like to be done with this today,' said Sen. Amber Hulse, R-Hot Springs.
Jackley filed at least five criminal cases against former state employees last year, for allegations ranging from faked food-service health inspections to $1.8 million of embezzlement from a state department.
His package of anti-corruption legislation includes other bills that would expand the investigatory authority of the state auditor, strengthen the Board of Internal Controls, and establish protections for whistleblowers. Each bill has passed both chambers, with some pending amendments made by one chamber or the other.
Jackley issued a statement Wednesday praising the Legislature for approving the package.
'I remain convinced that there must be significant consequences when a government supervisor does not report a crime or government misbehavior,' Jackley said. 'The number of cases in the last year demonstrates that such crimes should be charged as a felony, not a misdemeanor. The Legislature thought differently, and I respect its decision.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge strikes reference to ex-Illinois speaker Madigan's personal fortune from sentencing record
CHICAGO — A federal judge on Tuesday struck from the court record a reference to former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan's personal net worth of more than $40 million, agreeing with the Democrat's defense team that it should have been kept private, even as the attorneys acknowledged the move was 'hollow' given that it was already widely publicized. U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey said he didn't find any 'bad faith' on the part of the federal prosecutors who included the figure in a filing last week ahead of Madigan's highly anticipated sentencing on Friday, but found that common practice would be to file such personal information under seal. Blakey's ruling came before the attorneys delivered arguments over sentencing guidelines at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse, technically kicking off the sentencing process. Blakey took the matter under advisement until Friday's hearing. Federal prosecutors made Madigan's net worth public for the first time in a response to a sentencing memorandum filed by his attorneys, arguing that the defendant's 'greed is even more appalling given his law firm's success.' Daniel Collins, an attorney for Madigan, called the inclusion of the former speaker's personal fortune improper and a 'gratuitous effort' to publicly identify his net worth. 'It is not necessary to include the number in order for the government to make an argument about greed,' Collins said. But Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Streicker countered to the judge that the defense left the door open by arguing in filings that Madigan was solely motivated by a desire to help people. She also said the figure is relevant as the government seeks a fine in the case. 'It's fair for the government to rebut that narrative and show the defendant was motivated by greed not need,' Streicker said. 'This is a defendant that enjoyed every advantage and significant financial wealth and still turned to bribery and fraud.' In February, Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals such as former Ald. Frank Olivo and Ald. Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories. Madigan was also convicted on six of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get former Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant former ComEd lobbyist Michael McClain. _______
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Double Standard On LA's Protests Couldn't Be More Glaring
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is warning those protesting against his unprecedented immigration crackdown in Los Angeles against targeting police officers and thousands of National Guard troops he's deployed there, promising to exact retribution on anyone who commits violence against them. 'Nobody's going to spit on our police officers. Nobody's going to spit on our military,' Trump told reporters on Monday, before posting on his social media website: 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT, and I promise you they will be hit harder than they have ever been hit before. Such disrespect will not be tolerated!' But Trump felt differently about violence against law enforcement when he issued blanket pardons earlier this year for hundreds of people who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in an effort to keep him in office after his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. His pardons included those convicted of assaulting or interfering with police officers, roughly 1,000 nonviolent offenders and around 200 people accused of assaulting police. A number of those pardoned have reportedly since been rearrested for other alleged crimes. 'These are the hostages. Approximately 1,500 were pardoned. Full pardon,' Trump said after issuing the pardons on his first day in office. About 140 police officers were injured in the attack on the Capitol, something that Trump has called a 'beautiful day' despite being impeached by the U.S. House for inciting an insurrection by spreading lies about election fraud. 'Their hypocrisy just smacks you in the face,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who investigated the Capitol attack as a former member of the House, told HuffPost in response to Trump's response to LA's unrest. 'Violence is never appropriate. It wasn't appropriate on Jan. 6 and it's not appropriate in LA or anywhere else. We need to be consistent about that.' Trump quickly deployed thousands of troops to California over the weekend — including 700 U.S. Marines — despite no request from the state's governor, Gavin Newsom, who has warned the president's actions will further inflame the unrest. The protests initially began after Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents executed raids at a Home Depot store in Los Angeles at the direction of the White House. As president on Jan. 6, 2021, however, Trump issued no order or formal request for National Guard troops to aid beleaguered U.S. Capitol police who were overrun by hundreds of his supporters. 'On Jan. 6, both the Democratic and Republican leadership in Congress were begging Donald Trump to make a statement, to call off the MAGA mob that invaded the Capitol,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told HuffPost. 'People were begging him to call out the National Guard, and he sat there and did nothing, and now he's acting in a situation where the officials in charge are telling him that federalizing the National Guard and sending in the Marines will only exacerbate a situation which is under control.' Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the House speaker at the time, also slammed Trump for federalizing the National Guard and sending troops to Los Angeles, something he refused to do when Congress was under attack. 'We begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard. He would not do it,' Pelosi told reporters on Tuesday. 'And yet, in a contra-constitutional way, he has sent the National Guard into California. Something is very wrong with this picture.' While Democrats have slammed Trump's response to the protests, Republicans are broadly welcoming the federal intervention in California — even those who have long espoused the importance of state's rights and the ability of local governments to enforce their laws. In 2024, for example, a group of 24 conservative House Republicans warned then-President Joe Biden not to federalize the Texas National Guard as some Texas Democratic lawmakers had been urging him to do, saying it would be an 'encroachment on Texas' constitutionally protected sovereignty.' Asked Tuesday if Trump is being inconsistent by sending troops to Los Angeles after pardoning Jan. 6 rioters, meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) dodged the question entirely. 'The issue that's in front of us is the chaos in LA. The political leadership there wasn't up to the task,' he said at his weekly press conference. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who has disagreed publicly with Trump's pardons of Jan. 6 rioters, said Democrats aren't being consistent on the issue by not sufficiently condemning violence in Los Angeles. 'I think Democrats who feel like the president is wrong to bring out force would be on firmer ground if they denounce the actions of violence in Los Angeles, Kenosha, and Portland,' he said, without specifying which Democrats have refused to speak out. Even Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a Libertarian-leaning voice in the Senate, suggested Trump was within his rights to federalize the National Guard and send troops into California without approval from the state's governor. 'Democrats have failed to have law and order,' Paul said. 'I've always preferred local law enforcement to federal but this is a time in which it looks as though the state government is resisting enforcing federal law.' It's not clear what federal law the senator is referring to. Newsom has also condemned violent protesters and urged the demonstrations to remain peaceful. 'The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles — not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,' Newsom said Sunday. 'Don't give them one. Never use violence. Speak out peacefully,' he added. Arthur Delaney contributed reporting.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Georgia Supreme Court rejects changes sought by Trump-aligned board ahead of 2024 election
Members of Georgia's State Election Board sit during a Sept. 23 meeting at the Georgia state capitol in Atlanta. Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder (file photo) The Georgia Supreme Court has permanently blocked four rules the State Election Board approved last fall, concluding Tuesday that members of the board exceeded their authority in attempting to implement rules that went beyond the scope of Georgia's election laws. A total of seven rules were approved by the Republican-led board ahead of the 2024 general election, with supporters claiming that the changes were necessary to ensure accuracy and restore public confidence in Georgia's election integrity. If enacted, the rules would have ordered poll workers to hand count all ballots cast on election day, made it easier for local election officials to delay certifying election results and required family members and caregivers to present a photo ID when dropping off absentee ballots on behalf of another voter, among other changes. Election officials and voting rights groups opposed the rules, arguing that last-minute changes could sow confusion and doubt into the election process, and that implementing the new rules would violate Georgia's election laws. Last October, the Georgia Republican Party and Republican National Committee filed an emergency motion urging the state Supreme Court to reinstate the rules ahead of the general election, but the court declined to expedite their appeal. In a 96-page opinion, Chief Justice Nels Peterson upheld most of the Fulton County Superior Court's ruling, declaring that the State Election Board 'can pass rules to implement and enforce the Election Code, but it cannot go beyond, change, or contradict' existing Georgia law. The October ruling from Judge Thomas A. Cox Jr. argued that the seven rules were 'illegal, unconstitutional and void,' and that the State Election Board had exceeded its authority by passing them. However, in a slight reversal of the lower court ruling, the state Supreme Court allowed a rule mandating video surveillance of ballot drop boxes to take effect, finding that the rule was consistent with current election laws. Two other rules that would have expanded mandatory poll-watching areas and required election workers to publicly post daily totals of early and absentee voters were sent back to the Fulton County Superior Court for further consideration. The State Election Board is tasked with writing rules to ensure that elections run smoothly and hearing complaints about alleged violations. The three most conservative members of the Republican-led board — Janice Johnston, former state Sen. Rick Jeffares and Janelle King — made national headlines last fall after approving seven election rules in spite of Attorney General Chris Carr's warnings that the changes likely would not stand up in court. Then-presidential candidate Donald Trump also praised King, Jeffares and Johnston during a campaign rally in Atlanta for supporting changes to election certification rules, calling them 'pit bulls' for 'victory.' State Election Board Chairman John Fervier did not respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court's ruling. The ACLU of Georgia, which helped represent the plaintiffs, applauded Tuesday's ruling. 'This is a resounding affirmation of voters' rights,' said Theresa Lee, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Voting Rights Project. 'The court recognized what we've argued all along — that this rule was unlawful and entirely unnecessary. Today's decision safeguards not just the letter of Georgia election law, but the democratic principle that every vote must be counted accurately and without interference.' Eternal Vigilance Action, a conservative election advocacy organization that sued the State Election Board over the rule changes, also celebrated the ruling. 'This ruling makes clear: the legislative power belongs to the General Assembly, not executive agencies operating without proper constraints,' Eternal Vigilance Action founder and former Republican state Rep. Scot Turner said in a statement. As new election laws passed in 2024 begin to take effect, including a ban on the use of QR codes to tabulate ballots, the board will likely continue to draft rules to guide local election officials tasked with implementing the changes. However, this year the board is workshopping changes to the rulemaking process in the hopes of avoiding a repeat of the chaos that defined the 2024 election cycle. During a May meeting, state election board members discussed the possibility of forming a rules committee with election directors, legislators, Georgia residents, and election law attorneys. Rules would be vetted by the committee before being presented to the full board. Senior reporter Stanley Dunlap contributed to this report. s25a0362 SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
