logo
Only ‘political magic' can save $825 million prison plan, lawmaker says

Only ‘political magic' can save $825 million prison plan, lawmaker says

Yahoo25-02-2025

The South Dakota House of Representatives meets on Feb. 6, 2025, at the Capitol in Pierre. (Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight)
Full-throated support from South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden may not be enough to change the minds of skeptical lawmakers on a controversial plan to build an $825 million, 1,500-bed men's prison south of Sioux Falls.
Less than two weeks after Rhoden declared that 'failure is not an option' for the project, the state House of Representatives first knocked down an effort to launch its construction, then twice said no to an alternative plan that would've pumped $142 million more into a savings account they set up three years ago to pay for it.
The second rejection came Monday, when an attempt to reconsider the legislation failed due to a lawmaker's mistake. Rep. Roger DeGroot, R-Brookings, said he voted against the reconsideration motion in error. The motion failed on a tie vote of 35-35.
'I'm for the prison,' DeGroot said later via text.
House shoots down prison money, but new vote looms
Had DeGroot voted his intentions, House floor talk could have resumed Monday on the legislation, House Bill 1025.
Rep. Brian Mulder, R-Sioux Falls, voted against adding money to the prison fund on Friday, but voted for reopening debate on the idea Monday.
Yet Mulder told Searchlight he hadn't changed his mind on the bill. Instead, he wrote in a text, he'd wanted Howard Republican Rep. Tim Reisch, a former Department of Corrections secretary and vocal backer of the new prison, to have an opportunity to cast a vote. Reisch missed Friday's vote for a funeral.
'If any representative would miss something that is in their area of expertise, I would offer that same opportunity to them that I was offering to Rep. Reisch,' Mulder wrote. 'But I was still a no on the bill as written, as I have several concerns about the plan that is being brought forward.'
HB 1025 was originally written to provide the last $182 million needed to build the prison. It also would've let the DOC tap into the more than $600 million now held in an incarceration construction fund, built up over the past few years by previous votes to fill it and interest earned.
Lawmakers can move money into the fund with a simple majority, but can't appropriate money to spend unless two-thirds of them agree to do so.
On Friday, the House accepted an amendment from Sioux Falls Republican Jack Kolbeck that stripped the bill down to do one thing: Put $142 million into the prison fund, without approving construction, to keep saving money and keep the conversation going. The amended bill failed 34-35 Friday afternoon, while Reisch was missing.
Monday's move to reconsider that vote with Reisch in attendance came after a weekend during which supporters sought to sway their fellow lawmakers on the merits of saving money for prisons – regardless of where they're located or how big they might be.
Rep. Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre, told South Dakota Searchlight after the vote on Friday that he felt like his fellow lawmakers may have been voting against the $825 million prison plan, not necessarily the idea of saving money to deal with demonstrable overcrowding across the system.
The hope, Mortenson said, was to work on changing minds.
Showdown over $825 million prison looms for state House of Representatives
Sioux Falls Republican Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt moved for reconsideration on the House floor Monday.
'The weekend should've given some people time to get some accurate information on what we are voting on,' Rehfeldt said.
Reisch voted as expected, but DeGroot's erroneous no vote meant the reconsideration move still came up short.
Rhoden's office sent a statement similar to the one offered after the Friday vote.
'We look forward to continuing the conversation and will address next steps at the appropriate time,' wrote Josie Harms, Rhoden's spokeswoman.
There are legislative maneuvers that could revive HB 1025 again. Lawmakers could use an empty 'vehicle bill,' meaning a bill with a generic title and text frequently used for last-minute proposals, to bring it back. Assuming DeGroot's continued support and Mulder's commitment to his colleague's right to be heard, that would give the bill to bank more prison cash another shot.
Even if that happens – and enough lawmakers change their minds to endorse the idea in both the House and Senate – the odds aren't great that the governor's preferred prison plan will earn the supermajority it needs, lawmakers said Monday.
'Unless they perform political magic to bring this back and get two-thirds support in both houses, this thing is dead,' said Sen. Kevin Jensen, R-Canton, who represents landowners near the farmland selected as a prison site, located about 15 miles south of Sioux Falls in Lincoln County.
Jensen's comments came Monday morning, as a Senate panel advanced his bill to create an incarceration task force.
The envisioned group's charge: to study overcrowding across South Dakota's aging prison properties, what the state should build to address it, and how a new prison or prisons might serve to reduce the state's rate of repeat offenses.
The executive branch came out against Jensen's task force bill, Senate Bill 124, on Monday morning in the Senate State Affairs Committee.
Brittni Skipper, finance director for the DOC, told the panel that the state had already done its homework. Skipper pointed to a commissioned facility report from Nebraska's DLR Group, which listed a 1,372-bed men's prison as a top recommendation. The 1881-built state penitentiary it would replace is overcrowded and inefficient, the consultants concluded.
The Legislature already convened a task force in 2022, she said, and endorsed a new women's prison and the men's prison project.
Construction of the women's prison is underway in Rapid City; preparatory legwork is done for the men's prison.
'The provisions outlined in Senate Bill 124 have already been thoroughly examined by the Legislature,' Skipper said. 'The design for the new facility is complete. All utilities are contracted, and site preparation has already begun. These efforts were all authorized by the Legislature.'
She also reminded the committee that the $825 million price is only guaranteed until March 31.
Jensen disputed the claim on the prior task force's certainty. The task force was 'mostly lawmakers,' Jensen said, not the more expansive stakeholder group his bill would create. SB 124 would have four lawmakers, two Governor's Office representatives, two current or former wardens and representatives from the state court system.
'The incarceration pipeline starts at the arrest, and then goes all the way through adjudication and incarceration,' Jensen said. 'There's so many more players that really need to be at the table.'
He also rejected the idea that the 2022 task force endorsed an $825 million prison. The DLR report recommends 17 projects, including new facilities and upgrades to existing ones, he said. The same report also noted that, while not ideal, a smaller tract of land near Sioux Falls known as West Farm, which the DOC already owns and uses for juveniles, could serve as a site for a men's prison.
Resistance to final budget request for new prison 'a real possibility' in Pierre
The report put the price tag for a new men's prison at less than $400 million. The task force, Jensen said, endorsed the two prisons because lawmakers 'didn't want to spend' what it would take to do everything.
Sen. Jim Mehlhaff, R-Pierre, pointed out that the lower price tag for the men's prison wasn't solid, but an 'engineer's estimate,' calling Skipper back up to confirm as much.
Sen. Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, had a different question for her: What's the state's position on its options now that it's clear the project doesn't have two-thirds support?
'We would keep pushing for the prison as it's designed,' Skipper replied.
Karr said he appreciated the honesty, but he has doubts about that approach.
'So we're just going to wait, then come back to this same group of people, have this same discussion, and expect a different outcome?' Karr said.
He moved to pass the task force bill. It passed 5-4.
Jensen didn't succeed on a companion bill, Senate Bill 204, which was also up for debate in the committee Monday morning. It sought to stop the DOC from using any more of the $62 million lawmakers gave the agency during previous sessions to spend on prep work for the prison.
Ryan Brunner, a policy adviser with Rhoden's office, said there are bills to pay for contracts signed on the assumption the prison would be built as planned. The money used to sign them did earn a two-thirds vote.
A blanket stop work order from the Legislature would keep the state from writing checks for its part in a substation and water main to serve the facility, Brunner said.
The state invested in those projects with a utility provider and rural water system, which Brunner said had each planned the upgrades to serve both the area's residents and the new prison.
Jensen said he was willing to amend the bill to make sure the state doesn't 'stiff anybody,' but argued that lawmakers need reassurance that the DOC isn't moving farther than it should on a project they didn't agree to.
The funding shutoff bill failed 4-5. The decisive vote came from Sen. Liz Larson, D-Sioux Falls, who voted against it after voting for the task force bill.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk deletes Epstein tweet after Trump rift
Musk deletes Epstein tweet after Trump rift

Yahoo

time20 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Musk deletes Epstein tweet after Trump rift

Elon Musk has deleted a tweet in which he alleged that Donald Trump was 'in the Epstein files'. The social media post was written on Thursday during a fierce war of words between the tech billionaire and the US president, after a dispute over Mr Trump's flagship spending Bill marked an abrupt end to their close alliance. As the disagreement escalated, Mr Musk also suggested that his former boss should be removed from office. 'The Epstein files' is a phrase colloquially used to describe intelligence the US authorities hold on Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile financier who died in 2019. However, by Saturday morning, Mr Musk had deleted his post on X, in a sign the row could be winding down. Mr Trump also appeared to suggest he was moving on from the spat, telling reporters during a flight to New Jersey: 'Honestly I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia, working on Iran... I'm not thinking about Elon Musk. I just wish him well.' The row began when Mr Musk – who last week stepped down as head of the Department of Government Efficiency – criticised the president's upcoming Bill as a 'disgusting abomination' and claimed it would increase the national debt. Mr Trump retaliated by saying the billionaire was upset because one of his allies had not been chosen for a role in the new Nasa administration. The president also suggested Mr Musk was annoyed because the White House's 'big beautiful Bill' would end tax breaks for electric vehicles worth billions of dollars to his car company Tesla. 'He knew it better than almost anybody, and he never had a problem until right after he left,' Mr Trump said. The president later said, during an Oval Office meeting with Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, that Mr Musk had 'Trump derangement syndrome'. The Republican later added that he was 'very disappointed' in the entrepreneur. However, Mr Musk was quick to hit back, alleging that the president had only won last year's election because of his support. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election. Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate... Such ingratitude,' he wrote on X. The world's richest man then published his post about the president and the Epstein files – but provided no evidence to back up his claim. Mr Trump and Epstein ran in the same social circles in New York and were pictured partying together on various occasions in the 1980s and 1990s. Epstein killed himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. In February, Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, pledged to release the Epstein files. However, the 'phase one' documents that were released to a hand-picked group of conservative influencers contained information that was largely already in the public domain. As the row escalated, Mr Musk said he would decommission his Dragon spacecraft, which is used by Nasa to deliver and collect astronauts from the International Space Station. Mr Trump in turn threatened to cancel all the Tesla and SpaceX owner's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our budget, billions and billions of dollars, is to terminate Elon's governmental subsidies and contracts,' he said. The president also reportedly considered selling or giving away the red Tesla car he purchased earlier this year. Tesla shares tanked as the rift intensified, amid investor fears that Mr Trump might hinder the roll-out of self-driving cars in the US, hitting the company's growth potential. Shares closed down 14.3 per cent on Thursday and lost about £111 billion, although the firm staged a partial recovery on Friday. An administration official claimed Mr Musk was 'clearly having an episode', while Steve Bannon, Mr Trump's former adviser, encouraged the president to initiate a formal investigation into Mr Musk's immigration status and have him 'deported from the country immediately'. As well as deleting the Epstein post, Mr Musk also appeared to walk back on his threat to decommission the Dragon spacecraft. When an X user suggested Mr Musk and Mr Trump 'take a step back for a couple days', the Tesla chief executive wrote: 'Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon.' However, the billionaire has continued to keep a poll pinned to the top of his X profile which invites users of the social media platform to vote on whether it is time for a new political party in the US. Mr Musk wrote on Friday night: 'The people have spoken. A new political party is needed in America to represent the 80 per cent in the middle! This is fate.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit
Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit

Black America Web

time35 minutes ago

  • Black America Web

Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit

Source: The Washington Post / Getty In a unanimous Supreme Court decision that's already sending ripples through workplace law and DEI discourse, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, a straight woman who claimed she was discriminated against for her sexual orientation after being passed over for promotion in favor of gay colleagues. According to reports, the high court rejected a previously accepted legal standard that required members of majority groups to meet a higher burden of proof when alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling, penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, made it clear that equal protection under employment discrimination law does not shift depending on whether the plaintiff is part of a historically marginalized group or not. 'Title VII does not impose such a heightened standard on majority group plaintiffs,' Jackson wrote. And with that decision, what many had considered a quietly accepted court norm was struck down. The decision comes amid growing backlash against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs nationwide, with critics arguing such initiatives increasingly favor the historically excluded to the point of excluding everyone else. Ames' legal victory is likely to fuel further debate over whether we're entering a new phase of 'reverse discrimination' litigation—where being white, straight, or male can now be leveraged in civil rights courtrooms as the basis of systemic bias. But the facts of Ames' case, while legally persuasive to the Court, remain emotionally murky. According to the lawsuit, Ames had been with the Ohio Department of Youth Services since 2004, eventually rising to lead a program aimed at combating prison rape. In 2019, she reportedly applied for a promotion and was passed over for a lesbian colleague who allegedly lacked a college degree and had less tenure. Not long after, Ames was demoted, and her former position was filled by a gay man. Her complaint: she lost both opportunities because she was straight. The employer's rebuttal: she lacked vision, leadership, and—more subtly—the emotional intelligence to lead. One might read between those HR lines and detect the scent of a corporate 'Karen.' Source: The Washington Post / Getty Despite Ames' insistence that her sexual orientation was the problem, court filings from the state describe her office performance as the real issue, revealing that she was more of a poor team player than a persecuted worker. Officials reportedly described her as 'difficult to work with' and pointed out that the supervisors who made promotion decisions were straight, challenging the idea of an anti-hetero bias at the institutional level. Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost defended the department's actions in court, saying Ames' rejection and eventual demotion were part of an internal restructuring process, with department leaders saying they felt she was difficult to work with, and lacked the vision and leadership needed for the position she sought. Still, the Court's ruling wasn't about whether Ames was discriminated against—it was about her right to argue that she was without being subjected to an unfair legal burden simply because she's straight. For that reason, this case now returns to the lower courts for another round and potentially a full trial. Legal scholars note that this ruling could open the floodgates to more lawsuits from majority-group plaintiffs who feel shut out by race- or orientation-conscious hiring and promotion practices. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, cited an amicus brief from the Trump-aligned group America First Legal, which has recently taken aim at major corporations like Starbucks and IBM for so-called reverse discrimination. But there's a deeper cultural layer here that can't be ignored. Was Ames truly the victim of anti-straight bias, or was she an underwhelming candidate looking for a convenient legal hook in the form of her colleagues' LGBTQ+ status? In an era where 'DEI fatigue' is a real thing in boardrooms and breakrooms alike, the line between legitimate grievance and performative fragility is increasingly blurred. Still, the Supreme Court's message is clear: Discrimination law is about equality of process, not identity advantage. No group, majority or minority, gets a shortcut or a steeper climb to their day in court. So while Ames may still lose her case, she'll now do so with the same legal footing afforded to any other claimant, and for some, that's progress. For others, it's the beginning of a new kind of fear. But let's be clear: whether Ames' tears are of mayo or merit, this ruling is a turning point and in today's polarized professional climate, it's only the beginning of a much larger reckoning over who gets to claim 'discrimination'—and who gets believed. SEE ALSO: California Teen Sprinter Disqualified For Celebrating State Title Win Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk: Feud Cools After Explosive Clash SEE ALSO Mayo Tears Or Real Fears: Supreme Court Rules For Straight Woman In Job Discrimination Suit was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

Derek Dooley, former Tennessee coach and Vince Dooley's son, eyes GOP Senate run in Georgia
Derek Dooley, former Tennessee coach and Vince Dooley's son, eyes GOP Senate run in Georgia

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Derek Dooley, former Tennessee coach and Vince Dooley's son, eyes GOP Senate run in Georgia

Derek Dooley, a former University of Tennessee football coach, said Friday that he is considering a Republican run for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2026 against Democratic incumbent Jon Ossoff. The trial balloon shows how Gov. Brian Kemp's decision not to run for the seat has left Georgia Republicans looking for other options to face off against Ossoff, considered the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent up for reelection next year. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] Dooley, 56, said he would decide on a bid in coming weeks. 'Georgia deserves stronger common-sense leadership in the U.S. Senate that represents all Georgians and focuses on results — not headlines,' Dooley said in a statement. 'I believe our state needs a political outsider in Washington — not another career politician — to cut through the noise and partisanship and get back to real problem solving.' The announcement, first reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, came as other declared candidates stumped before the state Republican convention in the northwest Georgia city of Dalton. Among Republicans who have declared their candidacies are U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, Insurance Commissioner John King and activist Reagan Box. Other Republicans who could run include U.S. Reps. Mike Collins and Rich McCormick, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and state Sen. Greg Dolezal. Attacks on Ossoff were among the most reliable applause lines during Friday afternoon speeches at the convention. 'Folks, President Trump needs backup, he needs backup in the Senate,' King said. RELATED STORIES: Gov. Kemp announces decision on Senate run in 2026, ending speculation Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene rules out run against Ossoff for Senate With Brian Kemp not running for Senate, which Georgia Republicans could challenge Jon Ossoff? Dooley has never run for office before. His appeal wouldn't be based on his career 32-41 record at Louisiana Tech and Tennessee, but his status as the son of legendary University Georgia coach Vince Dooley and Kemp's long ties to the Dooley family. As a teenager, Kemp was a frequent guest in the Dooley home, and roomed with Derek's older brother, Daniel Dooley, at the University of Georgia. Kemp has the most effective Republican political organization in Georgia, and he would likely give Dooley a big credibility boost. Kemp and President Donald Trump have been trying to agree on a mutual candidate to back for Senate in 2026, hoping to avoid the conflict that plagued Kelly Loeffler's unsuccessful run, where she lost to Democrat Raphael Warnock in a 2021 runoff. That, along with Republican David Perdue's loss to Ossoff on the same day handed control of the U.S. Senate to Democrats. Trump had preferred then U.S. Rep Doug Collins instead of Loeffler. Then in 2022, Trump anointed Georgia football legend Herschel Walker as the Republican nominee, but Warnock turned back Walker's flawed candidacy in another runoff. Kemp only swung in to help Walker in the runoff. The effort to screen 2026 candidates has already produced some results, with U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene saying she wouldn't bring her right-wing positions to the Senate campaign trail. Dooley would be far from the first sports figure to run for office. His father was frequently discussed as a possible candidate, but never took the plunge. But other coaches have gone far. Former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville was elected to the Senate in 2020 from Alabama and is now running for governor. Former Ohio State University coach Jim Tressel is currently that state's lieutenant governor. And University of Nebraska coaching legend Tom Osborne served three terms in the U.S. House. Dooley walked on in football at the University of Virginia and earned a scholarship as a wide receiver. He earned a law degree from the University of Georgia and briefly practiced law in Atlanta before working his way up the college coaching ladder, becoming head coach for three years at Louisiana Tech and then moving on to Tennessee. Dooley recorded three consecutive losing seasons in Knoxville before he was fired in 2012 after losing to in-state rival Vanderbilt. After that, he has worked as an assistant coach for the NFL's Miami Dolphins and Dallas Cowboys, the University of Missouri and the New York Giants. Most recently, Dooley was an offensive analyst with the University of Alabama. [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store