Derby: House will vote Friday on new prison
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — Whether a new men's prison will be built in Lincoln County could come down to what the South Dakota House of Representatives decides on Friday.
The Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations after a one-hour hearing voted unanimously on Thursday to send House Bill 1025 forward to the House with no recommendation.
Smithfield pays $10k after worker locked in oven
Republican Rep. Mike Derby made the motion.
'This will be one of the largest projects in the history of the state of South Dakota, and this deserves to be heard by the entire body on an up and down vote on the floor tomorrow,' Derby said.
No other legislator spoke.
The guaranteed maximum price of $825 million expires on March 31. The legislation needs a two-thirds majority in each chamber — 47 in the House and 24 in the Senate — to reach Gov. Larry Rhoden's desk.
Earlier Thursday, House Republican leader Scott Odenbach and House Republican assistant leader Karla Lems indicated it's unclear whether there would be enough support to move HB 1025 to the Senate, in part because there are so many new representatives.
The two sides on HB 1025 received equal time during the hearing to make their presentations to appropriators, followed by a seven-minute rebuttal from state Corrections Secretary Kellie Wasko.
The project received favorable testimony from Wasko, governor's senior aide Ryan Brunner, state Department of Corrections finance director Brittni Skipper, state engineer Stacy Watters, and lobbyists for the South Dakota Sheriffs Association, South Dakota State's Attorneys Association and South Dakota Police Chiefs Association.
Testifying against the legislation were former House speaker Steve Haugaard, who is a Sioux Falls lawyer, as well as others including Madeline Voegeli, Don Jacobs and Dan Paulson.
The proposed 1,500-bed facility in Lincoln County would replace the State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls and would also accept inmates now housed at the neighboring Jameson Annex. Haugaard said he's been inside the current facilities 'hundreds of times' and described the Jameson unit as 'perfectly adequate.'
Haugaard focused instead on recidivism rates that in recent years, he said, have gone from 40.3% to 44%, which he described as 'not an effective corrections policy.' Haugaard argued that the existing building has adequate space — 'It's perfectly suitable to get the job done if you hire the staff you need.' — and said that if the department 'jacked those wages up, you'd see people applying.'
'I'd say failure at recidivism is the problem,' Haugaard said. 'That building has zero to do with effective corrections policy.' He said building a minimum/medium-security facility for men in western South Dakota instead would be the best step at this time.
Paulson is a member of a citizens group that calls itself NOPE — No Prison Expansion — that has a lawsuit pending before the South Dakota Supreme Court. He asked the legislators to consider what happens if they approve the Lincoln County site and the court then rules in NOPE's favor. 'You'd be in a pickle,' Paulson said.
Wasko spent much of her rebuttal time responding to Haugaard's arguments, starting with recidivism rates.
'We haven't stopped anythng. We're limited in what we can do,' Wasko said. She explained that the current facility allows rehabilitation classes for 12 inmates at a time in a facility that currently has more than 800. The new facility will have 25 behavioral health and 16 educational FTEs, she said.
As to wages, Wasko said the DOC correctional officers now receive pay that puts them 'neck and neck' with those at the Minnehaha County jail. She said the staff vacancy rate has dropped to 10%, the lowest in a decade, in large part because the Legislature raised pay two years ago.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lopez: Why this overheated invasion of L.A. looks so ugly and feels so personal
I was driving while listening to the news Sunday when I heard House Speaker Mike Johnson justify President Trump's move to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles. 'We have to maintain the rule of law,' Johnson said. I almost swerved off the road. Maintain the rule of law? Trump pardoned the hooligans who ransacked the Capitol because he lost the 2020 presidential election. They clashed with police, destroyed property and threatened the lives of public officials, and to Trump, they're heroes. Maintain the rule of law? Trump is a 34-count felon who has defied judicial rulings, ignored laws that don't serve his interests, and turned his current presidency into an unprecedented adventure in self-dealing and graft. And now he's sending an invading army to Los Angeles, creating a crisis where there was none. Arresting undocumented immigrants with criminal records is one thing, but is that what this is about? Or is it about putting on a show, occupying commercial and residential neighborhoods and arresting people who are looking for — or on their way to — work. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that U.S. Marines were on high alert and ready to roll, and in the latest of who knows how many escalations, hundreds are headed our way. What next, the Air Force? I'm not going to defend the vandalism and violence — which plays into Trump's hands—that followed ICE arrests in Los Angeles. I can see him sitting in front of the tube, letting out a cheer every time another "migrant criminal" flings a rock or a scooter at a patrol car. But I am going to defend Los Angeles and the way things work here. For starters, undocumented immigration is not the threat to public safety or the economy that Trump like to bloviate about. It's just that he knows he can score points on border bluster and on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), so he's going full gasbag on both, and now he's threatening to lock up Gov. Gavin Newsom. Read more: Reopen Alcatraz as a prison? Yes, but Trump shouldn't stop there To hear the rhetoric, you'd think every other undocumented immigrant is a gang member and that trans athletes will soon dominate youth sports if someone doesn't stand up to them. I can already read the mail that hasn't yet arrived, so let me say in advance that I do indeed understand that breaking immigration law means breaking the law, and I believe that President Biden didn't do enough to control the border, although it was Republicans who killed a border security bill early last year. I also acknowledge the cost of supporting undocumented immigrants is substantial when you factor in public education and, in California, medical care, which is running billions of dollars beyond original estimates. But the economic contributions of immigrants — regardless of legal status — are undeniably numerous, affecting the price we pay for everything from groceries to healthcare to domestic services to construction to landscaping. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that a surge in immigrants since 2021 — including refugees, asylum seekers and others, legal and illegal — had lifted the U.S. economy "by filling otherwise vacant jobs," as The Times reported, and "pumping millions of tax dollars into state, local and federal coffers." According to a seminal 2011 study by the Public Policy Institute of California, 'many illegal immigrants pay Social Security and other taxes but do not collect benefits, and they are not eligible for many government services." In addition, the report said: 'Political controversies aside, when illegal immigrants come, many U.S. employers are ready to hire them. The vast majority work. Estimates suggest that at least 75 percent of adult illegal immigrants are in the workforce.' Trump can rail against the lunatic radical left for the scourge of illegal immigration, but the statement that 'employers are ready to hire them' couldn't be more true. And those employers stand on both sides of the political aisle, as do lawmakers who for decades have allowed the steady flow of workers to industries that would suffer without them. Read more: What happened during three days of protests over immigration raids in downtown L.A. On Sunday, I had to pick up a couple of items at the Home Depot on San Fernando Road in Glendale, where dozens of day laborers often gather in search of work. But there were only a couple of men out there, given recent headlines. A shopper in the garden section said the report of federal troops marching on L.A. is "kind of ridiculous, right?" He said the characterization by Trump of "all these terrible people" and "gang members" on the loose was hard to square with the reality of day laborers all but begging for work. I found one of them in a far corner of the Home Depot lot, behind a fence. He told me he was from Honduras and was afraid to risk arrest by looking for work at a time when battalions of masked troops were on the move, but he's got a hungry family back home, including three kids. He said he was available for any kind of jobs, including painting, hauling and cleanup. Two men in a pickup truck told me they were undocumented too and available for construction jobs of any type. They said they were from Puebla, Mexico, but there wasn't enough work for them there. I've been to Puebla, a city known for its roughly 300 churches. I was passing through about 20 years ago on my way to a small nearby town where almost everyone on the street was female. Where were the men? I was told by a city official that the local economy was all about corn, but local growers couldn't compete with American farmers who had the benefit of federal subsidies. So the men had gone north for work. Another reason people head north is to escape the violence wrought by cartels armed with American-made weapons, competing to serve the huge American appetite for drugs. In these ways, and more, the flow of people across borders can be complicated. But generally speaking, it's simply about survival. People move to escape poverty or danger. They move in search of something better for themselves, or to be more accurate about it, for their children. The narratives of those journeys are woven into the fabric of Los Angeles. It's part of what's messy and splendid and complicated about this blended, imperfect corner of the world, where many of us know students or workers or families with temporary status, or none at all. That's why this overheated invasion looks so ugly and feels so personal. We're less suspicious of our neighbors and the people we encounter on our daily rounds than the hypocrites who would pardon insurrectionists, sow division and send an occupying army to haul away members of our community. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
State employees' civil service protections in doubt as constitutional amendment advances
Louisiana lawmakers may life restrictions on gifts for elected officials and government employees. (Photo by Greg LaRose/Louisiana Illuminator) A proposed constitutional amendment to dismantle a 73-year-old civil service system created to stop politically-influenced job placements in Louisiana government was narrowly approved Monday in the state House of Representatives. Senate Bill 8, sponsored by Sen. Jay Morris. R-West Monroe, cleared the chamber in a 70-28 vote, reaching the very minimum two-thirds support required to put constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot. The measure will return to the Senate for a final vote on some House amendments and. If approved, it will go before voters in the Nov. 3, 2026, election. Confusion over the bill that many hoped would be cleared up only deepened Monday, specifically on whether the proposal would apply only to future state employee hires or if it could be used to remove existing state employees. Morris' bill would change the Louisiana Constitution to give state lawmakers power that currently rests with the Civil Service Commission, a seven-member independent review panel that oversees the hiring, promotion and firing of 28,000 'classified' state workers. The commission, working with state agencies on staffing goals, has the power to create and eliminate job positions and decide which jobs should have a protected classified status and which should not. Classified employees enjoy some degree of protection against politically-motivated or otherwise unfair terminations and disciplinary practices because they have the right to appeal such decisions to the Civil Service Commission, which has the final say on staffing matters for most state agencies. In a previous interview and during committee hearings on the bill, Morris said his bill would allow the legislature to designate classified state employees as unclassified, meaning they could be fired at will. But several changes to the legislation's text and its proposed ballot language have raised questions about whether current state employees will be at risk of losing their jobs. Presenting the bill on the House floor Monday, Rep. Beau Beaullieu, R-New Iberia, repeatedly assured his colleagues the proposal would apply only to future hires. He based his assurances on the argument that the amendment allows only for job positions to become unclassified, not employees. If the Legislature were to unclassify a job position, any state employees currently holding those positions would not be affected, he said. Beaullieu's argument didn't land with several lawmakers opposed to the measure. Rep. Matt Willard, D-New Orleans, reading from the text of the proposal, asked why the ballot language specifically indicates the amendment applies to 'officers, positions and employees' – a phrase that appears twice in the bill. Caught off-guard by Willard's question, Beaullieu couldn't explain the discrepancy, referring questions to Morris, the bill's author. In a later interview, Morris would not offer any assurances as to whether existing classified employees would get to keep their protections. 'Obviously, only employees can be unclassified,' Morris said. 'Positions are employees. You can't unclassify them if somebody's not working.' Morris also refused to say if his intention is for the amendment to apply only to future hires. 'It's not gonna apply to anybody unless we pass a law,' he said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
