Latest news with #SouthDakotaLegislature
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Cosmetologists might be paying more for licenses
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — People who earn a living by styling and cosmetically treating other people's hair, nails and skin could soon be paying higher fees to perform their services in South Dakota. On Monday the South Dakota Cosmetology Commission held a public hearing on its proposal to raise prices for licenses and related services. The commission received no written comments by the Sunday deadline and no one spoke during the hearing. The commission voted 4-0 for approval. The meeting adjourned less than 10 minutes after it started. The package now awaits final clearance from the South Dakota Legislature's Rules Review Committee, which is scheduled to meet June 10. Earlier this year, South Dakota lawmakers passed Senate Bill 27 raising many of the maximum amounts that the commission can charge. The package that the commission adopted Monday would generate an estimated $237,385, according to an official fiscal note. Among the changes: The examination/initial license rises to $120 from the current $100. It would generate an additional $4,000 if 200 people receive new licenses. The examination-retake fee increases to $90 from the current $60. It would generate an additional $6,600 if 220 people retry. The operator license renewal fee goes to $45 from the current $25. For the approximately 6,640 current license holders, it would cost an additional $132,800 total. The annual booth or salon license fee rises to $55 from the current $40. For the current 2,029 current license holders, it would cost an additional $30,435 total. The salon or booth permit fee goes to $75 from the current $60. The charge for re-inspecting a salon rises to $75 from the current $50. The instructor license fee rises to $45 from the current $35. There currently are approximately 400 instructors. The six schools that currently operate would pay $350 apiece rather than the current $300. Student licenses would rise to $15 from the current $6. The apprentice salon license would go to $300 from the current $250. A reciprocity license for a person licensed in another state would rise to $120 from the current $100. Fees also would rise for license certifications, duplicate licenses and lapsed licenses, while a new fee would be charged for inspections of prospective salons or booths. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
As years pass, withdrawn bills list grows and grows
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — More than a decade ago, the South Dakota Legislature made a seemingly small rule change. Starting with the 2014 session, lawmakers could withdraw any of their bills and resolutions, provided they did so ahead of the proposal's first public hearing. TenHaken unsure when mayoral term ends due to new law The idea was that lawmakers would no longer have to go to a committee hearing and directly ask other legislators to set their bill aside, a process formally known as tabling — or, as some lawmakers put it, having to 'go out in public and shoot your own dog.' Turns out, for some of them, the change wasn't small at all. Withdrawing a bill has become somewhat commonplace for a handful of lawmakers. During the 12 years that the withdrawal rule has been in place, lawmakers have taken back a total of 285 bills and resolutions. How many get withdrawn varies session to session, but has clearly been edging up. The first three years saw 10, 19 and nine. The 2024 session saw a record 38. The 2025 legislative session, which wraps up on Monday, saw 30 withdrawals, marking the first time of back-to-back years with 30 or more. Those were from a 527 bills and resolutions introduced in 2025 and 511 in 2024. One lawmaker is still serving who was on the 2014 panel that recommended adding the withdrawal rule. KELOLAND News asked Republican Rep. for his thoughts. 'Yes, the rule is working as intended,' Novstrup said. 'I believe the most common reasons a legislator chooses to withdraw a bill is the bill is flawed or not needed.' As an example, Novstrup pointed to a bill he sponsored this year, only to withdraw it. House Bill 1233 called for increasing the annual appropriation to the state Department of Social Services by $300,000 to provide hearing aids to children, based on a recommendation from a certified audiologist. Novstrup said he brought HB 1233 because he had been told that state government intended to stop paying for cochlear implants for children who have hearing difficulties. A former lawmaker, Democrat Paul Dennert, had brought the original cochlear-implant legislation in 2005. 'This changed everything for the hearing impaired,' Novstrup said about Dennert's effort. So when Novstrup heard state government was possibly going to stop the funding, he asked for a bill to be written to not only preserve the cochlear implant funding that Dennert had fought for, but also to expand the funding to cover hearing aids for children if their family's insurance doesn't provide for them. Novstrup said he withdrew his legislation after receiving assurance from the Department of Social Services that the hearing devices could be provided through another program. 'Withdrawing a bill allows the Legislature to reduce the work load and focus efforts,' Novstrup said. Current and former lawmakers say there can be a variety of motivations for walking back a bill or a resolution. Sometimes they are introduced as placeholders, in case there might be a need later in the session for a major amendment, a process known as a hoghouse at the South Dakota Capitol. These 'just in case' vehicles typically, but not always, come from Republican leaders. Sometimes bills are simply ahead of their times. Sometimes they are intended to send political messages and are never meant to be passed. Sometimes they reflect a sponsor's deepest beliefs. And sometimes they are duplicates or result from misunderstandings. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was common for the House and Senate sponsors of a bill to introduce two identical versions, so that each chamber could consider the original version. That practice has become rare. Each lawmaker has her or his own story to tell about why a bill was withdrawn. Republican Sen. holds the record for most withdrawals in any one session. She withdrew five bills this year. They included: Senate Bill 160, which sought to make violations of state election laws a petty offense. Senate Bill 168, which sought to prohibit non-disclosure agreements in settlement cases involving the Associated School Boards of South Dakota Protective Trust Workers Compensation Pool. Senate Bill 182, which sought to require every permanent or emergency administrative rule proposal to receive the approval of an elected official such as the governor before submission to the Legislative Research Council. Senate Bill 183, which sought to establish requirements that state agencies must follow when applying for federal grants, including a requirement that the grant application have the governor's consent. Senate Bill 210, which sought to clarify the Legislature's Interim Rules Review Committee's oversight of emergency rulemaking. It would have provided that an emergency rule couldn't take effect without the committee declaring the rulemaking process complete at an emergency meeting. KELOLAND News asked Peterson about them. 'SB 182, 183 and 210 were a package of bills related to executive branch processes,' Peterson said. 'The executive branch indicated to me that they are already doing some of these things internally and are working on others. As a courtesy to the new administration I withdrew these bills this year to allow them time to implement their processes and procedures. 'SB 160 was an election integrity bill very similar to one proposed by Attorney General Marty Jackley in 2023,' Peterson said. 'In working with the attorney general, we determined that a more in depth review of Title 12 is needed prior to implementing the provisions of SB 160.' She continued, 'In addition, over twenty new election integrity bills were introduced this session that contain provisions potentially duplicating certain provisions of SB 160. I withdrew this bill in order to allow for a review of Title 12 in the interim, and ensure that there is not duplication or conflict with bills signed into law this year.' As for SB 168 relating to non-disclosure agreements for insurance pool arrangements, Peterson said, 'This bill was withdrawn because I had other bills that were requiring more time than I had anticipated and took precedence.' Peterson was prime sponsor of 13 bills this session; one became law: Senate Bill 116, which strengthens penalties for street racing. Altogether, she has withdrawn 10 bills in her nine years as a state lawmaker. That puts her second on the all-time list. Number one on that list is Republican Rep. Phil Jensen, now in his 17th year as a lawmaker. He used the withdrawal rule 17 times, including twice this year: House Bill 1224, which sought to punish the Huron school district by taking away its state aid funding. House Bill 1269, which sought to authorize display of certain flags on public property. Its final sentence said, 'A flag representing a political viewpoint, including gender, political ideology or party, race, or sexual orientation may not be displayed on public property.' For what it's worth, Peterson was the lead Senate sponsor of HB 1269. Jensen's defunding-Huron bill led to House leadership removing him as vice chair of the House Education Committee. He was prime sponsor of six House bills this year. None of them managed to get through the House, much less reach the governor's desk or become law. KELOLAND News contacted Jensen by email and text for his views, but he didn't respond. Here's a look at 15 other bills and resolutions which Jensen withdrew in past years: House Bill 1167 (2024) dealt with legal rights of people who decided against receiving COVID-19 injections. The legislation which would have allowed those people to sue their employers for damages if the employer terminated, demoted, disciplined or took other adversarial action against the employee based on that decision. House Bill 1170 (2024) sought to allow a licensed distiller to sell and ship distilled spirits directly to a consumer. House Resolution 7002 (2022) sought to celebrate Black History Month. The resolution included statements arguing that the U.S. Constitution was not a pro-slavery document, as well as recognizing Republicans for positive steps regarding African-American rights and pointing out how Democrats at times stood in the way of African-American rights. House Bill 1157 (2021) sought to tell the state Board of Education Standards that it shall not allow instructional standards and curricular materials that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government or '(p)romote division between, resentment of, or social justice for a race, gender, political affiliation, social class, or identifiable group of people.' House Bill 1158 (2021) sought to 'prohibit the use of curricular materials that promote racial divisiveness and displace historical understanding with ideology.' The legislation specifically named the '1619 project' assembled by staff of The New York Times newspaper. House Bill 1213 (2021) sought to appropriate $250,000 to what then was known as the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources to contract with the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology to assemble an inventory of known abandoned mined lands in the Black Hills. This came in part because of underground subsidence that led to problems in a Black Hills housing subdivision. Senate Bill 86 (2020) sought to allow the South Dakota Department of Social Services to 'request that an employee of the Division of Child Protection Services be accompanied by a law enforcement officer during the time the employee is conducting an initial family assessment for the purpose of investigating a report of child abuse or neglect.' Senate Bill 87 (2020) sought to 'add information required to be provided to a woman receiving an abortion.' Specifically it would have allowed the woman to 'request to view the aborted fetus after the abortion is performed up until the time the hospital, clinic, or medical facility disposes of the aborted fetus,' Senate Bill 93 (2020) dealt with transgender children. Specifically it would have allowed a parent to 'refuse consent for the provision of any health care service to a minor child if the parent reasonably believes that the service would induce, confirm, or promote the child's belief that the child's gender is different from that which it was at birth or that the gender with which the child identifies is different from that which it was at birth.' Senate Bill 107 (2018) sought to repeal licensing requirements for barbers. Senate Bill 201 (2018) sought to prohibit certain persons and organizations from entering the campus of any public institution of higher education or postsecondary technical institute. It said, 'No institution of higher education under the authority of the Board of Regents and no public postsecondary technical institute may allow on institution or institute premises any person or organization with documented ties to any person on the specially designated nationals and blocked persons list compiled by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury.' Senate Concurrent Resolution 8 (2017) asked that the Legislature 'respectfully' request that the South Dakota attorney general appoint a special prosecutor to pursue all losses that the South Dakota taxpayers sustained as a result of the GEAR UP and EB-5 scandals. Senate Bill 164 (2015) sought to require that all South Dakota students take the citizenship test required of immigrants and correctly answer at least 70 of the 100 questions in order to receive a high school diploma. Senate Bill 133 (2014) sought to prohibit political subdivisions from restricting firearms, to assert the sovereignty of the State of South Dakota with regards to the regulation of arms and weapons, and to provide recourse and penalties for violations. It would have beefed up penalties for violations of existing laws to Class 5 felonies punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Senate Bill 148 (2014) sought to 'ensure that parents may direct the rearing of their children without undue governmental infringement.' Peterson's five other withdrawn bills in prior years were: House Bill 1139 (2023) sought to legally recognize the 'fundamental right' of a parent. Peterson attempted a similar concept through a slightly different approach that same year in House Bill 1237, which she also withdrew. House Bill 1245 (2021) sought to extend under specific circumstances the requirement that the Legislature's Government Operations and Audit Committee review each state agency at least once every three years. Her provision stated, 'If the Governor declares a state of emergency and the committee determines that circumstances preclude it from conducting an adequate performance management review according to the established schedule, the committee may extend the schedule for review by up to one hundred eighty days.' House Bill 1281 (2020) was a placeholder measure that sought to send state government funding to the dual-credit program where high school students earn college credits. House Bill 1271 (2019) sought to change how some insurance plans covered autism spectrum disorders. Next on the list for were Republican Sen. Tom Pischke and Republican former Rep. Steven Haugaard, with eight apiece. Pischke offered multiple reasons for why legislation might be withdrawn. 'They found out someone else is bringing the same legislation,' Pischke said. 'They found out more information. Maybe the legislation was brought forward in the past and they didn't realize the results. Maybe someone told them some unintended consequences, and they didn't like those. Maybe someone else is bringing the same legislation the same year or in the future.' 'The possibilities are really endless,' he said, then offered a few more. 'They ended up working with the administration to figure out a solution that wouldn't require a new law, possibly through rule-making authority. They intended the legislation to get the attention of someone, but never really intended to actually run the bill.' ' The measures which Pischke withdrew were: Senate Joint Resolution 503 (2024) wanted the Legislature to call for 'for a convention of states under Article V of the Constitution of the United States, to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and to limit the terms of office for members of Congress and other federal officials.' House Concurrent Resolution 6002 (2021) called for legislators to behave in such a way that 'never, under any circumstances, causes a question to be raised about integrity or preservation of the public trust.' House Bill 1148 (2020) sought to substantially revise protection orders. House Bill 1100 (2019) was a placeholder regarding landowner rights. House Bill 1101 (2019) was a placeholder regarding the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department programs. House Bill 1108 (2018) sought to require written consent for someone to resell or redisclose a person's personal information from state motor-vehicle records. House Bill 1208 (2018) sought to reduce the obligor's hardship threshold for child support to 40% from the 50% already in law. House Bill 1212 (2018) sought to establish shared parenting plans for minor children in divorce proceedings or from a relationship. Haugaard, who last served in 2022, said he would need to review each of the bills he withdrew as to why. But, as a general observation, he said that placeholders are commonly used to potentially address unexpected issues that develop during the session. 'Also, it is not unusual to find that priorities shift during a legislative session and other bills can become far more important and time consuming,' Haugaard said. 'As a result, I have set aside some bills to focus attention elsewhere.' Then there's also the challenge of having limited — and often overworked — resources: The Legislative Research Council's full-time staff of 32 draft hundreds of bills at the request of 105 lawmakers. 'Also bear in mind that the Legislature has very limited staffing and our LRC staff work tirelessly to meet the needs of the legislative members,' Haugaard said. 'Even as speaker of the House, I had little to no personal staff assigned to assist me. Oftentimes I would use my own resources to pay for assistance and expenses to get the work done.' Haugaard's eight withdrawn measures included: House Bill 1212 (2022) sought to prohibit state and local governments and private employers from disclosing information regarding a person's COVID-19 vaccination status. This came two years after the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the globe. House Bill 1247 (2022) sought to reduce the state sales and use tax rate to 4% from the 4.5% rate that was in effect at the time. The Legislature in 2023 reduced the rate to 4.2%. House Bill 1251 (2022) was a placeholder regarding lobbyists. This came in the wake of a dispute over clothing worn by a lobbyist while Haugaard was House speaker. House Bill 1190 (2020) was a placeholder for possible changes in revenue reporting. House Bill 1191 (2020) was a placeholder for possible changes in legislative authority. House Bill 1192 (2020) was a placeholder for possible changes in criminal justice laws. House Bill 1134 (2019) sought to change when elected officials could begin serving their terms. Haugaard ran for governor in 2022. House Bill 1212 (2015) sought to expand the definition of abusing a minor to include those who had been conceived but not yet born. Haugaard raised another point: 'When I served on the Rules Review Committee I found there were many issues that could have (or) should have resulted in corrective legislation, but, again, there was not enough time or staff to address all of those matters,' he said. He'd like to see that crunch fixed. 'It is my understanding that South Dakota has the smallest legislative staff of any state in the nation,' Haugaard said. 'I don't think that is a badge of honor for us and it should change, so we can deliver the best for South Dakota, and save millions of tax dollars in the process.' Here's a year-by-year look at all of the withdrawn bills and resolutions since the rule change in 2014. To see the complete list of withdrawals each session, click on the year, shown in 18 bills – Garcia 2, Weisgram 2, Overweg, Kull, Mulally, Hughes, Walburg, Lems, Fitzgerald, Phil Jensen 2, Al Novstrup, Mortenson, Schwans, Rehfeldt, Uhre-Balk, Senate 12 bills – Sydney Davis 2, Sue Peterson 5, Liz Larson 2, Hohn 2, Kevin 22 bills – Krohmer 2, Drury, Jack Kolbeck, Deutsch, Callies, Massie, Blare 2, Kevin Jensen, Shorma, Carl Perry 2, Venhuizen, Eric Emery, Phil Jensen 2, Scott Moore, Wittman, Rehfeldt, Heermann, May. Two resolutions – Mulally, Krohmer. Senate 16 bills – Tobin 2, Duhamel, Rohl 2, Schoenbeck, David Johnson, Sydney Davis, Reed, Foster, Nesiba, Frye-Mueller, Bordeaux, Schoenfish, Zikmund, Stalzer. One resolution – 14 bills – Blare, Perry 4, Fitzgerald, Lems, Deutsch, Pinnow, Weisgram, Sjaarda 2, S. Peterson 2. Senate 3 bills – Regents, Dept. Of Education, Bolin. Three resolutions – Bordeaux, Schoenbeck, 21 bills – Milstead 2, Deutsch, Weisgram, Chase, Spencer Gosch, Weis, Bordeaux 2, Haugaard 3, Soye, Jon Hansen 4, Tidemann 2, Odenbach, Howard. Two resolutions – Phil Jensen, Spencer Gosch. Senate 5 bills – Frye-Mueller, Tobin, Klumb, Johns, 17 bills – Deutsch, Willadsen, Bordeaux, Lana Greenfield, Sue Peterson, Duba 2, Chaffee, Phil Jensen 3, Hansen, Ernie Otten, Charlie Hoffman 2, Howard, Soye. One resolution — Pischke Senate 1 bill – 21 bills — Johns, Brunner, Pischke, Randolph 4, Jon Hansen, Haugaard 3, Chaffee, Miskimins, Livermont, Howard 2, Reimer, Jamie Smith, Sue Peterson, Spencer Gosch, Sullivan. Senate 14 bills – Lance Russell, Monroe, Klumb, P. Jensen 3, Brock Greenfield, Nesiba, Stalzer, Lake, Wiik, Bolin, V.J. Smith, Langer. One resolution – 20 bills – Bartels, Reed, Lake 2, Pischke 2, Tim Rounds, Frye-Mueller 2, Haugaard, Spencer Gosch, Bordeaux, Pourier, Kevin Jensen, Qualm, Lana Greenfield, Finck, Marty, Karr, Sue Peterson. One resolution – Weis. Senate 6 bills – State Treasurer, Lance Russell, Schoenbeck 3, Stace 13 bills – Ahlers, Pischke 3, Johns, Wismer, Hawley, Frye-Mueller, Brunner, Rasmussen, Spencer Gosch 2, May. One resolution – Leslie Heinemann. Senate 9 bills – Phil Jensen 2, Wiik, Nesiba, Solano, Jack Kolbeck, Brock Greenfield, Curd, Langer. One resolution – 14 bills – Chief Justice, House Appropriations, Kent Peterson 3, Mark Mickelson, Ahlers, Goodwin, Brunner, Livermont, Leslie Heinemann, Don Haggar, Campbell 2. One resolution – Don Haggar. Senate 6 bills – Deb Peters, Bolin, Stalzer, Lance Russell, Cronin, Heinert. One resolution – Phil 4 bills – Alex Jensen, Schoenbeck, Lana Greenfield, Tulson. Senate 5 bills – Betty Olson, Cory Brown 2, Holien, Buhl O' 8 bills – Hickey 2, Partridge, Latterell, Zikmund, Don Haggar 2, Haugaard. Senate 11 bills – Agricultural Land Assessment Task Force 2, Ewing, Holien, Betty Olson, Monroe, Deb Peters, Billie Sutton, Brock Greenfield, Phil Jensen, 2 bills – Wick, Bartling. One resolution – Lance Russell. Senate 8 bills – E. Otten, Tieszen, P. Jensen 2, Lederman, Holien, Tidemann 2. Source: South Dakota Legislative Research Council records. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SD's 100th legislative session is in the books. Here's what bills lived and died in 2025
PIERRE — The 100th annual convention of lawmakers, which concluded Thursday, was laden with political and historical subtext. A Republican supermajority, emboldened by President Donald Trump and led by a lieutenant governor who took over the state's highest office for former Gov. Kristi Noem early in the session, pushed a gamut of conservative legislation. That included bills affecting gun rights, voting, education, property rights and policies involving transgender people. Democrats brought proposals aimed at child care, deepfake technology and repealing capital punishment. Meanwhile, South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden had his own wins and losses, with a temporary property tax fix earning legislative support and a property rights-focused Republican body shooting down a proposed prison project. The South Dakota Legislature processed 489 bills, 44 commemorations and 38 various resolutions during its 38-day run. Here's a look at some of the major bills that made it to the governor's desk — and those that didn't — this year. Lawmakers passed House Bill 1052, a bill prohibiting companies from using eminent domain to acquire land for the construction of pipelines carrying "carbon oxide." This restriction prevents Summit Carbon Solutions, an Ames, Iowa-based developer with plans to build an $8.9 billion liquid carbon dioxide pipeline, from using eminent domain — the right to take private property for public uses, with compensation — in South Dakota. Rhoden signed the bill March 6. More: Rhoden sides with landowners, signs bill blocking CO2 developers from using eminent domain The bill's success is a reversal of the Legislature's attitude toward carbon dioxide pipeline projects from just one year ago. State lawmakers had passed Senate Bill 201, legislation that would have eased the way for Summit Carbon's plans in South Dakota. But the law was challenged through the state's referral process, and voters overturned the bill during the 2024 general election. A number of South Dakotans launched and won political campaigns, while ousting several incumbents, on a property rights platform. This grew the support for an eminent domain reform bill in the Legislature. Lawmakers found themselves divided on a years-long plan to build a $825 million modern prison facility on Lincoln County farmland. The bill would have moved about $182 million from the state's general fund to an incarceration construction fund, an appropriation meant to fill a funding gap for the state Department of Corrections project. After the bill died on a 34-35 vote, there was an attempt to shuffle $148 million to the prison fund for future use, but that also was narrowly rejected. Rhoden later created a prison project task force to reassess the state's plans and possibly consider new locations for the facility. The task force meets April 2 and has until July 15 to make its recommendations. South Dakota's property tax payments have climbed by hundreds of millions of dollars over the last decade, according to state Department of Revenue data, and homeowners are taking the brunt. In response, Rhoden pushed Senate Bill 216, which aimed to cap individual taxing districts and school capital aid budgets from increasing property taxes due to capital growth or construction by more than 2% through 2031. It also would have limited cities' and counties' yearly property tax increases at 3% even if assessments rise above that level. An iteration of Rhoden's bill passed the Senate but died in the House after needing just one vote to clear the chamber. An amended version later raised the property tax growth in the state to 3% across the board over the next five years, which Rhoden signed Thursday. Lawmakers brought more than 20 bills on property tax this session, with Rhoden's the only one to be made law. Rhoden vetoed an amended House Bill 1132, a proposed child care law that would have raised the federal poverty line for child care eligibility from 209% to 300% explicitly for people who work at least 30 hours per week at a licensed school daycare program, center or family home providing child care. The South Dakota governor wrote in a Wednesday statement that his reasoning for blocking the legislation was because it would "shift South Dakota's child care assistance program away from its core mission." He also explained he killed the bill over its fiscal aspects, since it lacked an appropriation to cover the cost of the program's expansion. This was the first bill Rhoden vetoed as governor of South Dakota. Erin Healy, House Minority Leader, called Rhoden's argument that the state would have to increase its budget "premature," as the state does not have a waiting list for child care assistance. Several bills pitched by Attorney General Marty Jackley that centered on whistleblowing, government corruption and certain crimes were mostly well-received by the Legislature and passed with few changes. Some of the legislation was drafted as a response to alleged embezzlement and corruption crimes committed by former state employees, including one case where an employee purportedly circumvented her workplace's oversight measures to defraud the state's Child Protective Services program for $1.8 million. More: Attorney General Jackley submits seven bills for 2025 legislative session: What are they? Here's a list of those bills: SB 58 revises provisions related to human trafficking, prohibits the obstruction of human trafficking enforcement. SB 59 revises provisions relating to the delivery, possession with intent to deliver, and possession of unauthorized articles in a state correctional facility. SB 60 expands the access and investigatory authority of the state auditor. SB 61 modifies the authority of the Board of Internal Control. SB 62 establishes mandatory reporting requirements related to improper governmental conduct and crime. SB 63 establishes protections for state employees who report improper governmental conduct and crime. The nine state House and Senate Democrats found a number of their bills jettisoned by the state's Republican supermajority, and there were several bills related to social issues that proved a thorn for the party, particularly in comparison to previous years. Senate Minority Leader Liz Larson of Sioux Falls managed to steer a bill on deepfakes, or AI-manipulated media that can be used to generate edited and false images of real people, to Rhoden's desk. The bill makes it a class 1 misdemeanor to disseminate a deepfake to influence an election in the state. Rhoden had yet to sign it as of Thursday. Here are some other Democrat-led bills that passed the Legislature and were signed by the governor or still await his signature. HB 1072 modernizes provisions relating to water development districts. HB 1074 modifies the individuals eligible to sign an affidavit of homelessness for purposes of obtaining a free copy of a birth certificate. HB 1075 modifies the persons eligible to sign an affidavit for proof of homelessness for purposes of waiving the fee for a non-driver identification card. HB 1099 modifies the community paramedic endorsement. HB 1196 updates the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act to include provisions related to virtual currency and notice requirements. SB 170 authorizes the South Dakota State Brand Board to enter a memorandum of understanding with any Indian tribe for the investigation of cattle theft. SB 193 allows an applicant to have an interpreter present during the driving portion of a driver license exam. The 100th legislative session was one that saw a few bills targeted at policies affecting transgender South Dakotans. This included a "bathroom bill" that prohibits transgender people from using a bathroom that does not match their biological sex, which Rhoden signed into law. More: SD lawmaker has 'no regrets' over demotion for bill targeting Huron schools, trans youth A similar but unsuccessful bill that would have required that birth certificates and certain official documents reflect biological sex was short a single vote of securing a majority. Rep. Phil Jensen, R-Rapid City, also introduced a bill to defund the Huron School District over a transgender bathroom policy, but he pulled the bill after backlash within the state and Legislature. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: South Dakota Legislature: Bills that passed, failed during 2025 session
Yahoo
17-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The simple solution for South Dakota's budget woes: Restore the sales tax rate
Leaders of the South Dakota Legislature's Joint Appropriations Committee, from left, Lead Co-Chair Sen. Ernie Otten, Co-Chair Rep. Mike Derby and Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Sen. Mark Lapka, participate in a meeting on Feb. 7, 2025, at the Capitol in Pierre. (Seth Tupper/South Dakota Searchlight) South Dakota legislators are suffering from all sorts of angst this winter over a seemingly complicated budget situation that many believe can only be solved by cuts. In reality, the solution isn't complicated at all. It's incredibly simple: Just move the state sales tax rate back to 4.5%. That would wipe out all of the budget problems with money left to spare. Confused? Don't be. There's an easy explanation for how we got here. In the fall of 2022, then-Gov. Kristi Noem, a Republican, sensed the slight chance that her Democratic opponent, Jamie Smith, might pose a challenge to her reelection. She overreacted and abruptly hijacked a long-held Democratic position in favor of eliminating state sales taxes on groceries. As it turned out, she was in no danger of losing to a Democrat in Republican-dominated South Dakota. But she relentlessly pushed her sales tax plan anyway, to the point that Republican lawmakers felt politically compelled to do something about it when they convened for their annual lawmaking session two months after her reelection. Many Republicans did not want to eliminate sales taxes on groceries. Without a state income tax and with property tax revenue dedicated to counties, schools and cities, South Dakota depends on a broad application of sales taxes to fund state government. So lawmakers argued through the early months of 2023 and settled on an alternative plan: They'd offer South Dakotans sales tax relief, but not by eliminating the tax on groceries. Instead, they decided to reduce the overall state sales tax rate from 4.5% to 4.2%, but only temporarily, until June 30, 2027. That was a bad decision for many reasons. First of all, Noem didn't care about South Dakota taxpayers and only wanted a political win for herself. Legislators should've ignored her. Furthermore, there was no great clamor among South Dakotans to save a few pennies on their purchases (they didn't want a grocery tax repeal, either, as they proved by rejecting the idea when it was petitioned to the ballot last year). There was, meanwhile, a great clamor for something else: property tax relief. Noem and legislators inexplicably did nothing about that, leaving the situation to fester to the point that action seems politically unavoidable this year, when lawmakers have little money to work with — except for an attractive pile of $182 million that Noem proposed using to top off the construction fund for an $825 million men's prison near Sioux Falls, which lawmakers are currently fighting over. The reason there's no other extra money is because of the reduction in the sales tax rate (although some lawmakers have amnesia about that, and are blaming the tight budget solely on rising Medicaid costs). The sales tax cut cost the state an estimated $104 million in annual revenue at the time of its enactment. Lawmakers and Noem felt comfortable surrendering that revenue two years ago, because the state was riding a tidal wave of pandemic-era federal stimulus funding. Now Noem is gone, having capitalized on her ceaseless political posturing by getting a job as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the new Trump administration. She left behind a sinking state budget, doomed by the depletion of federal pandemic stimulus funding and by the Legislature's decision — at Noem's prodding — to willingly flush more than $100 million of annual revenue down the toilet. That's more than the state needs to cover the hole in its next budget. Lawmakers approve temporary sales tax cut worth an estimated $104 million in first year In December, before Noem left for D.C., she proposed drastic cuts to many state departments and programs to deal with a roughly $50 million shortfall in ongoing revenue compared to ongoing expenses in the budget she was preparing for 2026. ('Ongoing' revenue comes mostly from the sales tax and is what state government uses to fund its daily operations, as opposed to 'one-time' revenue — from sources like federal stimulus funds and unclaimed property — that legislators typically use for expenses like new buildings or paying off bonds.) Updated revenue estimates have not changed the budget situation much, leaving Noem's successor, Gov. Larry Rhoden, and many lawmakers to glumly conclude that some of the proposed cuts are unavoidable. Some of the worst pain could fall on the State Library, South Dakota Public Broadcasting, tobacco-use prevention efforts, repair and maintenance of state buildings, dual-credit college courses for high school students, and a host of other departments and programs. So here we are, all caught up on the backstory. And now you can see how simple it could be to close the budget gap: Just raise the state sales tax rate from 4.2% back up to 4.5%. Politically impossible, you say? Hardly. The rate was 4% nine years ago, when a Republican-controlled Legislature and a Republican governor, Dennis Daugaard, increased it to 4.5% (to help fund an increase in teacher pay, although South Dakota now ranks 49th in average teacher salaries, which is another diatribe for another day). With the sales tax reduction already set to expire in 2027, the only action required is moving that date up to this year. Or, legislators could continue compounding the politically misguided policy blunders of the past few years by refusing to take the obvious and available course of action. It's their choice, and it should be an easy one. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
04-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Physician assistants try again for independence
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — Physician assistants are once again asking the South Dakota Legislature to be able to practice freely on their own without being required that they have physician supervision. 24-year-old man arrested for homicide House Bill 1071 would give them that independence. The House Health and Human Services Committee endorsed HB 1071 on Tuesday by a 9-3 vote. The full House of Representatives could vote on the proposal as early as Wednesday afternoon. This is the fourth time in five years that the state lawmakers have addressed the issue. Previous attempts saw similar bills fail in 2021, 2022 and 2023. The South Dakota State Medical Association has consistently opposed the legislation. That was true again Tuesday. 'It's unsafe and it potentially opens us up to risks down the road,' Dr. Jennifer Tinguely of Sioux Falls, the SDSMA president, told the committee. She pointed out that physician assistants would be required to have 2,080 hours of experience, while physicians have 12,000 hour or more. Republican Rep. Brian Mulder, the bill's prime sponsor, countered that South Dakota law allows nurse practitioners to be independent and physician assistants should be, too. 'This is a step in the right direction,' he said. The legislation would no longer require the physician assistant to be an agent of the sponsoring physician. Instead, the legislation would let a physician assistant perform a 19-point list of services, including routine clinical office surgical procedures. 'When you look up surgical services, that's a pretty broad range,' Republican Rep. Rebecca Reimer said. Dr. Dan Heinemann, chief medical officer for Sanford Health, agreed. 'That's the issue right there – it's broad,' Heinemann said. 'That's our concern.' Republican Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer asked physician assistant Kayla Frank of Sioux Falls which surgical procedures she performs. Frank said she serves on a care team and that she defers most surgical procedures to others on the team, but, she continued, physician assistants can perform surgeries such as removing skin tags and moles and suturing. Republican Rep. Jim Halverson said his sister was one of the first physician assistants in South Dakota. He said Dr. Robert Hayes, after returning from service in Vietnam, started the training program for physician assistants in South Dakota during the early 1970s. According to Halverson, it was Hayes' vision that physician assistants would provide medical care to South Dakota's underserved rural areas. Republican Rep. Josephine Garcia, a physician, said the situation was 'unfortunate.' 'I think it's not about the patient, it's about money,' Garcia said. She said insurance premiums wouldn't drop if the legislation passed but there be more use of emergency rooms from misdiagnosis by PAs. 'Our job,' Gibson said, 'is to protect the safety of those communities.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
