With seven ballot measures in South Dakota's 2024 election, including abortion rights, open primaries, grocery tax repeal and recreational marijuana, voters have a lot to unpack.
In an effort to help inform readers, starting this week, the True Dakotan will publish Vote South Dakota content. The Vote South Dakota project allows media organizations to share stories and resources.
Vote South Dakota is a partnership between SDPB, South Dakota Broadcasters Association, South Dakota NewsMedia Association (SDNA), and South Dakota NewsWatch (SDNW). All traditional and new South Dakota media organizations are invited to contribute to the project and has equal access to all content.
“With so much on the ballot this November it’s vital to have a trusted, vetted source of information so voters can be informed before heading to the polls,” said True Dakotan Editor/Publisher Kristi Hine, who also serves on the board of directors for SDNW and SDNA, partners in this project.
Three Vote South Dakota articles can be found below.
These stories were produced by South Dakota News Watch, an independent, nonprofit news organization. Read more in-depth stories at sdnewswatch.org and sign up for an email every few days to get stories as soon as they're published. Contact reporter Stu Whitney at stu.whitney@sdnewswatch.org.
Initiated Measure 28 would remove grocery/consumables tax
By Stu Whitney, South Dakota News Watch
Dakotans for Health sponsored Initiated Measure 28 to prohibit the state from collecting sales tax on “anything sold for human consumption, except alcoholic beverages and prepared food.”
Supporters insist the intent of IM 28 is to eliminate the state's 4.2% sales tax on groceries. The measure's language states that it will not affect the up to 2% sales tax on groceries charged by municipalities in South Dakota.
Opponents criticize the wording of the measure as broader than just groceries. They say it could cause a budget crunch by preventing the state from collecting sales tax on “consumable” items such as tobacco, toothpaste and toilet paper.
“This is not a food tax repeal – it’s a consumables tax repeal,” said Nathan Sanderson, executive director of the South Dakota Retailers Association and part of a coalition that opposes IM 28. The group asserts that the measure could lead to a state income tax in South Dakota to make up for lost revenue.
Sanderson also disputed whether municipalities could still collect a food tax if IM 28 passes, pointing to a state law that says cities and towns can charge a sales tax if it “conforms in all respects to the state tax,” which would not be the case if the state food tax is repealed.
Repealing the grocery tax was staunchly opposed in 2024 by the Republican-dominated Legislature, which approved a cut in the state’s general sales tax rate from 4.5% to 4.2% during the 2023 session that's due to expire in 2027.
The fiscal note for IM 28 indicates it could reduce annual state sales tax receipts by $124 million. Opponents said that could stress the state's budget when combined with the rate change on general sales tax.
Weiland notes that Gov. Kristi Noem pledged a grocery tax cut as part of her 2022 re-election campaign, a plan ultimately rejected by lawmakers. The governor took the rare step of testifying for her grocery tax repeal bill during the 2023 session, insisting that the budget was strong enough to absorb lost revenue and that voters wanted the tax repealed.
Jim Terwilliger, Noem’s top budget official as commissioner of the Bureau of Finance and Management, told News Watch that Noem doesn’t support the ballot initiative because of concerns about the wording.
He added that the governor “still believes a repeal of the grocery tax is the best tax relief for South Dakota families if it is done in a responsible manner.”
Initiated Measure 29 is latest attempt to legalize recreational marijuana
By Stu Whitney, South Dakota News Watch
Initiated Measure 29 would allow people 21 and older to “possess, grow, ingest, and distribute marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia.” Possession would be allowed up to 2 ounces in a form other than marijuana concentrate or other marijuana products.
This will be the third consecutive election cycle that South Dakota voters are asked whether recreational marijuana should be legal in the state.
In 2020, pro-legalization Amendment A passed with 54% of the vote, clearing the way for recreational marijuana to be implemented in the state. Medicinal pot was also approved by voters that year in an initiated measure.
Gov. Kristi Noem’s administration challenged the recreational marijuana amendment, saying it violated the state’s requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject. That argument prevailed in a 4-1 decision at the South Dakota Supreme Court.
Supporters tried to pass recreational cannabis again in 2022 and South Dakotans rejected that effort, with 53% of voters against it.
Recreational marijuana is legal in 23 states and the District of Columbia, with supporters pointing to economic advantages to the state economy from tax revenue. States collected nearly $3 billion in marijuana revenues in 2022, according to the Tax Foundation.
Opponents cite potential social costs and health risks such as a higher risk of cardiovascular problems from marijuana use, as outlined in a recent study in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
Protecting South Dakota Kids, a campaign committee formed to fight recreational pot legalization in 2022, is opposing the effort again in 2024, said Rhonda Milstead, a former Republican state legislator who serves as the group's executive director.
“When it comes to our children, South Dakotans are fiercely protective,” Milstead said. “We say no to any group selling addiction for profit.”
Most experts characterize marijuana as a drug that can be used responsibly but also poses risks if abused, like alcohol and other intoxicants.
Carbon pipeline regulations to be decided by Referred Law 21
By Stu Whitney, South Dakota News Watch
A group called the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance gathered enough valid signatures to place Referred Law 21 on the ballot.
That means voters can choose to keep or kill Senate Bill 201, passed during the 2024 session as part of a legislative package known as the “Landowner Bill of Rights" to address potential carbon pipeline negotiations.
Summit Carbon Solutions is seeking regulatory approval for a $5.5 billion, 2,500-mile pipeline that would carry liquified carbon dioxide gas from more than 50 ethanol plants in South Dakota and four other states to be stored deep underground in North Dakota.
The pipeline would address federal environmental standards for tax credits and is seen as crucial for a potential aviation fuel market for the Midwest-based ethanol industry, which buys roughly one-third of the nation's corn crop.
Sponsors of Referred Law 21 trumpeted a series of landowner protections for potential negotiations between Summit Carbon Solutions and landowners. The law mandated payments from pipeline companies at the county level per linear foot. It also codified minimum depth requirements, liability on pipeline operators for damages and disclosures of pipelines’ plume models, which analyze how carbon dioxide might spread in case of a rupture.
Opponents said the legislation paved the way for Public Utilities Commission approval of the pipeline by usurping the regulatory authority of counties.
Jim Eschenbaum, who chairs the property rights group, contends that Referred Law 21 provides a basis for land to be accessed involuntarily through eminent domain, though the law does not address that issue.
Eminent domain involves taking private property for public use while requiring just compensation.
Eschenbaum's reasoning is that terms set forth in the law between pipeline companies and landowners make it easier for the three-member PUC as a state entity to supersede county zoning ordinances and setbacks, or for a judge to conclude that such action is within PUC authority.
Republican House Majority Leader Will Mortenson disputes that assertion and points out that eminent domain is not directly addressed in the legislation.
"If this pipeline comes, I understand that it would be good for ethanol, but that’s not enough," said Mortenson. "We need to make sure this is a good thing for every single farmer from the beginning of the route to the end of the route. And that's what Referred Law 21 does."