Report from the South Dakota GOP Special Meeting on 24 August

Unity in focusing on ballot propositions

[Note: I regret not being able to post anything over the past several weeks during the momentous tumult on the national political scene that we have endured. All of my “free time” has been consumed in helping facilitate a special meeting of the South Dakota Republican Party State Central Committee, which is the subject of this post. I promise to churn out some more interesting pieces in the coming days and weeks.]

Like the GOP in all states, the South Dakota Republican Party has several factions, and sometimes it seems that Republican ire here is focused in the manner of a circular firing squad, as opposed to aimed at the communist Democrats and their sympathetic media allies in our state. While there are minor factions that concentrate on single issues like abortion, ethanol, and election integrity (seemingly to the exclusion of all else), the two predominant factions are: (1) the well-funded elected officials at the federal and state level, as well as those holding political offices within the Party, and their various deep-pocketed donors and supporters, and (2) the loosely organized county-level and individual grass roots conservatives who include an increasing number of statewide elected officials and state legislators (and legislators-to-be in this Republican dominated state courtesy of some upsets in the June primary elections where the real elections are held in the Republican primary, not the general election, in many districts).

The issues that roiled the Republican primaries this year included the passage and signing by Governor Kristi Noem of SB201 in March 2024 “cementing a prohibition on county or township control over the location of pipelines in the state.” “Pipelines” includes the controversial compressed CO2 pipelines that would transship compressed carbon dioxide through underground pipelines to a reservoir in North Dakota. The bill is a perfect representation of the factional split in the SD GOP, as its supporters represent well-funded establishment politicians and their backers while opponents include landowners and individual South Dakotans concerned about the potential use of eminent domain laws by a private company to construct pipelines over the objections of property owners. With pipelines setting a precedent with the passage of SB201, similar property takings for other ill-defined “common good” purposes might be possible in the future.

The bill was sold by the Republican leadership in the state legislature as a “landowner bill of rights,” which is a complete misnomer because its real purpose was to preempt local government control by elevating the pipeline permitting process to the state legislature and public utilities commission. In short, “to ‘supersede’ any county, township, municipality or other government unit rule regarding ‘safety’ standards for pipelines,” such as setbacks from businesses and residences controlled by local ordinances.

Within a week of the bill’s signing, the South Dakota Property Rights and Local Control Alliance (SDPRLCA) (refer to their website here for details) was formed with a commitment to initiate a public referendum to stop implementation of SB201. The referendum has been qualified to appear on the November ballot as Referred Law 21 - A Referred Act to Provide New Statutory Requirements for Regulating Linear Transmission Facilities, to Allow Counties to Impose a Surcharge on Certain Pipeline Companies, and to Establish a Landowner Bill of Rights.

The bill’s signing had a direct impact on the Republican primary elections in June, as several SB201 supporters were kicked to the curb. Other proponents escaped by avoiding the issue during their campaigns. In any event, SB201 remains a hot topic in South Dakota with the vote on RL21 a lightning rod issue for many people in the state.

There are several other propositions, proposed amendments to the state constitution, and initiated measures that have qualified for the November ballot that, if passed, would have a major deleterious impact on South Dakota. These include:

• Amendment H: An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Establishing Top Two Primary Elections. This amendment would establish a “jungle primary” system similar to those in California and Washington state in which all candidates would compete in a single primary election, with the top two vote-getters competing in the November election. In California, the result has been Democrats running against Democrats in general elections, and the subsequent Marxist takeover of the state that continues to this very day. Its passage will guarantee that monied interests (the euphemistic “leftist billionaires”) will buy politicians like rock candy and change South Dakota forever.

• Amendment G: An initiated Amendment Establishing a Right to Abortion in the State Constitution. This amendment would allow abortions through the third trimester – a barbaric practice that is essentially the modern equivalent of child sacrifice and paganism.

• Initiated Measure 29: An Initiated Measure Legalizing the Recreational Use, Possession, and Distribution of Marijuana. This is the latest in a series of Soros-funded efforts to legalize recreational marijuana in the state (opponents cynically refer to it is as “following Colorado down the marijuana drain.”

• Initiated Measure 28: An Initiated Measure Prohibiting Taxes on Anything Sold for Human Consumption. Interestingly, passage of this measure would preclude “sin taxes” (on alcohol, and marijuana – if IM 29 passes, too). The loss of revenue would devastate school districts and would need to be made up for by increased property taxes and potentially even a state income tax.

Other than a few perfunctory statements to the media, the SD State GOP has been largely silent about these (and other) ballot propositions this year – with no official positions being espoused – despite the obvious changes that would result in the passage of any of these monstrosities. Concerned Republican Party county chairmen pressed for coordinated actions by the State GOP to defeat these propositions, first in the form of a query about the setting of a regular Summer meeting of the state central committee under the bylaws and, when that was denied, a convening of a “special meeting” permitted under the bylaws. The governing bylaw is Section I, Paragraph 7B: “Special meetings for specific purposes may be called by the state chairman or upon the written request of at least one member of each county delegation of at least 10 different counties.”

On 31 July, twenty-four SD GOP county chairmen (including your scribe) initiated “the call of a necessary Special Meeting of the State Central Committee on August 24, 2024, in Oacoma, S.D. Based both on our GOP Bylaw requirement for such a meeting and given the pending pivotal issues facing the Party in the upcoming general election, the necessary purpose of this Special Meeting is to deal with pressing general election issues and other related State Central Committee matters.” As the State Party declined to endorse and support the meeting in any way, those county chairmen formally noticed the meeting on 6 August to all SD GOP State Central Committee members to include the below agenda:

Ballot proposition discussions:

• Amendment H: An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution Establishing Top-Two Primary Elections.

• Amendment G: An initiated Amendment Establishing a Right to Abortion in the State Constitution.

• RL21: A Referred Act to Provide New Statutory Requirements for Regulating Linear Transmission Facilities, to Allow Counties to Impose a Surcharge on Certain Pipeline Companies, and to Establish a Landowner Bill of Rights.

• Measure 29: An Initiated Measure Legalizing the Recreational Use, Possession, and Distribution of Marijuana.

• Amendment F: An amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, authorizing the state to impose work requirements on certain individuals who are eligible for expanded Medicaid.

• Measure 28: An Initiated Measure Prohibiting Taxes on Anything Sold for Human Consumption.

• Amendment E: An amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, updating references to certain officeholders and persons.

Strategy/Coordination of Key Races

• Public Utilities Commissioner

• Other

Get-Out-The Vote (GOTV) Training

• Campaign Sidekick

• Young Voter Registration Initiative

Other (time permitting)

• Bylaws status

• Approved resolutions disposition

The notice email was sent to every member of the SD Republican Party State Central Committee to invite them to the special meeting being called. To reiterate, the State Party chose not to sanction/endorse the meeting nor support it in any way, but that was immaterial, as it was properly called under the bylaws as an official meeting.

In the two weeks leading up to the meeting, a rumor was circulated that, despite the clearly delineated items in the agenda, a coup against the Party leadership was a key purpose of the meeting. That rumor was vehemently denied by the meeting organizers, but its effect was to depress turnout (which was probably the goal of the rumor mongers). In addition to that false rumor, media allies at the Establishment bomb-throwing blog “Dakota War College” propagated two false stories reinforcing the rumor. Both were based on innuendo and opinion, and as usual in such screeds, failed to quote any of the meeting organizers in the articles. Although I hate to give this guy mouse clicks, here’s an example of the garbage posted on his website as supposedly informed commentary as related to the special meeting: “Guest Column: State GOP To Be Toppled By Rogue Elements.”

All the caterwauling and gnashing of teeth was for naught. Here is what transpired at the special meeting on Saturday.

SUMMARY REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING

There were over 100 attendees, including State Central Committee members proxies totaling 94 authorized votes representing 29 of the state’s 66 counties. Four state central committee members per organized county comprise a county’s delegation: chairman, vice chairman, state committeeman, and state committeewoman. A quorum consists of 45 members of the 200-odd state committee members of the 50 counties that have official Republican Party organizations in the state (there are 66 counties in South Dakota). The attendees included three State GOP regional directors (one of whom served as the meeting chairman), our national committeewoman, six state legislators (three of whom led discussions on ballot propositions), the top of the SD Republican ticket in November this year (a public utilities commissioner), the SD attorney general, and 25 guests and other key speakers (guests were largely county party officials who are not state central committee members; see below for the bona fides of the speakers). Not exactly “rogue elements seeking to topple the SD State GOP”!

Here is how the meeting agenda was completed.

Ezra Hays, Regional 6 director, led a detailed discussion about Amendment H (open primaries), including its real purpose, the false messages of its proponents, and the reasons that it should be defeated. There was no one in attendance who supported H, and a straw poll taken afterward was unanimous in opposition to this ballot proposition.

Rep. Jon Hansen (District 25), led a passionate discussion about Amendment G (the abortion amendment). A pastor from Hand County reminded attendees that while ballot propositions like H were political in nature, Amendment G is entirely about morality. No one suppose in support of Amendment G; the straw poll was unanimous in opposition to it. [This is a core Republican stance in South Dakota.]

Rep. Julie Auch (District 18) and the multi-hatted Jim Eschenbaum (Hand County Commissioner and Vice Chairman of the GOP, as well as the face of the SDPRLCA) tag-teamed RL21, explaining the flaws and deceptions in the law. A state representative who voted for SB201 explained his vote in favor of the bill but failed to convince most of the attendees, who voted virtually unanimously in the straw poll in opposition to RL21/SB201.

Jim Kinyon, from the nonprofit organization Protecting South Dakota Kids explained the perils of recreational marijuana (Initiated Measure 29), including crime statistics from other states and other corrupting influences and deleterious effects. The pastor from Hand County reminded attendees that, like Amendment G, IM 29 is a moral issue being foisted upon South Dakota by outside interests. The straw poll was unanimous in opposition to this ballot proposition.

Next, Chris Larson, a Sioux Falls businessman representing the Vote No in November coalition (VoteNoSD.com), described coordinated efforts focused on stopping the preceding four ballot initiatives, including how people can help the cause through information-sharing, signage, local speakers, and donations.

Rep. Tony Venhuizen (District 13) discussed the purpose and intent of Amendment F, which is to change the state constitution to allow the legislature to consider work requirements for able-bodied South Dakotans from age 18-65 who want to enroll in Medicaid expansion. Medicaid originally targeted kids and retirees who are precluded from work requirements, but the expansion allows able-bodied adults to enroll without a work requirement at present. The straw poll was unanimous in support of Amendment F (another Republican principle, i.e., working for taxpayer-funded benefits).

In a point of order, Travis Ismay, a candidate for state representative in District 28B, introduced an important poster containing a catchy meme that will resonate with many voters: F yes; no on the rest. Attendees were encouraged to repeat the meme and distribute posters everywhere.

Nathan Sanderson, the Executive Director of the South Dakota Retailers Association, led the discussion on IM 28, which would prohibit taxes on anything sold for human consumption. One main argument that resonated with attendees is that this measure would gut funds from local governments and school districts, with the loss of revenue needing to be made up in other ways to continue with the same level of services. After a lively discussion, the straw vote was overwhelmingly against IM 28.

Your scribe discussed Amendment E, which would remove gender-specific male references from the constitution and replace them with position titles, e.g., governor, lieutenant governor, etc. While the proposed changes would not corrupt the English language by introducing leftist-inspired words, it was pointed out by several members that the costs required to implement these cosmetic changes are probably not worth the expense. The members chose not to take a position on this amendment through a unanimous straw vote toward that end.

The next discussions were focused on key races and GOTV initiatives:

• Kristie Fiegan briefed her top-of the ticket race for PUC commissioner

• Various members highlighted key legislative races in their districts and solicited support from other districts

• Campaign Sidekick, the RNC’s GOTV application was discussed

• The SD Youth Voter Registration Initiative was briefed

Near the end of the meeting, two final topics were touched upon:

• Slides summarizing the deliberations of the Bylaws Committee to date on 21 proposed amendments

• A discussion of the sorry state of the SDGOP.com website, the need to completely revamp it (several counties volunteered their webmasters to help make that happen), and the need to post the resolutions passed at the GOP State Convention in June on that website

Lastly, a motion from the floor was unanimously passed strongly encouraging the State GOP to divert $10,000 to the No on Amendment H campaign.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The agenda was executed almost exactly as it was promulgated, without any of the drama and contention predicted by naysayers like those at Dakota War College. It was a shame that their gaslighting probably convinced some state central committee members not to attend. A sampling of text comments from attendees afterwards about the meeting says it all:

• “Great meeting!!”

• “This mtg helped me to push fwd on educating all voters in my county before they mark their ballots. We have a forum planned already.”

• “Well run meeting…”

• “Even the opposition to the majority had a place to speak and be heard….which is what it’s all about. Everyone should have a voice.”

• “If the general public could see the dedication that many in the [P]art have to our great state [as represented by the meeting attendees], I think they would be more inclined to become involved.”

• “It was a great meeting and much needed.”

• “That’s how the meetings always were before [2023], and I’ve been going to them since 2007.”

• “It was nice to know that our [P]arty takes a position on the important topics that affect our neighbors.”

• “No tension in the room.”

• “And no snarky belittling comments. Was a purely professional meeting…. Enjoyed the meeting with great information!!”

Nothing more need be said.

The end.