Senate panel recommends Venhuizen confirmation
The Senate Select Committee on the Nomination for Lieutenant Governor voted 5-0 Wednesday afternoon to recommend Venhuizen.
The hearing came less than six hours after South Dakota's new governor, Larry Rhoden, had announced that Venhuizen was his choice for the role that Rhoden previously held.
Rhoden became governor on Saturday when Kristi Noem resigned after the U.S. Senate confirmed her as the nation's new secretary of homeland security.
Rhoden, Venhuizen and Noem are Republicans.
The South Dakota Constitution requires that the Senate and the House of Representatives hold confirmation votes on any replacement lieutenant governor-nominee.
The Senate vote could come as early as Thursday afternoon.
Gov. Rhoden spoke to the select committee about Venhuizen. 'He will be a great partner in my service as governor,' Rhoden said.
Various lawmakers and lobbyists also spoke favorably about Venhuizen.
'He can find the compromise to move stuff forward,' Republican Sen. Ernie Otten said.
'He knows how to solve problems. He knows how to manage people in a fair manner. He's a great listener,' long-time lobbyist Dianna Miller said.
Former Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who is Venhuizen's father in law, took the witness chair too. Daugaard, who was a state senator and a lieutenant governor before winning the first of two terms as governor, said Venhuizen has the 'intellectual horsepower' and 'emotional stability' for the position.
Venhuizen led Daugaard's campaign for governor. After Daugaard won, he told Venhuizen he couldn't hire him in state government because it would appear to be nepotism. After an event in Sioux Falls, Tony and his wife Sara asked to meet Daugaard and his wife, Linda, at a McDonald's for coffee.
Daugaard said the Venhuizens convinced him that he was wrong. Venhuizen served as communications director during Daugaard's first term as governor and was chief of staff for the second term.
Daugaard told the committee that Venhuizen should be confirmed. 'I know you won't go wrong if you do,' he said.
Venhuizen went forward to make an opening statement to the committee. He joked that hearing the comments that others made reminded him of an old TV show. 'It was a little like 'This Is Your Life' or something,' he said. He introduced Sara and the couple's three children.
Republican Sen. Chris Karr chaired the committee. He is the Senate president pro tempore and presides when the lieutenant governor isn't present — or when the post is vacant, as was the case this week. Karr read aloud the South Dakota Constitution's provision regarding the lieutenant governor, including the part that says the lieutenant governor is the Senate president.
'Pretty big shoes to fill. Pretty big role there,' Karr said. He asked what Venhuizen's duties will be.
'The governor has asked me to serve on a full-time basis, which I will be doing,' Venhuizen replied. Specific duties haven't been fully defined yet, Venhuizen explained, saying that he would be flexible and do whatever Rhoden needs him to do.
As for his on-the-job arrangements, Venhuizen said he will work from the Capitol office some of the time and from Sioux Falls some of the time, and he also expects that he will be traveling the state. Venhuizen said that was the arrangement during the 14 months he was chief of staff for Noem.
Republican Sen. Greg Blanc asked Venhuizen what his leadership strengths are to be the next governor. 'I'm just getting used to being lieutenant governor. One step at a time,' Venhuizen said. 'We're a cautious, conservatively run state. I would want to maintain that.' He also would want to maintain freedom, he said.
Democratic Sen. Liz Larson said that Gov. Rhoden in his first speech to the Legislature on Tuesday had talked about resetting state government's relationship with tribal governments. 'I was happy he included that in the speech. That commitment has to come from the top,' Venhuizen responded. But it's not one relationship, it's nine, he continued, and said he'll do whatever role the governor wants him in.
State government can't tell tribal governments what to do, Venhuizen said: 'It needs to come from them, but we need to be a willing partner as those challenges arise.'
Republican Sen. David Wheeler asked the committee to recommend Venhuizen's confirmation, and Larson seconded the motion. 'He'll be a great asset to the executive branch and to the Senate,' Wheeler said.
Venhuizen was in his third year as a member of the House. He resigned Wednesday morning, shortly before the news conference where Rhoden announced the pick.
Karr recalled getting to know Venhuizen when Karr was a first-year legislator and Venhuizen was on Daugaard's staff.
'I just hope that the perspective that you have gained wearing the hat as a legislator, you take that with you,' Karr told Venhuizen. He suggested that Venhuizen could serve as 'a potential buffer.'
'Be the individual who can help problem solve,' Karr said.
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
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
If you've ever suffered from that nagging feeling that the Legislature is systematically trying to undermine your right to petition something onto the ballot, you're not alone. I've had it, too. We need to start trusting that gut feeling. It turns out we weren't wrong. That's exactly what the Republican majority in the Legislature has been trying to do. It has just been proven by three authors of a South Dakota Law Review article: 'Have Recent Legislative Changes in South Dakota Made Using the Initiated Measure Process More Difficult?' It seems the answer to the question in the title of the article is yes, and how. You can find the article on the Law Review's website. Be warned: at 40-some pages, it's not an easy read. There are footnotes strewn about and readers may struggle with some of the world's ugliest charts. However it still tells a compelling tale of how, since 2017, the Republican super-majority in the Legislature has been whittling away at the rights of citizens to petition measures onto the ballot. Republicans may scoff at the article as so much whining from the left as two of the authors are well-known Democrats: activist Cory Heidelberger and former State Sen. Reynold Nesiba. While a Republican byline would have been nice for the sake of balance, there's no disputing the truth of the facts they have compiled. These bills were filed and are there for anyone to look up. Their paper gets particularly interesting when it goes about listing the Legislature's 14 worst bills designed to cut back the rights of citizens to petition an initiative onto the ballot. Those range from insisting on a larger font size on petitions to make them unwieldy, to allowing petition signers to later withdraw their names after the petition has been submitted, and a couple of attempts to raise the vote total needed for passage of the initiative beyond a simple majority. Some of these attacks on our rights were defeated at the ballot box; some were challenged in court where they fell short of being entirely constitutional. Sadly, some were enacted into law. At least now, through the work of the article's authors, the grim history of the war on ballot initiatives in South Dakota is summed up in one place. Unfortunately, while that history has been chronicled, the siege still continues. The authors go on to mention seven petition-related bills and five constitutional amendments submitted in the 2025 legislative session, 10 of which, they say, sought to curtail the rights of citizens to initiate ballot measures. When legislators want to amend the state constitution themselves, they have to convince a majority of their colleagues to send the amendment to voters. This legislative quest to get on the 2026 ballot through constitutional amendments comes from the same party that tries to curtail voter access to the petition process by claiming that voters have ballot fatigue with so many issues to decide on Election Day. This ignores the fact that in each case, more than 17,000 South Dakotans applied their signatures to petitions, a sure sign that there are plenty of people who think the ballot issue is something that should go before voters. This years-long attempt to curtail the initiative process is nothing more than a means for the Republican super-majority to solidify its power by cutting off people they don't agree with from access to the ballot. Republican efforts aren't trying to make the process better or more secure. They're just tired of beating back attempts to legalize marijuana and abortion. The irony here is that in the Statehouse, no piece of legislation is ever blocked. Sure, there may be some arm-twisting that could lead to a bill being tabled or withdrawn, but each bill is handled in the light of day. These same Republicans who are so upright and transparent with legislation are working overtime to have darkness descend on the ballot box. Their attempts to slow or stop citizen access to the ballot initiative process is a sign of the power that citizens wield. The recent law journal article has proven that this notion that our rights are under attack is more than just a gut feeling. We now have a historic record that spells out the way Republicans have been trying to take away the power of citizens to petition their government. This article originally appeared on Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Law journal article proves that citizen ballot questions are under attack
USA Today
42 minutes ago
- USA Today
'They're trying to rig the system': Sen. Padilla says Dems should fight fire with fire
California's Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla said his party should be willing to fight fire with fire, in light of Texas' potential, controversial gerrymandering plans. "If Republicans were confident on their policy agenda, they'd be eager to defend it with the people and to defend it at the ballot box next November," Padilla said in an Aug. 3 interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." "But they know they're in trouble," he continued. "And so they're trying to rig the system to hold on to power." The California senator was referencing Texas Republicans' proposed new map of their state's congressional districts, following President Donald Trump's urging that the GOP find a way to flip as many as five seats in next year's midterm elections. "Just a very simple redrawing, we pick up five seats," Trump told reporters on July 15. Padilla likened Trump's ask of Texas Republicans to his request during his first term in office that a top Georgia official "find 11,780 votes" to put him over the top in the Electoral College for the 2020 election. Redistricting in the middle of the decade, rather than every ten years after new census data is collected, is rare. And the pushback from Democrats across the country has been widespread. Blue state leaders have threatened tit-for-tat responses, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has suggested redrawing his state's map to counteract Texas' efforts. (Newsom faces the challenge of a bipartisan redistricting commission, which oversees California's maps, unlike Texas, where lawmakers dictate the boundaries.) Some California Democrats are wary, warning that a redistricting arms race could spiral and erode trust with voters. In response to those concerns, Padilla told NBC he believes it's appropriate for the Democrat-controlled state to evaluate its options. "The ideal scenario," he said, "is for Texas to stand down. They don't have to do this; they shouldn't do this. But if they were to go forward and deliver Trump his five additional Republicans ... the stakes are simply too high" for Democrats not to respond. Padilla also addressed recent comments from his fellow Democrats about the state of politics and American democracy, including Sen. Cory Booker's call for his party to "have a backbone." "It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines," Booker said from the Senate floor on July 29. Asked whether Booker's defiant approach was the appropriate stance for Democrats under the Trump administration, Padilla said, "Look, I think the extreme way in which this administration is conducting itself calls for higher and higher profile ways of pushing back." After announcing that she would not be running for California governor in 2026, former Vice President Kamala Harris appeared on CBS's "The Late Show" with Stephen Colbert. In her interview on July 31, Harris told Colbert, "Recently, I made the decision that, for now, I don't want to go back into the system. I think it's broken." Padilla agreed, in part, with Harris' take, saying, "I think the system is under duress." "Democrats are doing our part to try to stand up and push back," he added.
