logo
House shoots down prison money, but new vote looms

House shoots down prison money, but new vote looms

Yahoo22-02-2025
Sen. Jack Kolbeck, R-Sioux Falls, on the Senate floor during the 2024 legislative session. Kolbeck, now a state representative, amended a bill Friday in an attempt to keep talks alive on a proposed $125 million men's prison construction project. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
PIERRE — A legislative maneuver meant to secure funding and continue discussion on an $825 million men's prison failed by two votes Friday in the South Dakota House of Representatives.
The vote on House Bill 1025 was 34-35, with one member absent and a majority of 36 votes required for passage. The House could vote on whether to reopen debate when lawmakers return to Pierre next week.
The vote throws the future of the massive prison project into question, and could chart a path to easing some of the state's financial strain in a year where lawmakers are pondering cuts and swatting back funding requests.
Showdown over $825 million prison looms for state House of Representatives
House Speaker Pro Tempore Karla Lems, R-Canton, said after the vote that some of the money could go to a trust fund lawmakers want to establish for revenue from unclaimed property. That money comes from abandoned assets that revert to the state.
'We don't want to just blow that money,' Lems said. 'We'd like to see it possibly go into an unclaimed property trust fund, or at least part of it. Maybe there would still be some dollars this year to do some other things.'
Lems voted against HB 1025 on Friday.
In its original form, the bill would've sent $182 million toward the proposed 1,500-bed prison in Lincoln County. It also would have cleared the Department of Corrections to tap into a prison fund worth more than $600 million, set aside by legislators in prior years, to begin building it.
To build the prison that's been designed, mapped out and bid for, its funding package would need support from two-thirds of lawmakers in both the House and Senate, a chamber where it has yet to appear.
On Friday in the House, Sioux Falls Republican Rep. Jack Kolbeck moved an amendment designed to keep the bill alive with a simple majority. It stripped the bill of everything but a provision moving $148.1 million into the prison construction fund. The original proposal also sought to spend $33.9 million from the state's budget reserves.
Since the amendment bill would've moved money, rather than spend it, it could've side-stepped the state's constitutional requirement that spending bills need two-thirds support.
'I've heard a lot of people say we need to build a new prison,' Kolbeck said. 'This amendment allows that discussion to continue.'
The amendment passed 37-32.
Lems was the first to speak against the amended version of the bill. She rattled off questions about the prison's rural location and a pending lawsuit over that location, unknown costs for roads and ongoing operations, and on a price tag she sees as too high.
SD House panel lukewarm on bill to finalize new men's prison funding
She called the prison 'Plan A' for dealing with overcrowded conditions in the state's correctional system. There could be other, cheaper options or alternative locations, Lems said, and there's a bill circulating that would force correctional officials to consider them.
'Before I vote to put any more money into a savings account, I want to know what the plan is,' Lems said.
Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, R-Sioux Falls, supports the prison project as envisioned by the state's executive branch. She pointed out that the Legislature balked at a $38 million funding bill for a women's prison in 2022. The following year, it passed a bill to spend $60 million on the same project. Now under construction, the maximum price for that Rapid City facility came in at $87 million.
With a guaranteed maximum price for the men's prison set to expire if work doesn't commence by March 31, Rehfeldt questioned what could happen to the price tag after that.
'What will that be in the future? Probably more. Almost certainly more,' Rehfeldt said.
Rep. Will Mortenson, R-Fort Pierre, said even if the unanswered questions lead the state down a path toward a different kind of prison, that shouldn't prevent the state from adding money to the construction fund in preparation. Paying cash instead of interest – this year or in the future – will save hundreds of millions of dollars.
The state needs space, Mortenson said, and 'it is fiscally conservative to set it aside in a fund.'
He also said most of the objections relate to location, but those objections are likely to dog the project wherever it lands.
'I'd love to build the prison in Montana or Mars or somewhere else,' Mortenson said. 'Unfortunately, that's not how these things work.'
But Rep. Logan Manhart, R-Aberdeen, said it's not about location. It's about size and design, which he said is more than the state needs.
'When we're going to spend this kind of money on a Ritz-Carlton prison, I have some questions,' Manhart said.
Rapid City Democratic Rep. Peri Pourier pleaded with her fellow lawmakers to think about the root causes of crime, like poverty, drug abuse, family violence and a lack of state-supported services to address them.
Resistance to final budget request for new prison 'a real possibility' in Pierre
'Yes, we need a new prison, but do we need that big of a prison? And if we do, we need to ask ourselves why we need that big of a prison,' Pourier said.
She nearly wept as she recounted her recent struggle to gain traction for state dollars to support Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) in Rapid City. Children involved in abuse and neglect proceedings can be assigned CASA representatives to look out for their interests in court.
'West River has the highest child abuse and neglect rates in the state, and these kids are going to court with no one looking out for them,' Pourier said. 'Do you know how hard it was to fight for a minuscule $5 million to help them?'
Pourier challenged representatives to imagine what their grandchildren would think years from now about their investment in such a large prison.
'This is what we're going to bet on. We're going to bet that they're going to get locked up,' Pourier said.
Rehfeldt moved immediately following the vote to reconsider the bill. The House will decide next week whether to take up the bill a second time.
Howard Republican Rep. Tim Reisch, a former Department of Corrections secretary, was absent for Friday's vote. Reisch has voted for prison funding each time it's come up during his tenure in Pierre.
It will take some work to find support and flip votes, Mortenson said, but flipping votes 'is what we do around here.'
'I think a lot of people came here ginned up to vote no on building the prison in Lincoln County in that spot,' Mortenson said. 'I don't think it really sank in to most of the members that that isn't what this does. This just sets aside money for 'a' prison. It doesn't have to be 'the' prison.'
Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden has called the new prison – in the Lincoln County location – his top priority. The prison would largely replace the Sioux Falls penitentiary.
After Friday's vote, a spokeswoman for Rhoden told South Dakota Searchlight that 'we look forward to continuing the conversation.'
If House Bill 1025 ultimately fails, lawmakers would have $182 million more to work with in a tight budget year. If it passes in its amended form and moves $148.1 million into the prison fund, they'd have $33.9 million.
Lawmakers aim to stabilize 'volatile' unclaimed property revenue with trust fund
Lems was one of several lawmakers to suggest that some of the money could go into an unclaimed property trust fund. A proposal to set up such a fund, meant to earn interest on unclaimed money handed over to the state after three years of dormancy, is moving through the Legislature this session. A sister proposal aims to ask voters in 2026 to let the South Dakota Investment Council manage the fund.
House Speaker Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, said some of the unspent prison money could ultimately be placed into the prison fund, where it earns interest. If voters let the investment council manage an unclaimed property fund, though, starting that off with a chunk of the $182 million earmarked for the Lincoln County site would mean bigger returns in the long run.
The interest from the unclaimed property trust fund could, at some point, be used to offset high property taxes, Hansen said.
'I've always been open to that idea,' he said.
House Assistant Majority Leader Marty Overweg, R-New Holland, also mentioned a trust fund, but said nothing is final with the prison funding proposal. As a Republican caucus, he said, 'we've had discussions on what we'll do if it gets killed, not where it goes.'
'It's pretty hard to do much with one-time money, except put it into a savings account,' Overweg said.
Senate Pro Tempore Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, also trumpeted talks of an unclaimed property fund.
The budget reserve funds could wind up funding immediate needs if they aren't used for prison funding.
'The budget reserve typically just gets used for one-time dollars,' Karr said. 'So those would be open to go to some of the other projects that are in the one-time bills out there.'
Pourier saw other avenues worth exploring with the extra dollars, either immediately or paid for with interest: mental health services and substance abuse services and aftercare programming, particularly in rural areas, and expanding access to trauma-informed care.
She pointed to testimony from Corrections Secretary Kellie Wasko, who's repeatedly said that the majority of offenders struggle with mental health and substance abuse, and to Attorney General Marty Jackley, who's spent years talking about how drug abuse can become the fuel for violent crime.
'These guys, girls, everybody, the people who struggle with substance abuse disorders, they have a chemical imbalance in their brain and they're self-medicating,' Pourier said.
The location of a proposed men's prison in southeast South Dakota.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US deadlines in Ukraine are a gift to Putin and Xi
US deadlines in Ukraine are a gift to Putin and Xi

The Hill

time35 minutes ago

  • The Hill

US deadlines in Ukraine are a gift to Putin and Xi

President Trump's announcement this week of a shortened window of '10 to 12 days' for Russian President Vladimir Putin to reach a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine reflects a continued evolution in his rhetoric. His growing frustration with Moscow and his willingness to speak plainly about Russia's escalation send a signal that many in the U.S. and Europe have been waiting to hear. But while the shift in tone signals growing frustration, it has not translated into action. Russia reads the action as a continued pause in pressure, which it has used to intensify its offensive against Ukrainian homes and hospitals. Russian forces are now making their fastest territorial gains in more than a year, and their attacks are becoming more sophisticated. Swarm tactics using Iranian-designed Shahed drones, now mass-produced and adapted inside Russia with Chinese parts, are overwhelming Ukraine's air defenses at an alarming rate. In just one day last month, Russia launched 728 drones, decoys and missiles in a single coordinated wave. Ukrainian interceptors and radar crews are doing heroic work, but they are stretched to the limit. The U.S. has tools at its disposal that remain unused. For months, a bipartisan sanctions bill, co-authored by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and backed by 85 senators, a veto-proof majority, has been ready to move. The legislation would impose steep secondary tariffs on countries like China, India and Brazil that continue to buy Russian oil and gas, and would significantly raise the cost of doing business with Moscow. But in July, Senate leadership pulled the bill from consideration after President Trump suggested he would act if Russia failed to move toward peace within 50 days. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he would 'hold off' on advancing the bill, signaling that Congress would defer to Trump's timeline. House leaders followed suit. That decision was a mistake. While it is encouraging to see President Trump express increasing resolve, deferring congressional action in the hope that Putin will suddenly negotiate has only given Moscow more time and space to escalate. Every week of delay is a missed opportunity to tighten the financial pressure on Putin's war machine. And the clock is not just ticking in Ukraine. The broader contest involves China, too. Beijing's role in this war has become increasingly visible. Chinese companies are supplying entire weapons systems, not just components. Chinese-made drones and decoys are helping Russia saturate Ukrainian airspace. Chinese officials have even welcomed delegations from occupied Ukrainian territories and continue to sell heavy machinery to companies operating there. European officials report that China's foreign minister recently told the EU that Beijing does not want Russia to lose the war and fears that a Russian defeat would allow the U.S. to focus more squarely on Asia. Ukraine has responded accordingly. In early July, Kyiv arrested two Chinese nationals on espionage charges after they allegedly attempted to steal information about Ukraine's Neptune missile program. Days earlier, President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed sanctions on five Chinese firms accused of supporting the Russian war effort. These are not symbolic gestures, they are signs that Ukraine is increasingly realistic about the stakes and about China's alignment with Moscow. Support for Ukraine is not a distraction from U.S. competition with China. It is a critical part of it. Weakening Putin's military capacity weakens a key pillar of China's global strategy. And allowing Russia to continue its aggression without consequence would embolden Beijing's worst instincts from the Taiwan Strait to the South China Sea. To its credit, the Trump administration has begun voicing stronger concerns about Beijing's role. In the recently concluded round of trade talks, senior U.S. officials reportedly raised objections to China's purchase of sanctioned Russian oil and its sale of more than $15 billion worth of dual-use technology to Moscow. These are important warnings — but without follow-through, they risk being absorbed into the pattern of delay that Moscow and Beijing are already exploiting. The Graham-Blumenthal sanctions bill should move forward. It represents the most serious effort yet to impose real costs not only on Russia, but on the network of countries (especially China) helping it survive sanctions. It complements, rather than competes with, the administration's efforts to pressure Moscow. And it sends a message that the U.S. is serious about backing up its warnings with action. Countdowns can be useful. They create urgency. But urgency without follow-through is no substitute for strategy. What matters now is not how many days remain on the clock, but whether we are using each one to act. Jane Harman is a former nine-term congresswoman from California and former ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, who most recently served as chair of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy. She is the author of 'Insanity Defense: Why Our Failure to Confront Hard National Security Problems Makes Us Less Safe.'

Texas state House panel advances gerrymandered congressional map
Texas state House panel advances gerrymandered congressional map

Boston Globe

time35 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Texas state House panel advances gerrymandered congressional map

Advertisement But in the end, Republicans on the committee voted to deliver the map that had been called for by President Donald Trump, who said last month that he hoped to get five more Republicans in the House. Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas' 38 congressional seats. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Todd Hunter, a Republican state representative of Corpus Christi who sponsored the legislation for the map, said the new lines had been drawn 'for partisan purposes,' not based on race, and that the resulting map was 'completely transparent, and it's lawful.' The map now must be considered in a committee on calendars, which was set to meet Sunday. A first vote by the full Texas House could come as early as Monday or Tuesday. The state Senate must also approve the new map, or propose its own. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, has indicated support for redistricting, though he has not commented on the new map, which he can sign into law or veto. Advertisement Texas Democrats could prevent the House from approving the map by failing to show up, denying the quorum needed for any legislative action. But doing so comes with political and practical risks: Republican leaders in the Texas House fast-tracked the redistricting legislation before introducing any bills responding to the deadly floods in the Texas Hill Country -- putting Democrats in the position of potentially walking out on legislation that addresses needs caused by the flooding. And the Texas House adopted rules that call for fines of $500 per day for any member who is absent without approval, a measure adopted after Democratic members broke quorum during a 2021 legislative fight over voting and redistricting. Nationally, Republicans have looked at redistricting in Texas -- and potentially in other states where the party has control of the government, such as Missouri and Indiana -- as a means to preserve a slim Republican majority in the U.S. House after next year's midterm elections, which have historically gone against the party holding the presidency. In response, Democratic leaders in California, Illinois and New York have said they were considering redrawing their states' maps to create additional seats for Democrats to win, and offset any Republican gains in Texas. Last month, Democratic members of the Texas House traveled to California and Illinois to meet with Gov. Gavin Newsom and Gov. JB Pritzker and discuss those possibilities. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Saturday that his party was ready to fight this change. 'If Republicans want a showdown, the DNC, Texas Democrats and Democrats across the country have one thing to say: We will give you a showdown,' he said. Advertisement This article originally appeared in

Office of Special Counsel says it's opened Hatch Act probe of Jack Smith

timean hour ago

Office of Special Counsel says it's opened Hatch Act probe of Jack Smith

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel confirmed Saturday that it has opened an investigation into former Special Counsel Jack Smith and whether he violated the Hatch Act through his criminal investigations into President Donald Trump. The investigation follows a referral from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas earlier this week that asked the OSC to investigate Smith for his investigative and prosecutorial activities prior to the 2024 election which Cotton argued were intended to harm Trump's political prospects. Both Smith and former Attorney General Merrick Garland repeatedly maintained prior to departing office that none of the actions taken in either the classified documents investigation or the probe of Trump's efforts to subvert his 2020 election loss were driven by politics. A spokesperson for Smith's attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday on the OSC probe. The OSC is an independent agency that is not empowered to investigate criminal matters - it is separate from the Special Counsel post that Smith formerly served in under the Justice Department. OSC primarily operates as an agency to assist government whistleblowers in reporting allegations of waste or wrongdoing, and also enforces the Hatch Act which places restrictions of government employees from engaging in partisan political activities. It's unclear what course of action the OSC would even have to take against Smith if its investigation did determine he violated the Hatch Act, given Smith is no longer a government employee. While it could refer its findings to DOJ, the department has already publicly said that it is investigating Smith and other prosecutors who pursued Trump through its so-called "Weaponization Working Group" that is being led by former interim DC U.S. attorney Ed Martin. The announcement of the investigation also comes as the administration has found itself under increased scrutiny over its handling of the release of filings relating to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — with top officials from across the administration appearing eager to change the subject.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store