By: John Hult

PIERRE, S.D. (South Dakota Searchlight) – The question of whether South Dakota moves to ban the use of government food assistance for sugary drinks is in the hands of Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden, who has signaled his opposition to the bill all through the 2026 legislative session.

The state Senate voted 27-6 on Wednesday to endorse House Bill 1056, after the House passed it earlier 58-11. Assuming the same levels of support, both margins are wide enough to overcome a Rhoden veto, should he choose to issue one.

The bill directs the Department of Social Services to ask for a federal waiver to allow the state to bar the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for the purchase of soft drinks. 

SNAP is a federal program, managed by the state, through which people with low incomes get a monthly allowance for food through a debit-like card that can be used at most stores to buy nearly any consumable grocery item save alcohol and prepared foods. 

Representatives from Rhoden’s office testified against the bill in House and Senate committees, arguing that the administrative costs would be too high. A fiscal note attached to the bill between its passage in the House and its appearance on the Senate’s Wednesday calendar estimated that implementation would cost $310,000 through the first two years. Those costs would come from hiring an extra employee and contracting for software to track sales, file reports and help retailers determine which drinks are banned.

Backers see long-term savings to the state, though. A high percentage of SNAP recipients are also on Medicaid, a taxpayer-funded health insurance program open to disabled and income-eligible people. 

On Wednesday, Burbank Republican Sen. Sydney Davis noted the connection between excess soda consumption and health problems like obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. Medicaid dental costs alone add up $51 million a year, she said.

Mitchell Republican Sen. Paul Miskimins, a retired dentist, told the body he once counted 32 cavities and seven abscesses in the mouths of 2-year-old twin boys who were covered by Medicaid.

He attributed the tooth decay to sugary beverages.

“I don’t know if that first visit was more traumatic on the boys or on my dental staff and myself,” said Miskimins.

Tamara Grove, R-Lower Brule, was the lone senator to speak in opposition on the Senate floor. She argued that some stores might stop accepting SNAP payments due to the administrative burden of sorting barred products from the rest of their inventories, and pointed out that the bill wouldn’t do a thing to prevent SNAP recipients from loading up on sugary foods like ice cream or snack cakes.

“It gives this look as if there’s going to be this big, huge change in the way that people buy products, but it’s really not going to be,” Grove said.

Some surrounding states, including Nebraska, have moved to ask for a waiver to ban soda sales through SNAP. Such waivers are now an option, as President Donald Trump’s administration is willing to consider granting them. Former President Joe Biden’s administration was not.

Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, the South Dakota bill’s prime sponsor, got a letter last week from Trump administration officials expressing support for her proposal. 

In response, Rhoden spokeswoman Josie Harms told South Dakota Searchlight that the governor “has always been supportive of the Trump Administration’s efforts to Make America Healthy Again,” using a reference to the policy agenda branding used by U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“We have met directly with his Administration on this issue, and at no point has our opposition been directed at President Trump or his efforts to reform SNAP,” Harms said. “Our focus has always been on ensuring the implementation of SNAP reform works effectively for our state.”

Harms said Wednesday that Rhoden would answer questions about the bill at a Thursday press conference.

The South Dakota Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at Feb. 25, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from Feb. 25 drawing

50-52-54-56-64, Powerball: 23, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Lotto America numbers from Feb. 25 drawing

31-32-41-48-51, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 04

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Dakota Cash numbers from Feb. 25 drawing

01-06-21-26-35

Check Dakota Cash payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

Are you a winner? Here’s how to claim your prize

• Prizes of $100 or less: Can be claimed at any South Dakota Lottery retailer.
• Prizes of $101 or more: Must be claimed from the Lottery. By mail, send a claim form and a signed winning ticket to the Lottery at 711 E. Wells Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501.
• Any jackpot-winning ticket for Dakota Cash or Lotto America, top prize-winning ticket for Lucky for Life, or for the second prizes for Powerball and Mega Millions must be presented in person at a Lottery office. A jackpot-winning Powerball or Mega Millions ticket must be presented in person at the Lottery office in Pierre.

Eight members of the House Education committee voted Wednesday, Feb. 25, to advance a bill that opponents called an “attack on public education.”

Senate Bill 223, brought by Sen. Sue Peterson, R-Sioux Falls, would give petitioners more time to gather fewer signatures to refer school district opt-outs to a vote. She said it’s a property tax relief bill with reasonable changes to refer opt-outs to the ballot.

Opt-outs allow school districts to raise additional operating funds beyond what they get in their existing tax levy, and in state aid, by “opting out” of those limitations to collect more taxes from property owners in the district.

More: Senate committee advances bill to make school opt-out petitions easier

Instead of having 20 days to get signatures from 5% of the total number of people registered to vote in the school district, the bill would give petitioners 40 days to collect signatures from either 5% of people who voted in the last school district election, or 50 voters, whichever is greater.

Sioux Falls School District Superintendent Jamie Nold said SB 223 “specifically attacks public schools,” and takes away school boards’ options to balance school district budgets because the state aid districts receive hasn’t met the rate of inflation for the last two years.

“Senate Bill 223 is an attempt to use the Legislature to negatively impact schools that serve all students,” Nold said. “Senate Bill 223 will continually make it harder for public schools to maintain a balanced budget, pay teachers and maintain local control.”

SB 223 previously passed on a 6-3 vote in the Senate State Affairs committee, and a 20-14 vote in the Senate. After the 8-7 vote in the House Education committee, SB 223 will move to the House in the coming days. If it passes there, it will land on Gov. Larry Rhoden’s desk.

‘Maybe, just maybe, there isn’t support to refer this to an election’

Much of the discussion on SB 223 centered on the most recent opt-out passed in the Sioux Falls School District −$2.1 million over 10 years, or $21 million total − and the failure of petition gatherers to get enough signatures to refer it to a vote. They needed 5,490 signatures, and only got 2,302 by the deadline. Peterson called it a “heroic effort.”

One of the proponents, Sioux Falls resident Amy Bruner, said the gathering of petition signatures included 50 volunteers. Peterson noted she was not involved in gathering signatures for the opt-out petition.

If the petition group’s goal was about 5,500 signatures, each of those 50 volunteers would’ve needed to gather 110 signatures over the 20-day period, or five to six signatures each day. The group as a whole needed to gather 275 signatures per day over 20 days.

More: Bill to bring every school district opt-out to an election fails in SD

Opponents argued that the failure of the petition group to gather more signatures from the public, or to find more people interested in gathering signatures, is evidence that people supported their local school board’s decision to opt-out.

“Maybe, just maybe, there isn’t support to refer this to an election,” said Heath Larson, lobbyist for Associated School Boards of South Dakota. “Maybe the people in the local community are supportive of what the local school board is doing, and they trust their local school boards.”

And while much of the discussion did center on the Sioux Falls School District, Nold said property tax issues and opt-outs aren’t a Sioux Falls issue alone. He said the district has the second-lowest levy of the 11 districts in the Sioux Falls metro area and is in the bottom 20% of South Dakota’s school districts in property valuation per student.