Connect with us

South Dakota

Explaining the lawsuit against South Dakota’s abortion-rights ballot measure

Published

on

Explaining the lawsuit against South Dakota’s abortion-rights ballot measure


BY: SETH TUPPER

PIERRE, S.D. (South Dakota Searchlight) – A new court fight over South Dakota’s abortion-rights ballot measure could hinge on a complicated answer to a simple question: Does a set of six-year-old petition requirements still exist?

The court fight started Thursday, when the Life Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in state court. The lawsuit challenges the legitimacy of a citizen-initiated Nov. 5 ballot question that would reinstate abortion rights. The Life Defense Fund is a ballot question committee organized to oppose the measure.

Dakotans for Health is the ballot question committee that supports the measure and gathered the petition signatures to put it on the ballot. Instead of filing a response in state court, Dakotans for Health asked a federal judge on Tuesday to intervene on its behalf. To understand why, it’s necessary to retrace a series of legislative and court battles dating to 2018.

Advertisement

That’s when the Republican-dominated Legislature enacted restrictions on the petition process that citizens use to place measures on the ballot. The restrictions were intended to prevent non-South Dakotans from circulating petitions, in part by requiring petitioners to provide information proving their South Dakota residency.

One year later, in 2019, some lawmakers said out-of-state petitioners were circumventing the law. So the Legislature repealed part of the 2018 law and replaced it with a new law. Among other things, the 2019 law required all petition circulators to publicly disclose personal information including their address, email and phone number.

A ballot question committee, SD Voice, and a liberal blogger, Cory Heidelberger, successfully sued to block the 2019 law. They said the law violated their First Amendment free speech rights, had a chilling effect on petition circulators, and imposed “unwarranted new restrictions on the ballot measure process, for the purpose of further consolidating power in South Dakota’s dominant political party.”

In 2020, legislators responded with another new law applying similar requirements, but only to paid petition circulators. Dakotans for Health successfully sued to block that law. A federal appellate judge in the case wrote, “While South Dakota has important interests in protecting the integrity of the ballot initiative process, it has no interest in enforcing overbroad restrictions that likely violate the Constitution.”

Both the 2019 and 2020 laws included a 30-day residency requirement for petition circulators. That specific requirement was challenged in yet another lawsuit, filed by the League of Women Voters. The league agreed to drop its narrower lawsuit when Dakotans for Health succeeded with its wider suit.

Advertisement

According to the Life Defense Fund, the end result of all that lawmaking and litigating is that the original 2018 law still stands. It’s still “good law,” the group claims, because none of the subsequent bills that sought to repeal or amend it are currently in force. Those bills were challenged by opponents and blocked by the courts.

The Life Defense Fund therefore asserts that the abortion-rights petitioners were obligated to comply with the 2018 law, which requires sworn statements including information proving the petitioners’ South Dakota residency. The Life Defense Fund says Dakotans for Health failed to obey that law, and “therefore the entire petition is disqualified.”

Dakotans for Health says the Life Defense Fund lawsuit is an illegal attempt to resurrect the 30-day residency requirement for petitioners and “flout” the related court decisions. That’s why Dakotans for Health is asking a federal judge to prevent any state court from enforcing the residency requirement.

There are other allegations in the Life Defense Fund lawsuit: petition circulators failed to provide a required handout to signers, some signatures were counted as valid even though they’d been crossed out on the petition, some signers didn’t list the county where they’re registered to vote, some signers were allegedly duped into thinking they were signing a petition about repealing the sales tax on groceries, and so on.

“This will be proven by witness testimony,” Sara Frankenstein, the attorney for the Life Defense Fund, told South Dakota Searchlight.

Advertisement

Dakotans for Health, represented by attorney Jim Leach, asserts that the Life Defense Fund’s other allegations are insufficient to achieve its aim of removing the abortion-rights measure from the ballot. The petition circulator residency questions are “critical to the possible success” of the lawsuit, Dakotans for Health says in its federal court memorandum.

Nancy Turbak Berry, a Democratic former legislator who leads a coalition advocating for the ballot measure, panned the Life Defense Fund’s legal strategy.

“It is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit, designed solely to allow the opponents of reproductive freedom to peddle more inflammatory lies,” she said.

Dakotans for Health filed its ballot petition in May with about 55,000 signatures. The Secretary of State’s Office validated the petition after sampling the signatures and estimating that 46,098 of them were from South Dakota registered voters — more than the 35,017 needed to qualify for the ballot.

Abortions are currently banned in South Dakota, except to “preserve the life of the pregnant female.” The ballot measure would legalize abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy but allow the state to impose limited regulations in the second trimester and a ban in the third trimester, with exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

Advertisement

South Dakota Searchlight’s Joshua Haiar contributed to this report.



Source link

South Dakota

South Dakota lawmakers push bill criminalizing deepfakes nearer to governor’s desk

Published

on

South Dakota lawmakers push bill criminalizing deepfakes nearer to governor’s desk


PIERRE — A bill from South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley to criminalize the creation or sharing of deepfakes was amended this week to more clearly define what constitutes nudity before it reaches Gov. Larry Rhoden’s desk.

The amendment, added on the floor of the House of Representatives, came in response to concerns about unintended consequences.

Senate Bill 41 creates a class of felony crime for the creation or distribution of images digitally altered to depict a person in a state of nudity or involved in a sexually explicit act, commonly referred to as deepfakes.

Advertisement

In testimony in the House Judiciary Committee on Monday in Pierre, Jackley pointed to the case of Mark Rathbun, a former Division of Motor Vehicles employee who is accused of taking images of women and girls from state databases and creating sexual images.“This is real, and it’s something that we unfortunately are seeing happen in our state,” Jackley said.

The judiciary committee voted 8-3 to send the bill to the House floor but not before a discussion on its potential to criminalize political memes.

The bill’s definition of nudity originally encompassed a partial state of nudity. Fort Pierre Republican Rep. Will Mortenson asked Jackley if that would include a fabricated topless photo. Jackley said yes. Then Mortenson asked if a fabricated image of Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker without a shirt, if shared by President Donald Trump on social media, would put the president in line for felony charges.

Jackley said a Pritzker image wouldn’t qualify because Pritzker is male, but Mortenson pushed back.

Advertisement

He noted that partially nude fabrications would be a felony if done with the intent to “self-gratify or alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade the privacy of, threaten, or cause emotional, financial, physical, psychological, or reputational harm to that individual.”

Nothing in the bill specified that a person in a digitally fabricated topless image must be female.

“We just said that half-nude is a state of nudity, and so now he’s shirtless, and the point of this is to embarrass this guy,” Mortenson said of his topless Pritzker meme scenario.

Mortenson voted against the bill in committee but brought an amendment Tuesday to define nudity as inclusive of male or female genitalia, buttocks or the female nipple.

The amendment passed, but it did not address every concern about the bill.

Advertisement

Democratic Rep. Kadyn Wittman of Sioux Falls asked Jackley during the bill’s committee hearing why he didn’t use it to enhance penalties for people who film others in states of undress or participating in sexual activity against their will.

That behavior is a felony if it involves the recording of a minor, or if it happens repeatedly. The new penalties for deepfakes would be added to the same chapter of South Dakota law.

“Why is the first time hidden recording a misdemeanor generally, but a digitally fabricated image would automatically be a classified felony,” said Wittman.

Jackley said he feels that the creation of digitally manipulated sexual images, even if they aren’t shared, signals “significant criminal intent.” He told South Dakota Searchlight after the committee meeting that he’s open to addressing that issue, but that SB 41’s primary purpose was to target deepfakes.

On the House floor, Wittman was one of two representatives to say the bill’s felony penalties could be unnecessarily harsh in instances where young people make “a stupid decision” and create a deepfake.

Advertisement

“I feel like, in a lot of situations, this bill covers behavior that could be covered by a lower level of offense,” Wittman said.

Supporters countered that the creation of fake nudes can do real psychological damage to real people, and that the state needs to clearly signal that doing so is a serious crime.

“It’s only fun and games until it happens to you,” said Rep. Mary Fitzgerald, R-St. Onge.

The bill passed the House 60-6. It now moves to the state Senate, which passed the bill 32-0 on Jan. 16. The Senate would need to approve the amended version of the bill before it could be delivered to Gov. Larry Rhoden to sign or veto.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

South Dakota

SD Lottery Mega Millions, Millionaire for Life winning numbers for March 3, 2026

Published

on


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

Here’s a look at March 3, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Mega Millions numbers from March 3 drawing

07-21-53-54-62, Mega Ball: 16

Check Mega Millions payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 3 drawing

09-10-13-25-54, Bonus: 05

Check Millionaire for Life 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.

When are the South Dakota Lottery drawings held?

  • Powerball: 9:59 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
  • Mega Millions: 10 p.m. CT on Tuesday and Friday.
  • Lucky for Life: 9:38 p.m. CT daily.
  • Lotto America: 9:15 p.m. CT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Dakota Cash: 9 p.m. CT on Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Millionaire for Life: 10:15 p.m. CT daily.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a South Dakota editor. You can send feedback using this form.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

South Dakota

Nebraska volleyball to play regular-season match in South Dakota

Published

on

Nebraska volleyball to play regular-season match in South Dakota


Nebraska volleyball will play South Dakota State in a regular-season match in Brookings, S.D. The Huskers will face the Jackrabbits on September 2 at First Bank & Trust Arena.

Nebraska finished 2025 with a 33-1 overall record and was ranked No. 3 in the final AVCA poll of the season. South Dakota State was 23-5 and was the Summit League regular-season champions.

These two programs have faced each other before. They played a spring exhibition match in May 2025. The Huskers were victorious by a 4-0 sweep (25-18, 25-19, 25-17, 25-19).

Harper Murray led the Huskers in kills with 12, while also earning seven digs, five blocks and two aces. Andi Jackson delivered a double-double on the day, finishing with 11 kills and 10 blocks. 

Advertisement

Nebraska is scheduled to play two exhibition games this spring. The Huskers will face Iowa State in Sioux Falls, S.D. on April 11 and Creighton in Omaha on April 17.

Contact/Follow us @CornhuskersWire (https://twitter.com/CornhuskersWire) on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page onFacebook (https://www.facebook.com/CornhuskersWire) to follow ongoing coverage of Nebraska news, notes and opinions.





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending