RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) – As the 2024-2025 school year inches closer, many school districts are tightening the reigns on their cell phone use policies.

In South Dakota, at least two school districts, Gettysburg and Edgemont, are implementing lockable pouches for students to place their cell phones during the school day.

Assistant Superintendent for Rapid City Area Schools Cory Strasser agrees with the decision these districts have made and says when cell phones are more of a disruption than a tool, changes need to be made.

“Every school addresses certain issues differently, and I think you’re seeing some of that in South Dakota. Some of the pressure is back against prevalent student use of cell phones, and it really comes down to what the learning environment looks like,” Strasser said.

Rapid City Area Schools decided to not make any changes to their current approach to student cell phone use, which consists of having phones kept in a backpack or locker throughout the school day.

“I don’t see us moving in that direction, but again we need to gauge where the potential disruption is and are we able to effectively address it through our current policy and consequences so that we can preserve the learning environment,” Strasser continued.

While schools in Rapid City are not tightening up their policy at the moment, Strasser says they are continuously keeping an eye out for any needed changes.

“We continually evaluate and look at our policies, so if there is a distinct need coming forth that we need to take a hard look at this policy, then we’re going to do that,” Strasser said.

See a spelling or grammatical error in our story? Please click here to report it.

Do you have a photo or video of a breaking news story? Send it to us here with a brief description.

Copyright 2024 KOTA. All rights reserved.

A federal judge has struck down an attempt by Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina to halt enforcement of the Biden administration’s final rule for Title IX, shortly before the final rule takes effect nationwide on Thursday.

The administration’s updated regulations — which seek to extend federal discrimination protections for LGBTQ students — have been met with a wave of GOP pushback since being announced by the Department of Education in April.

Though the final rule is slated to go into effect on Thursday, it’s now blocked in 22 states and has faced mounting legal uncertainty.

“In short, although Plaintiffs may dislike the Department’s rules, they have failed to show a substantial likelihood of success in proving the Department’s rulemaking was unreasonable or not reasonably explained,” Judge Annemarie Carney Axon of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama wrote Tuesday in a 122-page opinion.

Axon, who was appointed by then-President Donald Trump, also wrote that “the evidentiary record is sparse, and the legal arguments are conclusory and underdeveloped.”

In late April, the group of Southern states, all with GOP attorneys general, sued the administration in federal court in Alabama over the regulations. Multiple organizations also tacked onto the lawsuit, including the Independent Women’s Law Center, the Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education and Speech First.

They quickly appealed Tuesday’s ruling later in the day to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Since the department released the final rule, 26 states in total have signed onto lawsuits seeking to block the updated regulations from taking effect.

Across multiple temporary injunctions, the final rule is blocked in Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.

On Wednesday, Judge Jodi W. Dishman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma halted the final rule from taking effect in the state. Oklahoma individually sued the administration back in May.

To further complicate the matter, when Judge John Broomes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas temporarily blocked the measure in the Sunflower State, Alaska, Utah and Wyoming earlier in July, he extended it to also include “the schools attended by the members of Young America’s Foundation or Female Athletes United, as well as the schools attended by the children of the members of Moms for Liberty,” all groups that sued alongside those four states.

This means the final rule is blocked in schools across the country, including in states that never challenged the updated regulations. Despite Axon’s Tuesday ruling, the final rule will still be halted in any K-12 school or college in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and South Carolina that is impacted by the earlier Kansas decision.

The Department of Education did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A new analysis of the Nov. 5 ballot measure aiming to eliminate state sales taxes on groceries projects state revenue losses ranging from $134 million to $646 million annually.

On Tuesday in Pierre, the Legislative Research Council presented the analysis to lawmakers on the state budget committee. Council employees provide research, analysis and administrative support to legislators.

Backers of the citizen-initiated ballot measure only aim to prohibit state sales taxes on groceries, but the measure references items sold for “human consumption.” The wide range of potential revenue losses depends on how “human consumption” is interpreted. 

“This is why words matter,” said Jeff Mehlhaff, the council’s chief fiscal analyst. 

A narrow interpretation limits the measure’s impact to groceries. A broader interpretation includes many goods and services used by people, based on definitions and interpretations of “consume” and “consumption.” Utilities, toiletries and car repairs are some examples cited by the council as goods and services technically “consumed” by humans.  

The narrow definition would reduce state revenues by an estimated $133.6 million. The broader interpretation would result in an estimated revenue loss of up to $646.2 million. The state’s total annual budget is $7.3 billion.

A coalition formed to oppose the ballot measure says that in addition to affecting state sales taxes, the measure would affect city sales taxes, due to a state law that say cities cannot tax anything the state doesn’t tax. Yet the actual language of the measure says “municipalities may continue to impose such taxes.”

New group argues grocery tax repeal could lead to income tax; sponsor calls claim a ‘fool’s errand’

When asked about that, Mehlhaff said, “I’m just leaving that where it is because it says municipalities may continue to impose such taxes.” 

Rep. Tony Venhuizen, R-Sioux Falls, said voter passage of the measure could precipitate the worst budget cuts since the 10% across-the-board reductions during the 2011 legislative session.

“If the people vote for this, they need to know that when we come during January, we are not going to be doing increases for anything,” he said. “We’re going to make significant budget cuts.”  

Retailers such as Walmart, Sam’s Club and Dollar General, which classify a significant portion of their sales as groceries and consumables, could see a substantial portion of their sales untaxed under the new measure, according to the analysis. It estimates that 59% to 81% of sales at those retailers could be affected.

The analysis says the Legislature would need to clarify the definition of “human consumption” to determine the measure’s full fiscal impact, should the measure pass.

Proponent says LRC recommended language

Rick Weiland runs Dakotans for Health, the group behind the ballot measure. He said the measure initially said “anything sold for eating or drinking by humans,” but was changed to “anything sold for human consumption” because the Legislative Research Council recommended it.

A 2022 letter to Weiland from the council suggested the initial wording was “overly vague, inviting various interpretations in determining its meaning.” The council recommended using terms like ingestion, chewing or consumed.

“These terms seem to be more precise than ‘eating and drinking,’ as they may better capture the various elements of food and beverage consumption,” the council wrote to Weiland. 

Following this advice, Weiland said, his team revised the language to “anything sold for human consumption, except alcoholic beverages and prepared food.” 

Attorney General Marty Jackley has since stated that “human consumption” is not defined by state law, and its common definition encompasses more than just food and drinks. 

Weiland’s attorney sought clarification from Jackley in a February 2023 letter and email, but said he received no response.

Mehlhaff told budget committee members that the language used in the final draft is not the council’s recommendation, pointing to another line in the 2022 letter that offered a possible rewrite: “The retail sale of any food or food ingredient for any purpose is exempt from any tax imposed by law.”

Mehlhaff said if the measure passes, lawmakers could attempt to amend or repeal it before its effective date on July 1, 2025.