South Dakota

South Dakota committee OKs bill making school opt-out petitions easier

Published

1 week ago

February 25, 2026

South Dakota committee OKs bill making school opt-out petitions easier

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.

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.

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.

Opponents argue SB 223 makes it ‘too easy’ to refer opt-outs

The last school district election in May 2025 saw 2.33% of eligible registered voters − 2,958 of 126,334 − cast ballots in that election; which was one of the lowest turnouts in recent memory.

More people voted in the election than signed the petition to refer the opt-out to a vote.

If SB 223 had been in effect when the board passed the opt-out for fiscal year 2026 in June 2025, only 148 signatures would’ve been needed to refer the opt-out to an election.

Peterson said SB 223 wouldn’t make it “easy,” but “attainable” to refer opt-outs to an election.

But opponents, including South Dakota Education Association lobbyist Sandra Waltman and Sioux Falls School District lobbyist Sam Nelson, said SB 223 makes it “too easy” to refer opt-outs to elections.

Disagreement on public input, voter fatigue

While the proponents argued that SB 223 is about giving taxpayers a voice in local spending decisions, opponents said there are already opportunities to give input on those decisions.

That includes attending school board meetings, voicing concerns at those meetings during public comment time, contacting school board members and superintendents, voting in school board elections or running for school board.

When the Sioux Falls School District looks to pass an opt-out, it meets with community members and business leaders in its Finance Action Network to vet them in a five-month process before the opt-out is presented publicly to the school board, Nold said.

From there, the school board has three different public meetings to discuss the opt-out, with opportunities for the public to comment and give feedback, an “extensive process” before opt-outs are finalized and ratified, Nold explained.

Holding an opt-out election in an odd-numbered year would cost the district $63,000, Nold said. More elections would create voter fatigue, Waltman said.

Source link

Click to comment

South Dakota

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

Published

8 hours ago

March 4, 2026

Press Room

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

John Hult
| South Dakota Searchlight

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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

South Dakota

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

Published

21 hours ago

March 4, 2026

Press Room

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.

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

South Dakota

Nebraska volleyball to play regular-season match in South Dakota

Published

1 day ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

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.

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