SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (Dakota News Now) – On Election Day, South Dakota voters made the final decision on seven ballot questions.

One of the highly-debated initiatives was Referred Law 21, which would have put Senate Bill 201 into law with a Landowner Bill of Rights.

It was voted down by 59% of voters.

The measure was widely criticized for transferring control from local authorities to the state. Proponents argued it would have benefitted South Dakota’s economy.

Landowners who opposed Referred Law 21 and pipeline projects in the state viewed its rejection by voters as a “huge blow” to Summit Carbon Solutions and the carbon pipeline industry.

They held a victory press conference on Wednesday to celebrate, but both sides on the issue are looking at what comes next.

The attorney for landowners, Brian Jorde, pointed out in the press conference that Summit Carbon Solutions’ website no longer has a map specifically showing the project footprint in South Dakota.

Opponents to Referred Law 21 took a victory lap in the aftermath of election night. The final numbers looked closer than it was.

Of South Dakota’s 66 counties, 65 voted against Referred Law 21.

They celebrated what they believed to be momentum towards property rights and local control.

“This has been a grueling fight that we’ve been going on for three and a half years and I will say last night’s results were particularly gratifying and humbling,” said Ed Fischbach, a Spink County landowner.

Landowners said that they feel like it was also a victory to see the candidates who went against pipeline projects like Hohn from across the state won yesterday, some by wide margins as Fischbach explained.

“My county that I live in is Spink County and in the original route, we were going to get the most miles of that pipeline and if you are looking for a referendum on how our county feels, that also happened last night. Our county commission chairperson was up for reelection and she was targeted by an employee of the ethanol plant here in our county. Suzanne Smith was reelected with 73% [of the vote],” Fischbach said.

“The people supporting the bill made constant reference to the idea that we were all just a loud minority, extremists, folk who don’t live here or don’t have a commitment to this place. We have truly shown in a resounding 60-40 split that we are the loud majority on this issue and the fact that only one county was won in the entire state shows the statewide nature of our unified voice,” said Dakota Rural Action senior organizer Chase Jensen.

Proponents are disappointed but said they will get back to working on new ways forward.

Summit Carbon Solutions, the company that’s been trying to build its carbon capture pipeline project in South Dakota, plans on applying for a permit in the state later this month.

In a statement, they said:

“Summit Carbon Solutions will apply for a permit in South Dakota on November 19, 2024. Our focus continues to be on working with landowners and ensuring the long-term viability of ethanol and agriculture in the state. Projects like ours have successfully navigated South Dakota’s existing regulatory landscape in the past. We will continue to operate within the current framework, knowing that the future of ethanol and agriculture is vital to our shared success.”

Opponents to Referred Law 21 said they were prepared for the next steps as well. They were glad that companies would have to work with localities and they now turn their attention to what they call “True Reform” in the legislature.

“We really have had a grassroots movement across South Dakota with a lot of new conservative legislators and I am hopeful and think that we will bring forth a lot of good legislation that will protect our private property rights and keep our freedoms intact where they should be,” District 9 Senator-elect Joy Hohn.

Hohn said that legislators she spoke to have their eyes on putting together legislation that will specifically address eminent domain using Minnesota as a model because she said no eminent domain can be used for carbon pipelines in Minnesota.

“We look forward to this next session where we will actually get to some of the root causes that this bill or that this project has raised in our state. We will not settle for false compromise bills like Referred Law 21 was,” Jensen said.

Jorde said he was not surprised to hear that Summit Carbon Solutions intends to apply for another permit.

“They have to. Their investors are demanding they try again. It’s going to be very telling if that application is simply a copy and paste from last time that will tell us that they have learned nothing, that they don’t respect the will of the people, they don’t respect the vote that just occurred. The routes better be rerouted around the counties with the ordinances in place. It better be drastically different and we trust the PUC to hold the line as they did in Navigator and upholding county ordinances,” Jorde said.

Landowners are confident that if Summit Carbon Solutions follows through with its promise to submit another permit application, it will get the same result from the Public Utilities Commission and county ordinances will be respected.

Copyright 2024 Dakota News Now. All rights reserved.

A ballot measure authorizing South Dakota state officials to consider work requirements for Medicaid expansion recipients was winning in unofficial results.

The tally was 56% in favor of Amendment F and 44% opposed as of 9:45 a.m. Central time Wednesday, with about 90% of statewide votes counted.

Medicaid is a federal-state health insurance program for people with low incomes. In the past, Medicaid was not available to able-bodied adults younger than 65, unless they were below the poverty line and had young children.

In 2022, South Dakota voters expanded Medicaid eligibility to adults with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level. The expansion is part of the state constitution and can only be altered by voters. It includes a ban on “greater or additional burdens or restrictions,” such as a work requirement.

Earlier this year, legislators decided to put Amendment F on the ballot. The amendment will allow lawmakers to consider a work requirement if the federal government permits it. The Democratic Biden administration does not allow it, but a future Republican administration might.

On Wednesday morning, the Vote No on Amendment F coalition, including several health-related organizations, predicted the measure may “place harmful government red tape around access to health care for thousands of South Dakotans.”

“Ensuring our neighbors get health care is the right thing to do and this result may inhibit that process,” said retired Yankton physician Mary Milroy, Vote No on Amendment F chair, in a statement. “Health care access for hardworking South Dakotans is good for them and their families, good for the employers who need them more than ever, and good for the economic progress of this state.”

She added that the measure could allow lawmakers and bureaucrats to write new rules governing Medicaid eligibility, and the measure “provides no specifics on what those rules will be nor how they will be enforced.”

At the polls Tuesday, Parker Stewart, a 38-year-old Sioux Falls resident, said he voted yes on the amendment. He counts himself as a supporter of Medicaid and Medicaid expansion, but sees a work requirement as a protective measure against abuse of the system.

“We have family members who are dependent on that program for medical reasons,” Stewart said. “But at the same time, there are those who take advantage of it.”

Jessica Aguilar, a 43-year-old from Sioux Falls, said she voted against the measure.

“Medicaid expansion was passed by South Dakotans last election,” she said. “Let it stand as it was passed.”