South Dakota
State officials peppered with questions on price tag for new men’s prison • South Dakota Searchlight
Lawmakers expressed frustration Tuesday in Pierre over the uncertain price tag for construction and operations of a proposed men’s prison in Lincoln County.
Members of the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee also had pointed questions for Department of Corrections officials on alternative sites for the project, which has sparked a lawsuit from nearby neighbors and represents the most expensive taxpayer-funded capital project in state history.
“I’m just flabbergasted that we’ve not yet wrapped our arms around this as a total package,” said Rep. John Mills, R-Brookings.
Wealth of controversies, outbreaks of violence spark questions on prison oversight
Lawmakers have already dedicated more than $569 million to the project across the past two legislative sessions, including $62 million in preparatory spending. The rest sits in an incarceration construction fund.
The guaranteed maximum price for construction is expected in early November, DOC Secretary Kellie Wasko and Finance Director Brittni Skipper testified on Tuesday. That fixed price wouldn’t change, Skipper said, even if inflation or other construction costs increase.
Some lawmakers, including Sen. Jim Bolin, R-Canton, struggled to understand how a company could make such a promise.
“If you’re talking about an $800 million project, maybe more, if you make a mistake on that, you can bankrupt your whole company,” Bolin said.
Skipper told Bolin the DOC has a construction manager at-risk, JE Dunn and Henry Carlson Construction, who will build three years of projected inflation into the promised price.
“It’s in their contract to provide to us a guaranteed maximum price,” Skipper said, noting that the DOC has a similar arrangement for a new women’s prison under construction in Rapid City.
Rep. Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, was one of several lawmakers to push Wasko and Skipper about the potential ongoing costs associated with the prison once it’s complete. Karr and other committee members asked about prison population growth and staffing projections.
“If we’re going to make this huge investment, are we going to be able to house everybody?” Karr said.
Wasko said she doesn’t trust inmate population projections any further than five years out.
She said too many things can change, including when lawmakers create new felony crimes or toughen penalties. They did that with 2023’s “truth in sentencing” bill, which now forces those convicted for violent offenses to serve most or all of their prison terms.
“Our rate of incarceration is not slowing down. It’s actually speeding up,” Wasko said.
Even so, she said, the 1,500-bed proposal would offer the agency breathing room, as it’s designed to be a maximum-security facility capable of managing overflow from other areas of the system. The prison would take on most of the inmates now housed at the penitentiary in Sioux Falls.
Rep. Tony Venhuizen, R-Sioux Falls, said he understands that projections can change, but also said it’s important for appropriators to have a better sense of what they’re committing to.
“This could be a pretty considerable ongoing cost, and I do think at some point during the next session, we’re going to need a ballpark of what that might be,” Venhuizen said.
Skipper said the previous ballpark estimates anticipated 130 more employees and approximately $15 million in ongoing funding.
Sen. Red Dawn Foster, D-Pine Ridge, wanted to know if the DOC had consulted with the state’s Supreme Court, Unified Judicial System or Attorney General’s Office to drill down on what to expect in terms of offender population growth.
Wasko said the DOC hadn’t reached out to those agencies to talk about projections.
Opposition won’t cause state to change prison location, official says
Steve Haugaard, a Republican former lawmaker and one-time primary candidate for governor, seized upon that point during his testimony, which he offered via video feed later in the afternoon.
Haugaard argued that lawmakers were spending too much money on prisons without clear goals for managing corrections and criminal justice as a whole. Haugaard argued that “the building is going to control the overall policy,” and said policy guidance ought to come first.
Upon hearing that the DOC hadn’t consulted with the courts or attorney general, he said, “I just wonder what are we doing?” Haugaard said.
“We don’t have a corrections policy that’s firmly in place,” Haugaard said. “And from what I can see from those stats from the past 40-plus years, we didn’t respond to the ever-increasing spike in incarceration rates.”
Wasko said, as she has in the past, that South Dakota stands out from many other states for harsh penalties. But she also said that as a member of the executive branch, her responsibility is to manage an offender population, not to influence its size.
“There’s a judicial branch, the legislative branch, and I’m the executive branch, and there’s reasons for that,” Wasko said. “I would not be responsible for anything on the front end of incarceration.”
Wasko got backing on that point from Rep. Rep. Linda Duba, D-Sioux Falls, said the courts, prosecutors and lawmakers need to be proactive in criminal justice policy. She said the new facility is needed to make space for treatment and rehabilitation programs.
During another line of questioning, Karr asked about recent heavy rains and the possibility of flooding. He wanted to know if the proposed prison site is in a flood plain.
Haugaard also keyed in on flooding potential, as did Kyah Broders, one of the Lincoln County residents suing the DOC over its site selection process.
The area did see several road closures during the heavy rains, she said Tuesday.
“Adding sewage ponds and tons of concrete will only compound this issue in the future,” she said.
Skipper said the site is not in a flood plain. She showed the committee a photo of the land shortly after the historic June rainfall that wreaked havoc on communities in southeast South Dakota.
“You can see from those photos that there was minimal water damage to the site, without any soil being moved or anything being done,” Skipper said.
In response to an email about the rainfall, DOC spokesman Michael Winder sent the photos shown to the lawmakers and wrote that the project’s civil engineer “will prepare the design for watershed from the property that would include any stormwater runoff.”
Bolin asked what might happen if Broders and her fellow prison site opponents succeed in forcing the state to apply for a county zoning permit and the county refuses to grant one.
“We do not have a valid or developed plan B if that ruling does not come through for us,” Wasko said.
Bolin, who is not returning to Pierre for the next legislative session, closed out the prison site update portion of Tuesday’s meeting by returning to the influence harsh penalties have on prison populations.
Bills meant to get tough on crime and “lock them up and throw away the key” have appeared in nearly all of his 16 years in Pierre, Bolin said.
For future lawmakers, he said, “If you really believe that, you’ve also got to be prepared to pay the bill.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Under state law, any “interested person” can petition state boards to change administrative rules.
But South Dakota citizens and organizations don’t qualify as “persons” under that chapter of state law. The existence of that limitation surprised some members of the state Board of Elections on Wednesday during a meeting called for the express purpose of voting to advance or defeat a rules package the body spent two hours pondering last week.
The League of Women Voters leaned on what it believed to be its right to petition state board earlier this month when it offered the board a series of rule changes the group argued were necessary to standardize the administration of a new state law that requires first-time voter registrants to provide proof of U.S. citizenship.
The board dismissed the petition in a 5-2 vote on Wednesday after one of the board members told the group that the advocacy nonprofit lacks the legal standing to ask for the changes.
Last minute check of statutes calls petitioners’ status into question
The definition of a “person” able to petition a state board for a rule change only includes political subdivisions or agencies of the state, board member and retired Rapid City attorney Scott McGregor said.
McGregor did not attend the initial board meeting last week when the petition was presented, but he reviewed the matter over the weekend, he told South Dakota Searchlight after the meeting. With a 40-year career “making legal arguments based on statutory interpretations,” McGregor also reviewed relevant laws regarding the petition process.
McGregor said he wanted to see if “interested person” had a broad enough definition to include organizations such as the League of Women Voters.
“‘Person’ in various contexts has an awful lot of definitions,” McGregor said. “It depends on the section of the law you’re dealing with and the level of government you’re dealing with.”
McGregor spoke with the Secretary of State’s Office and its legal counsel earlier this week to confirm his interpretation. Deputy Secretary Tom Deadrick told McGregor that other agencies have accepted rule petitions from individuals.
“Even if other agencies have done it,” McGregor told Searchlight,” that doesn’t change the law.”
McGregor told board members he was “shocked” by the limitations.
“That may be an oversight, but that’s all that’s in there,” McGregor said during the meeting.
Board member Kent Alberty said he was “disappointed” that the law’s restrictions on petitioners wasn’t shared with board members earlier. Alberty, during last week’s meeting, said that he saw a need for at least some standardization in procedures in the administration of the citizenship requirement.
Alberty voted against the dismissal on Wednesday, as did Dewey County Auditor Jamalia Franzen.
McGregor told South Dakota Searchlight that the law should be reviewed legislatively.
“There is a certain unfairness to it,” McGregor said.
Acceptable documents for proving one’s citizenship under the new law in question on Wednesday include a birth certificate, passport, driver’s license, non-driver’s identification card or tribal identification card, or “any other type of acceptable documentation” under federal law. Photocopies of most of those documents are acceptable, but registrants using state- or tribally issued identification cards must have the physical cards with them.
If a voter does not provide necessary documentation, they are registered as federal-only voters and cannot participate in local or state elections.
The League of Women Voters proposals included:
- Allowing photocopies of identification cards, such as tribal IDs and driver’s licenses, to be used as proof of citizenship.
- Recognizing tribal identification cards from any federally recognized tribe, rather than just the nine tribes in South Dakota.
- Allowing voters designated as federal-only an opportunity to cast provisional ballots for local elections while appealing their eligibility.
- Adding specific language to the state’s voter registration form to explain that not offering a physical South Dakota address would cause them to be designated as federal-only voters.
- Adding language to notifications confirming a voter’s registration clearly saying if the registrant is a federal-only voter, as well as language explaining how to remedy the situation.
South Dakota Secretary of State Monae Johnson was ill during last week’s board meeting, at which the group took testimony from supporters of each rule. No one from her office was on hand to rebut the supporters, but her staff did file written responses in opposition.
On Wednesday, Johnson told the board that the new law, as written, does not allow photocopies of driver’s licenses, only the original card. She added that while no formal appeal process exists for voters registered as federal-only, they can remedy their status by resubmitting their registration with proper documentation.
“The League of Women Voters and other concerned organizations could look at amending the current law in the 2027 legislative session, if that is their wish,” Johnson said.
Johnson will not be seeking re-election for secretary of state in November. She lost the Republican nomination at last month’s state party convention to state Rep. Heather Baxter, who supported the bill that created the new law during the legislative session and will oversee its administration if elected. Baxter will face Democratic nominee Terrence Davis in the general election.
Baxter submitted public comment ahead of Wednesday’s meeting and compared the proposed changes to presenting a photocopy of identification to get through security at the airport or purchase alcohol. The state Department of Public Safety does not accept photocopies of identification documents, Baxter said.
“So why allow the League to make such changes to what law already clearly states as well as other state departments?!” Baxter wrote.
Amy Scott-Stoltz, president of the League of Women Voters of South Dakota, said the organization is “disappointed” in the board’s decision and “reviewing our options” regarding advancing its proposals and challenging the board’s dismissal.
The group’s petition was meant to make sure the new law is “uniformly implemented across the state and that voters and county auditors alike would have clear guidance about their obligations under the law in advance of the November election,” Scott-Stoltz said.
“We intend to continue our work in South Dakota to ensure that every American citizen can access the ballot box,” Scott-Stoltz said.
— This story was originally published on southdakotasearchlight.com.
The South Dakota Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.
Here’s a look at July 8, 2026, results for each game:
Winning Powerball numbers from July 8 drawing
12-29-37-43-55, Powerball: 18, Power Play: 4
Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Lotto America numbers from July 8 drawing
17-26-31-32-37, Star Ball: 01, ASB: 02
Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Dakota Cash numbers from July 8 drawing
07-11-18-31-33
Check Dakota Cash payouts and previous drawings here.
Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from July 8 drawing
16-18-43-48-50, Bonus: 01
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.
LARCHWOOD, Iowa (KIWA) – A Tea, South Dakota man has been arrested on a felony domestic abuse charge after an incident near Larchwood.
According to a criminal complaint filed with the Lyon County Clerk of Court’s Office by the Iowa State Patrol, 45-year-old Beau Christensen of Tea is accused of assaulting his girlfriend in their hotel room at Grand Falls Casino & Golf Resort near Larchwood. He was arrested on Wednesday, July 8.
In his statement, the state trooper who filed the report says Christensen put his hands around the victim’s neck. The victim stated she could not breathe while this was happening.
Christensen was charged with domestic abuse assault – impeding air or blood flow, a class D felony. If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison. He also faces a misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana.
He faces a preliminary hearing on Friday, July 10.
At last report, Christensen remained in the Lyon County Jail in Rock Rapids in lieu of a $6000 bond.
Want to get the latest news and weather from Siouxland’s News Source? Follow these links to download our KTIV News app and our First Alert Weather app.
Copyright 2026 KTIV. All rights reserved.
-
Illinois1 minute agoIllinois waives tax penalties for 11 counties hit by storms, including Stephenson and Winnebago
-
Indiana4 minutes agoAttempted murder suspect arrested in Indianapolis for Bloomington shooting
-
Iowa9 minutes agoIowa WWII veteran approaching 100th birthday honored in Cedar Rapids
-
Kentucky14 minutes agoExantus may be subject to involuntary hospitalization due to Kentucky law
-
Louisiana24 minutes agoParasitic stomach illness that can cause explosive diarrhea rises in Louisiana
-
Maine31 minutes agoIs prison in play for Graham Platner?
-
Maryland34 minutes agoOffice building in Glen Burnie evacuated after shift in parking garage floor
-
Michigan39 minutes agoMenominee, Michigan man arrested on sexual assault charges involving a minor
