Connect with us

South Dakota

This ballot measure would restore Roe. Abortion rights groups are attacking it.

Published

on

This ballot measure would restore Roe. Abortion rights groups are attacking it.


On the same day the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, a law banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota took effect. This so-called trigger law was passed by South Dakota lawmakers in 2005 and immediately became one of the strictest bans in the nation, with no exceptions even for rape or incest.

Now a South Dakota ballot measure to “restore Roe v. Wade” is moving forward, despite opposition not just from Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion advocacy groups, but also from some local reproductive rights activists and national progressive organizations who say it doesn’t go far enough.

The pushback from certain corners of the political left illustrates ideological and strategic fissures within the abortion rights movement that have intensified since the fall of Roe, and leave ballot measure organizers in South Dakota to push ahead alone.

The proposed measure would amend South Dakota’s constitution to effectively codify the access available under the original Roe v. Wade decision. It would prevent the state from regulating abortion in the first trimester (weeks 1 to 13 of pregnancy); during the second trimester (14 to 26 weeks) the state could regulate it “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.” Beyond that point, after a fetus is viable, South Dakota could regulate or prohibit abortion, except when a doctor deems the procedure necessary to preserve their patient’s “life and health.”

Advertisement

The vast majority of abortions in the United States occur during the first trimester. In 2020, 93 percent occurred before 13 weeks, according to the CDC, with an additional 6 percent occurring between 14 and 20 weeks.

Though South Dakota is a solidly conservative state, voters have rejected near-total abortion bans on ballot measures twice before — in 2006 and 2008 — and in the last decade, activists have won progressive voter referendums on other issues, including campaign finance, payday lending, medical and recreational cannabis, and most recently, Medicaid expansion.

To get on the November ballot, organizers will need to submit at least 35,017 valid petition signatures by May 7. Signatures are being collected by a grassroots group — Dakotans for Health — which also helped lead the ballot measure campaign for Medicaid expansion in 2022.

“We’re on track and feeling very bullish,” Adam Weiland, a leader with Dakotans for Health, told Vox. “We’ve got well over 50,000 signatures signed, sealed, and delivered, but we’re still collecting because we know they’re going to throw the kitchen sink at us.”

Advertisement

Activists collecting signatures for South Dakota ballot measures.
Courtesy of Dakotans for Health

Advertisement

Despite the optimism, advocates face hurdles from the left and right. In the Republican-dominated state legislature, more than 90 state senators voted for a resolution opposing the constitutional amendment, and last week House lawmakers voted to allow people to remove their signatures from the ballot-measure petition. (Dakotans for Health has threatened to sue over this.) The prime sponsor of the signature withdrawal bill has been insisting the proposed amendment is far more extreme than Roe v. Wade.

Meanwhile on the left, some abortion rights groups have started openly attacking the ballot measure and the organizers behind it. The ACLU of South Dakota, and Planned Parenthood North Central States — which represents Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota —have both raised issues with its drafting and its final language, saying they do not believe it will “adequately reinstate” the right to abortion.

Amy Kelley, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Sioux Falls, is supporting the ballot measure because she said practicing health care is untenable for physicians like her under the trigger ban, and she doesn’t want perfect to be the enemy of good.

“Of course it would be better to have a bill like the one that died in committee that said abortion is health care and should be left to women and doctors, but are we going to get to that in South Dakota before we have a maternal mortality crisis? Probably not,” Kelley told Vox. “The measure is not enough but does that mean that we don’t go in the right direction just because it’s not exactly what we want?”

Who is allowed to lead the defense of reproductive choice?

When the draft opinion of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision was leaked in May 2022, Cathy Piersol, a retired Sioux Falls attorney and a longtime advocate for women’s rights, called her friend Jan Nicolay, a former Republican lawmaker who led the campaigns against the 2006 and 2008 abortion ban ballot measures. They knew the trigger ban would take effect if Roe was officially overturned.

Advertisement

The women started convening meetings, including with representatives from Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Piersol and Nicolay wanted to submit ballot language to codify abortion rights in South Dakota’s constitution, quickly, before South Dakotans elected a new secretary of state in November 2022. The favored candidate for secretary of state had repeatedly refused to affirm the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s election win in 2020 and was proudly touting an endorsement from South Dakota Right to Life.

But some activists felt things were moving too fast and that leaders should conduct more research and polling before advancing any specific ballot measure draft. Given the high likelihood that they’d face legal challenge, these advocates felt more due diligence was needed.

Others involved disagreed. They pointed to the prior ballot measure successes led by the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, which Nicolay had directed.

“The idea that this was a rushed job is just silly; it’s simply not accurate,” Piersol told Vox. “We knew if we didn’t get a constitutional amendment quickly then the legislature would fiddle, diddle, and mess up the entire thing.” Piersol said she asked a Planned Parenthood regional vice president if there was a plan, “and he said, ‘Well, no, not right now,’ and I knew then we were on our own. It’s daunting but you cannot let yourself be dragged by the nay-sayers.”

Nicolay and Piersol approached Dakotans for Health with questions about executing a ballot measure campaign, and the group offered to organize the effort. Rick Weiland, founder of Dakotans for Health and a longtime political operative in the state, said he personally called the local ACLU and Planned Parenthood affiliates multiple times and was ignored. “[We’re] hoping that once we qualify for the ballot there will be a change of heart,” he told Vox.

Advertisement

About five months later, activists were approved to officially start collecting signatures, and for more than a year into the petition drive, local and national reproductive rights groups stayed relatively quiet. When I covered the pending ballot measure campaigns for abortion rights in summer 2023, Planned Parenthood North Central States had not issued any public statement and did not return my multiple requests for comment.

More recently, some activists started publicly attacking the campaign, most notably in a South Dakota Searchlight article published in early December. Samantha Chapman, advocacy manager for the ACLU of South Dakota, said in the story that her organization is not encouraging people to donate or volunteer, or encouraging people to vote yes or no. She claimed grassroots groups were not consulted and blasted the ballot measure for being initiated by “women who are not of reproductive age.” (Both Nicolay and Pierosol are in their 80s.) Chapman also slammed Dakotans for Health, which she described as “ultimately run by three white men.” (Chapman was formerly married to one of Weiland’s sons.)

Chapman told Vox the national ACLU and her local ACLU affiliate had no further comments for the media.

Nicolay, who is currently in hospice with late-stage pancreatic cancer, told Vox she was deeply offended by Chapman’s remarks. “Quite honestly I was appalled because the gal said, ‘Well, they’re two gray-haired women; they can’t reproduce so we shouldn’t be listening to them,’” she said. “No one has any idea what I went through when I was leading the ballot measures [in 2006 and 2008]. We fought a lot of battles so they could have their rights. We fought them before and we’ll fight them again.”

In the Searchlight article, Tim Stanley, of Planned Parenthood North Central States, said his organization stands with the ACLU in opposing the ballot measure. In an emailed statement to Vox, Stanley said they aren’t part of the coalition supporting the abortion rights amendment and weren’t involved in drafting it.

Advertisement

“As the sole abortion provider in South Dakota for more than 30 years, Planned Parenthood is acutely aware of the impact policy language can have on patients’ lives,” he said. “Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood North Central States is working to build a future where sexual and reproductive health care is accessible to all South Dakotans, especially people with lower incomes, those in rural areas, LGBTQ+ and other marginalized communities.”

Stanley declined multiple requests to clarify or elaborate on how Planned Parenthood is working to build that more accessible future for South Dakotans.

Two people stand back-to-back behind a white folding table, set up near signs that read, “MObile democracy center” and “Restore Roe v. Wade petition.”

Advertisement

Organizers collect petition signatures for the abortion rights ballot measure.
Courtesy of Dakotans for Health

Kim Floren, who cofounded the South Dakota Justice Empowerment Network, an abortion fund, said she doesn’t think the proposed measure goes far enough and raised concern with certain language, like that it uses the word “women,” which could exclude minors. Chapman pointed to Michigan as a better model for soliciting stakeholder input.

Michigan’s ballot measure, which voters approved in 2022, affirms the right to make decisions about “all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, abortion care, miscarriage management, and infertility care.”

Advertisement

Piersol said trying to get the kind of “wonderful and rather elaborate language” that activists pushed for in Michigan is unrealistic. “You’re not going to get that passed in South Dakota,” she told Vox. “We know what people will vote for, and that’s the key.”

Is South Dakota’s measure likely to pass?

Ballot measures protecting abortion rights have won in all seven states in which they’ve appeared since the overturn of Roe, including in red states like Kentucky, Ohio, and Montana. Some of the victories were very expensive to win, with activists raising tens of millions of dollars for the efforts in Michigan and Ohio.

Organizers in South Dakota are preparing for the likelihood that they may see virtually no outside fundraising assistance, as national progressive funders like Open Society Foundations and the Fairness Project, and national abortion rights groups like Reproductive Freedom for All and Planned Parenthood, have already made clear they plan to stay out of the campaign. Funders recently told Politico they see South Dakota’s measure as having “shortcomings” and not “align[ed] with our values.”

Adam Weiland said an advantage is that South Dakota does not have a pricey media market, and so he believes they can still win without national donors, as they did with Medicaid expansion. “We’re a small state and we’ve already raised upwards of a million dollars,” he told Vox. “We think we’ll need 2, 3, or 4 million to win.”

In some respects, it might ultimately help that big progressive groups that heavily fund Democratic-aligned causes want to sit South Dakota out. One key way activists have been able to win over conservatives in other states is by ensuring their efforts remain aggressively nonpartisan.

Advertisement

Still, activists leading the abortion rights ballot measure campaign in South Dakota don’t see it that way.

“It is so deleterious to women to not have the force of Planned Parenthood and to not have the force of the ACLU behind a program that is specifically set up for women’s safety and health,” said Piersol. “It’s just outrageous that they have taken that position.”

Right now, organizers feel cautiously optimistic about the polling trends. A survey of 500 registered voters sponsored by South Dakota News Watch from July 2022 found 65 percent of respondents supported the idea of a statewide referendum on abortion rights, and more than 75 percent backed legalizing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

However, two more recent polls suggest it still may be a tough battle. In October a survey from the Hill and Emerson College found 45 percent of voters expressing support for South Dakota’s abortion ban, with 39 percent opposed and 16 percent unsure.

A News Watch survey conducted in November found mixed support for the proposed amendment, with 45.6 percent of respondents supporting it, and 43.6 percent opposing it. The poll’s margin of error was 4.5 percent.

Advertisement

Anti-abortion leaders have been cheering the public in-fighting, and SBA Pro-Life America, a national anti-abortion lobbying group, recently highlighted the Emerson College poll as what happens when “a state has a strong pro-life alliance and Planned Parenthood and the ACLU don’t throw millions into advertising.”

Adam Weiland said he’s not too worried about those autumn polls and pointed out that when South Dakotans first started organizing for the 2006 ballot measure to protect abortion rights, surveys showed they were down 14 points.

“Sure, South Dakotans have a more nuanced and moderate view of abortion rights than what some people might have in New York or California, but when you ask them whether or not women or young girls should be forced to carry to term, most people don’t think so,” he said. “Most people believe in the right to a choice.”





Source link

South Dakota

Gov. Larry Rhoden outlines policy priorities as early voting approaches in South Dakota

Published

on

Gov. Larry Rhoden outlines policy priorities as early voting approaches in South Dakota


Gov. Larry Rhoden began his political career as a school board member. He then served as a state legislator and as Lieutenant Governor in the Kristi Noem administration.

Rhoden is one of four Republicans vying for the state’s top elected office. He stopped by the SDPB studios in Sioux Falls to lay out his policy priorities. He spoke to SDPB’s Lori Walsh.

Rhoden is one of four Republicans on the primary ballot. Early voting begins on April 17. The primary election is June 2.

Watch the full Republican primary debate online.

Advertisement

A transcript of the interview follows:

LARRY RHODEN

It’s pretty simple. You know, I’ve said that my goals, my priorities, my pillars are to keep South Dakota strong, safe, free and open for opportunity. That’s more than just soundbites. That’s how we work.

I’ve got a great team around me. I’ve got the lieutenant governor in the studio with me right now. That’s a big part of my administration — putting the right people on the bus with me.

We’ve accomplished a great deal in the last 15 months. If people choose to give me another four years, it will be more of that.

Advertisement

We will just work to get things done. Bring businesses to South Dakota, strengthen the businesses we have, remain a low regulation state. The first seven months after session last year, I was on my Open for Opportunities tour, and learned a great deal about what we’ve got going for us. We learned a great deal on how to expand on what we’ve already accomplished in the state. And we will continue to follow that track.

LORI WALSH

You were lieutenant governor When Kristi Noem was governor during the pandemic. So when you’re on the Open for Opportunties tour post-pandemic, when you’re governor, you’re getting to see some business leaders who have also been through the pandemic and are not only reflecting on what happened in their business during that time, but looking to the future.

What did you learn about the crisis leadership during the pandemic from those business owners a few years later?

LARRY RHODEN

Advertisement

Yeah, that’s a fascinating question, and it was really interesting to me because we were touring businesses that had moved here post-pandemic. And because of the way South Dakota — the Noem/Rhoden administration —handled keeping our state open, that was the incentive for a lot of new business to move here.

So there was a mix of (new businesses) and a mix of old businesses that have been here for generations. It really gave me a kind of a new perspective on how much we have going for the state and also how much we take for granted.

I learned a great deal just by listening to the people. I told a few stories of policies that we learned about during that those tours that we went on to address at the federal level and found relief for businesses just by bringing them to … the Trump administration was just taking, control, and so we found that pretty valuable … to take things we learned from the business owners and actually implement change because of it.

LORI WALSH

It was an unprecedented time. Was there anything that you look back on five or six years later that you think, “We should have done that too. Or, we should have done that instead.”

Advertisement

LARRY RHODEN

You know, not really. When I look back on that, I mean, when we were going through it, it’s hard, it’s really hard to describe what it was like. And Tony (Venhuizen) was chief of staff for Kristi Noem at that time. So he was a big part of that. And, I think he would agree, just the unknown going through that.

What I’ve said, looking back, was that there were 49 governors who were making decisions based in fear, and one governor that was making decisions based on fact and then standing her ground.

But that wasn’t easy. Because some of the talking heads were trying to convince us that we were going to kill half our population if we made the wrong decisions. You kind of lay awake at night wondering if you were making the right decisions and, in history, looking back, she made the right decisions.

We made the right decisions.

Advertisement

LORI WALSH

And lot of people did die, thousands of South Dakotans died. And that’s something to reflect on too. How do you think about those lives today?

LARRY RHODEN

Well, obviously every life is precious. And you can never make light or discount the loss of life. But the statistics prove that we weren’t any worse off than we would have (been) if we would have closed our state down like other states had.

So I think the statistics bear out that we made the right decisions. We came through Covid in a lot better shape from the education perspective and from the disruption in our children’s lives. You know, our kids got back into the class or got back on track with their education a lot faster than they did in many other states.

Advertisement

LORI WALSH

One of the things I think I’m getting at is the weight of leadership. The role of governor can be a place to have big ideas and think about legacy and even power and influence. But it is also very consequential.

And you’ve been through that. And if people elect you, you’ll have another natural disaster, for example, or another crisis for South Dakotans.

How do you show up for your neighbors as governor?

LARRY RHODEN

Advertisement

Well, you know, for me, I’ve lived it. I grew up on a ranch in western South Dakota, and that’s just the way we live our lives.

When we had winter storm Atlas, we showed up for the neighbors and we took on the responsibility for others and helped our neighbors, looked out for them. And we learned that through Covid.

I’ve learned even last year as governor that there is a lot of weight on your shoulders. I surrounded myself with people that are like-minded, that are people of integrity and they’re wise and they give good counsel.

But the decision’s mine.

I think growing up on a ranch and running a ranch or running your own business also provides the background for making those decisions and a foundation for making decisions.

Advertisement

And we’ve accomplished some pretty significant things in the last year, especially with the legislature that we had acquired. There were a lot of, like I’ve said, a lot of new members and a lot of, you know, just disarray.

But, one of the cornerstones of my administration was civility. And I think that more than anything probably gives me a leg up on the other candidates, because I’ve had a lot of experience at dealing with legislators and people in different leadership positions all the way back to my military career.

My wife reminded me that when I was in basic training, I was the chosen trainee leader of my basic company in basic training. And, all that is part of who I am as far as learning about leadership.

And one of the primary advantages of being a good leader is knowing how to work with people and build relationships.

I think that’s what we saw in our legislature. I was a lot more hands on and a lot more proactive than other governors. I was on the third floor talking to legislators having them to my office to visit about their concerns. I think that’s what we need in the state is a leader that will lead by example and promote civility.

Advertisement

LORI WALSH

You mentioned surrounding yourself with like-minded people who can give you wise counsel.

In what ways do you surround yourself with people who don’t think like you, who might have a different idea about what freedom or safety means than you?

In what ways do you listen to them?

LARRY RHODEN

Advertisement

Well, you know, that’s also an interesting question. And, you know, in my team, there are a lot of, a lot of differing views, and they come at it from different perspectives based on their life experience.

When I say like-minded, I’m talking about people with the core values that are like mine, you know, people of integrity and, and people that are focused on policy.

And I’ve said this many times to my team that we were going to focus on policy. Policy. Good policy makes good politics for the most part, and good politics does not necessarily make good policy.

And so, you know, that’s, that’s primary to the decisions we make is focusing on the policy of the issues.

That gets to be a lot more difficult, especially when even in the last few weeks and months, every decision I make is held under that microscope of whether or not it’s political or not.

Advertisement

That’s come up in just the last few days and some of the events I went to. I’ve been challenged by some of the other candidates whether it was politically motivated.

That’s rather irritating to me because it’s not true. I know in my heart of hearts that it’s not true, that that I am focused on doing my job.

And just because three other guys want my job doesn’t mean I’m going to stop doing mine. I’m going to continue with what I just said — focusing on policy and making wise decisions for the betterment of South Dakota. Dealing with the politics is secondary to that.

LORI WALSH

So for people who don’t know, one of those things is your use of the Future Fund and $2 million to Western Dakota Tech to bring a gunsmithing program. Some of your competitors …

Advertisement

LARRY RHODEN
It was actually 4 million.

LORI WALSH
Four million. Thank you. Four million dollars for a gunsmithing program. Help separate that because they’re saying that’s politics. You were using your platform to say: Look at me. I’m doing this thing.

You’re saying that’s good policy. Tell us why that’s a good policy to use the Future Fund in that way, to bring this program to Western Dakota Tech.

LARRY RHODEN

Certainly. Well, I said this the other day when that first came up: I can’t think of anything more sound than using Future Fund dollars to bring an industry like that, a gunsmithing school, to Western Dakota Tech.

Advertisement

We’re using that to pay for the equipment and other things to get that class from Colorado into South Dakota in Rapid City, where we have a statewide … the gun industry, firearms industry, has gotten bigger and bigger.

And so it’s a perfect fit for South Dakota, and it’s a perfect fit for Future Funds. Because that’s what they’re designed to do so we can help bolster our economic future for our state.

And so if you’re planting those kind of seeds in an industry that’s already blooming in South Dakota, that’s, I think, just common sense.

LORI WALSH

Is there a demand for gunsmiths? Like there’s a demand for plumbers, electricians, for example?

Advertisement

LARRY RHODEN

Absolutely. And, especially out in in the Rapid City area, in Sturgis. in Sturgis, the entire industrial part, I think, is probably, three fourths of the businesses in their industrial park are gun-related. They have the old Dakota Arms. It’s now … I can’t think of the name offhand. There are a number of gun businesses in the Sturgis area, ammunition producers in the Rapid City area. So, absolutely.

Not to mention the fact that we opened the Pete Lien and Sons shooting complex just a few months ago, and we’ve already had over 30,000, visits to that gun range so far. And that’s just in the last few months. And that’s more than we expected in the first year.

So, that was created, that part of that shooting complex because of our Second Amendment … you know, we’re the most Second Amendment friendly state in the nation. And we have a lot of gun enthusiasts. And by all means, I think there’s a huge demand for gunsmiths in South Dakota.

LORI WALSH

Advertisement

After July 1st, new legislation from this legislative session will change how the governor can use Future Fund dollars. With the decisions that you’ve made, with the Rapid City National Defense Area and with the gunsmithing program, will those match the requirements that you’ll be under on August 1st for example?

You see what I’m asking?

LARRY RHODEN

I do. I understand thoroughly. And the (answer) is absolutely.

But let’s be clear, after July 1st, they won’t change. What that statute did, you know, there was concern over some of the ways that Future Funds were used in the past, prior to my administration. And, so we wanted to clear that air early on in session.

Advertisement

And so I issued an executive order, basically saying this is my view and what my blueprint is going to look like for determining the appropriate uses for Future Funds. I issued that and the legislators looked at that, said, well, would you support this if this was in statute?

Well, absolutely. Yeah. If it’s the same criteria that I spelled out as what I’m going to self-regulate with as far as appropriate uses for Future Funds. And so that’s what they basically put in statute. And so there was no change, practically speaking, from the way I was already doing business and the way I’d committed to do business with the use of the Future Funds.

LORI WALSH

What’s your vision for South Dakota in the future? I know “strong, safe and free.” But say more about what we’ll look like 50 years from now. What are you laying the groundwork for?

LARRY RHODEN

Advertisement

You know, we have we’ve already taken steps that indicate what my vision for the state is.
Ag will always be king in South Dakota. We have such a vast amount of ground. And so we’ve developed that, but beyond that, we’ve also focused on value-added agriculture, and we’ve gained leaps and bounds in that. And we’ve gained leaps and bounds in expanding our economic potential through trade, foreign trade in the last three years.

And I’ve been a big part of that. And Tony’s been a big part of that. He’s now leading trade missions. And I was as lieutenant governor. We just laid out in the last State of the State address that the next big industry in South Dakota would be national defense. And that’s an extension of that vision.

And if you’re looking at big picture, big ideas, big ideas that fit South Dakota, well, nothing fills a bill, I think, better than national defense being our next big industry in South Dakota.

Food security is national security. So as a starting point, we own the bone on food security in South Dakota.

And, beyond that — industry. Ellsworth Air Force Base and the addition of the B-21 bombers that are coming, we already have that industry. That’s starting to blossom on its own, but we’re going to be a lot more coordinated in that. I just announced the South Dakota Defense Institute. And that’s another part of that vision. To get that going and to jumpstart that.

Advertisement

LORI WALSH

Connecting with that — and I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here — we’ve also seen a lot of South Dakotans say they didn’t want a pipeline cutting through their land. They didn’t want their kids to see their data centers as far as the eye can see from the bus window on the way to school in Deuel County, in Piedmont and in Meade County, they don’t want their kids breathing air from limestone mines.

This is also a state where people want to walk the land, swim in the rivers and lakes, breathe the clean air. What are you doing to protect the land, the scenery of South Dakota?

LARRY RHODEN

I think we’ve struck a great balance there. I look at what the Black Hills looked like when I was a kid and Whitewood Creek, think how far we’ve come in protecting our natural resources and, and even in the way we’ve applied government.

Advertisement

You know, there was some concern about combining the Department of Ag with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. But what we’ve seen, and what I’ve said all along — and I think I’ve been vindicated on that — is that our ag producers, especially these generationally owned farms and ranches, which are 90 plus percent of our ag operations, nobody has a more vested interest in protecting our natural resources than the generational farmers and ranchers that have taken care of that land forever.

We continue to be vigilant about guarding our natural resources, but I think we’ve struck a pretty good balance.

LORI WALSH

As we wrap up here, I’m wondering if there’s an issue you wanted to talk about yet, or if you just wanted to address voters who maybe still don’t know your name about who you are?

LARRY RHODEN

Advertisement

Well, I’m. I’m Larry Roden, born and raised on a ranch in western South Dakota. I think if I talked about things that people might not know about me, that maybe set me apart, there’s a few things that set me apart.

I’m the only candidate that’s served the nation in the armed forces. I was in the National Guard for six years.

And I have a long history of military service in my family. That makes a difference. I think I look at things differently, and even the service to my nation, I think, set me up for a better perspective on running a state. I’m the only candidate that’s made my living off the land in agriculture.

And I think that’s also important. And I’m a generational South Dakotan. My grandparents on both sides of my family were homesteaders out in the area that I live now. And so I’ve grown up with a heart of service. And I’ve served the state, I’ve served my community, I’ve served the nation.

I think that sets me up better than most of the other candidates. And I’ve done the job and I’ve proven by results. Everybody else has plans. I’ve demonstrated the results of building coalitions and getting the job done.

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

South Dakota

4,000 lottery winners for Mount Rushmore fireworks

Published

on

4,000 lottery winners for Mount Rushmore fireworks


SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — Around 4,000 people were selected to attend the fireworks show at Mount Rushmore July 3.

A lottery was created for the event at the national memorial and cost $1 per application. Each applicant could select up to four tickets.

According to the National Parks Service, South Dakota had the most lottery applicants and received the most reservations. The state had 316 applications which include tickets for 1,198 people. Colorado had 74 applications covering 275 people.

There were 102,991 requests for the tickets, Katlyn Svendsen with Travel South Dakota said in a news release. Travel South Dakota is the state government’s tourism agency.

Advertisement

Those who wanted tickets were able to put their names into the randomly selected lottery administered by Recreation.gov from April 8 to April 12. The winners were notified April 14.

Total attendance for the 2026 event was reduced from the 2020 event to enhance visitor experience and prioritize safety and security for guests. There were around 7,500 guests at the 2020 event.

“Tickets were assigned at random with either parking garage or shuttle options,” the National Park Service said in an email to KELOLAND News. “Seating at the event will be available on a first-come-first-served basis within the developed area of the memorial.”

According to the news release from Travel South Dakota, 30 pyrotechnicians and trained highline operators will install fireworks and lighting at designated locations at the memorial. The event begins at 4 p.m. and will conclude around 4 p.m.

The state contracted earlier this month with Pyro Spectaculars to produce the display at a maximum cost of $700,000 for the event, officially called South Dakota’s Freedom 250 Mount Rushmore Fireworks Celebration. Based in California, Pyro Spectaculars also did the 2020 event.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

South Dakota

Connie Carlisle of Fort Pierre to be honored by South Dakota State Historical Society

Published

on

Connie Carlisle of Fort Pierre to be honored by South Dakota State Historical Society







Connie Carlisle of Fort Pierre to be honored by South Dakota State Historical Society | DRGNews











Advertisement







Advertisement






google-site-verification: google9919194f75dd62c5.html



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending