JULY 5, 2023:
An Eye-Opening Trip to the Border by Majority Leader Sen. Casey Crabtree (R-Madison), Majority Leader Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Pierre) and Representative Tony Venhuizen (R-Sioux Falls).
July 5, 2023
Anyone who has watched any cable news understands that the Border is a hot topic. Talking heads blame and rage over America’s border policy (or lack thereof). Given the hot-button politics, we thought it was important to gather facts, whether they supported our position or not, and to get a first-hand look at the situation on our southern border.
Along with business and community leaders from across the state, we traveled to McAllen, Texas to tour the border. We heard from a landowner whose land abuts the Rio Grande River. He showed us the trails used by migrants leading to the river. He told us terrifying accounts of run-ins with the cartels and the daily traffic across his property.
We visited a section of the recently-constructed border wall. There was a 60-yard gap in it. When the Biden Administration began, they halted all construction, full stop. Now, there is an inexplicable and embarrassing patch where the wall simply does not exist. It is apparent leaving this gap had a lot more to do with politics than anything approaching effectiveness or common sense.
Next, we talked with a Border Patrol chief, who oversaw one of the 9 border sections until last year, when he retired after more than 25 years patrolling the border. He broke out the 30,000 Border Patrol encounters from last week, from got-aways (seen, not arrested), to deported (20%) to released into the community (40%). 109 pounds of fentanyl was seized last week from these folks, enough to kill every South Dakotan twenty-seven times. He detailed the dramatic increase – of more than fifty times – in encounters from fall 2020 to spring 2022 in his section. The border had been stabilized and is now anything but.
The most important thing he relayed to us is the importance of a secure border between ports of entry. The got-aways and undetected migrants are the drug runners and human traffickers. Ordinary folks seeking asylum will just use the port of entry, or cross and seek a Border Patrol agent to begin their asylum claim process. Leaving the border between ports of entry unsecured means the Border Patrol is distracted from its mission to protect us from ‘bad hombres’ and instead has to focus on immigrants, which is supposed to the job of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). In short – there is no humanitarian argument for an unsecure border. We need to finish the wall, and add monitoring infrastructure to get control of our border.
Our final stop was at Catholic Charities, who host a humanitarian respite center. Families traveling with children can stay there for 24-48 hours, to get their bus tickets, plane tickets, or other logistics in order to meet their American sponsor. At the center, we saw hundreds of children with their parents. Having young kids of our own, the experience was an emotional one.
We learned that these folks, who were finger-printed and logged before their release, could not apply for a work permit for four months and that the application takes two or three months to process. So, we are leaving these folks in America with a sponsor and no ability to legally make any money for at least six months. Our goal should be to get these folks working and self-sufficient as quickly as possible. If they aren’t self-sufficient, they’ll either break the law or be dependent on the cartels or the government. Those are all the worst outcomes. This is another area that is completely inexplicable and should be fixed.
Living and governing in South Dakota, we’re a long way from the border. But, we are short-sighted and naïve if we think the mass influx of immigrants across our southern border does not affect us. What happens in Texas today will affect South Dakota tomorrow. The added perspective has solidified our belief that the border needs to be secured immediately and that all processes should lead to work and self-sufficiency for anyone we let in. Our eyes are open to the challenges, and opportunities for solutions, at the border.
House Majority Leader Will Mortenson and Casey Peterson on Americans for Prosperity trip to US southern border June 28-30, 2023.
Photo credit Austin Goss/The Dakota Scout.
House Majority Leader Will Mortenson and Rep. Tony Venhuizen on Americans for Prosperity trip to US southern border June 28-30, 2023.
Photo credit Austin Goss/The Dakota Scout.
Americans for Prosperity trip to US southern border June 28-30, 2023.
Photo credit Austin Goss/The Dakota Scout.
MARCH 14, 2023:
Ode to Our Citizen Legislature by Representative Will Mortenson (R-Central South Dakota).
For 134 years, South Dakota has counted on regular citizens to do the business of governing our state. We have rejected attempts to create a full-time legislature. State legislators don’t have media teams or full-time, political staff. We come to the Capitol, consider each issue, and apply our best judgement. We have regular jobs and go back to them when the legislative session wraps up in early March.
Our South Dakota system still works. The Legislature remains close to the people. We return home each weekend for cracker barrels or to hear from constituents at the grocery store or at church. When we receive emails from constituents, it is actually the legislator reading the email and responding. When we get calls, we return them, usually from our cell phones. In South Dakota, we still have a true citizen Legislature.
This year, we worked through the 462 bills and joint resolutions placed before us, just like we do every year. Each one of these bills and resolutions got a full and fair hearing, at which any person can appear and testify. These hearings are always broadcast on the internet and archived. That is unusual for state legislatures. Many other states do not require hearings, even fewer broadcast and record the proceedings, and very few allow any person to testify without registering in advance. After these hearings, each bill was either passed or was defeated by a recorded vote. All this information is saved at www.SDLegislature.gov. I’m proud of our transparent process and will protect the guarantees that all bills receive hearings and that those hearings are available to the public immediately.
So – what did our citizen-led process produce this year? We adopted Governor Noem’s recommended budget. She proposed increases for educators, nursing homes, and state employees, as well as targeted increases making tuition free for National Guard members, constructing prisons, and replacing old and outdated software systems that serve all of state government. In February, both the Governor’s staff and the Legislature’s economists advised us that revenues were continuing to come in strong, so we could afford to give teachers, nursing homes, and state employees a little more funding. The Legislature also set aside money to get ready for the Medicaid Expansion costs that will be coming in a couple years. Finally, the budget we adopted accounted for a $104 million sales tax cut, similar in size to that which the Governor proposed. The budget followed the Governor’s blueprint and added prudent investments for schools, nursing homes, and state employees. It saved money for known expenses in the future. South Dakotans should be confident that their budget is fiscally responsible and takes care of our obligations, all while cutting taxes by more than $100 million.
Beyond the budget, we made real strides in college affordability, addressing workforce shortages and helping those struggling with mental health and suicide. We passed bills to protect the public and back law enforcement. We made thorough improvements to our election system. We defeated needless laws and avoided creating a slew of new government programs. It was a productive, workmanlike effort from the 2023 Legislature.
Our nation’s founders had a vision for how the United States was supposed to be governed: by leading citizens from each state, taking a few months out of their year to come together and pass a limited set of laws before returning to live under those laws. Where Congress veered off course, South Dakota stayed steady. Our Legislature is comprised of farmers, educators, law enforcement, businessmen, and everything in between. We are parents and grandparents. We serve on charitable boards and coach youth sports teams. We don’t have dozens of staffers or media strategists. We’re just regular South Dakotans who come to the Capitol for nine weeks and do the people’s work. This year, I’m proud to say, we got the job done.
MARCH 3, 2023:
Crime and Punishment in South Dakota by Representative Will Mortenson (R-Central South Dakota).
For as long as we have had laws, we have had crime. Most of our crimes are aimed at protecting the public – keeping us from injuring each other or stealing from each other. Another segment of crimes are aimed at preventing people from harming themselves – gambling, drugs, or waiting until age 21 to drink or smoke. With each crime comes a punishment, which is meant to deter the offender from committing the crime. We want a clear incentive: you commit the crime, you do the time.
This week, in the House of Representatives, we talked a lot about crime and punishment. We talked about prisons and jails and sentences and supervision.
On Monday, I stood on the House floor to urge my colleagues to support plans to replace our 140-year-old men’s penitentiary in Sioux Falls. The price tag is hefty: in the hundreds of millions. While the building is expensive, this is a core obligation of state government. Correction facilities are a need and not a want. When serious crimes are committed, we need to protect the public. We need to have a prison where offenders are separated from the public. We should have a prison where offenders are rehabilitated, so that when they emerge from prison, they are less likely to commit more crimes. The replacement facility will be safer for guards and will provide increased opportunities for true rehabilitation.
Later in the week, I stood to oppose a bill that would have reduced parole supervision when offenders left prison and extended prison sentences. We have a serious recidivism problem in this state. Recidivism refers to people who leave prison, commit new crimes, and go back to prison. I believe we need to monitor and supervise offenders when they leave prison, helping them to transition back into the public safely and productively. That monitoring, supervision, and support comes in the form of parole, which is done at the end of a sentence.
The bill was controversial because extending prison sentences is a popular thing. In our guts, it feels right to say: if you’re going to commit aggravated assault, you should go to prison for ten years instead of five. We think we’re deterring crime. There is a sense of retribution and vindication in ‘locking them up and throwing away the key.’ The problem is: it doesn’t work. It sounds good, but it doesn’t do good.
Remember, our punishment is meant to deter the crime. We want the offender to decide against committing a crime. Study after study after study shows that the decision to commit a crime has a lot to do with whether you think you’ll get caught, and almost nothing to do with whether your potential sentence is five or ten years. So, I argued that we need more police and not more prison guards. We need to increase the likelihood that you’ll get caught and deter the crime from happening, rather than tack years onto a sentence and reduce parole supervision. I was joined by former Sheriff and long-time Secretary of Corrections Rep. Tim Reisch. We lost that debate – badly. The time-in-prison will be getting longer and the parole supervision will be getting shorter.
While those debates are over, the topic of crime-and-punishment will persist. As long as we have laws, we will have crime. We need to consider carefully how we will treat it, lest we be building more and more $100+ million prisons and jails
FEBRUARY 24, 2023:
Cutting Taxes by Representative Will Mortenson (R-Central South Dakota)
The House of Representatives passed the largest tax cut in South Dakota history – over $100 Million – by cutting our state sales and use tax. We have been talking about tax cuts for months and years. This week, we stopped talking and started cutting.
The decision to cut taxes was not made lightly. In the past couple years, we have considered tax cuts of various sizes and shapes. Each time, I opposed the tax cut proposals. While I wanted the ‘attaboy’ from the voters, I just didn’t think they were prudent. I didn’t know that the growth was sustainable and I worried about putting our state into a deficit, like the one we faced when I was working for Governor Daugaard in 2011. After decades of prudence and restraint, combined with double-digit revenue growth in the last couple years, we are in a place to enact significant and sustainable tax cuts.
I would not have supported the tax cut if had required cuts to education, state employees or Medicaid. Each of these core obligations of state government will be met, notwithstanding the tax cut. All will receive at least a 5% increase, and maybe more, in this year, following 6% increases last year. So – I believe this tax cut will be sustainable. I believe it is prudent. I do not believe it will prevent us from funding our core obligations.
I would also like to share my rationale for supporting a reduction in the overall sales and use tax, rather than a food tax exemption or a property tax rebate. To be clear: I saw some merit in each of the three proposals. I hear a lot more from constituents about property taxes than the sales tax. I understand the argument about food being a necessity and the Governor made the case for exempting food from the sales tax about as well as anyone could have.
Ultimately, we prioritized maintaining a broad tax base and lowering tax rates. We already have a lot of exemptions from sales tax: advertisements, crops, fertilizer, medicine, and many more. Rather than creating another exemption, making us more dependent on the remaining items, I thought we should reduce taxes across-the-board. Keeping a broad base will keep our tax revenue more predictable and consistent. That is all the more important, since we are so heavily reliant on the sales tax as our bread-and-butter, base revenue source.
While a $100 Million+ sales tax is a lot of money back in the pockets of South Dakotans, we are only reducing the rate from 4.5% to 4.2%. This will not be a noticeable change for most transactions. It will be a few cents on small purchases and a few dollars on large transactions. Some advocated for a more “visible” tax cut – one that taxpayers would see, notice, and give the Legislature more credit for. I thought it was more important that we cut taxes in a fair, across-the-board way, than that we make tax decisions based on political considerations. The tax cut is about putting dollars in the pockets of our voters.
We hear a lot, in the Capitol, from the tax spenders. Folks who rely on tax dollars hire a lot of lobbyists who do a good job. They advocate for important things: education, Medicaid, infrastructure, and running state government. But, this year, we have the opportunity to remember the taxpayers and not just the tax spenders. I am proud we are seizing that opportunity and delivering the largest tax cut in state history.
FEBRUARY 17, 2023:
Moving Forward with Election Reforms by Representative Will Mortenson (R-Central South Dakota)
Back in November, I wrote a column laying out how I planned address perceived issues with our election system. I am happy to report that my fellow legislators and I have been hard at work on election bills designed to improve South Dakota’s already-strong election system to ensure that they remain free, fair, safe, and secure. There have been dozens of election bills introduced over the first five weeks of session, and I want to share with you all how some of them will accomplish our goal of updating the way we administer our elections in our state.
One of the first major election bills that was passed out of the House this session was House Bill 1124, introduced by Rep. Tyler Tordsen (R-Sioux Falls). This bill updates our laws relating to testing the vote counting machines prior to any election and requiring transparency in the testing process. Last fall, Rep. Weisgram and I attended tests on these machines run by the auditors from Hyde and Sully Counties. The tests proved the speed and accuracy of these machines. Delay in producing results causes suspicion, and I’m glad we’ve got a speedy and accurate method for counting our paper ballots. HB1124 will go a long way in ensuring continued confidence in our vote-counting, and I appreciate Rep. Tordsen working hand-in-hand with the auditors in bringing this bill forward.
Another election-related bill we passed this session was House Bill 1165, introduced by Rep. Kirk Chaffee (R-Whitewood). This bill limits the use of ballot drop boxes and solidifies the security of our absentee voting system. The bill makes it it easier to vote and harder to cheat. Absentee voting is great for voter convenience, and this legislation will make sure that the process is fair and protected. Like Rep. Tordsen, Rep. Chaffee worked diligently with our county auditors in drafting this bill, and I’m hopeful that both 1124 and 1165 will be duly considered and passed by the Senate in the coming weeks.
Governor Noem said it best when she stated that South Dakota is an example for the nation when it comes to elections. I firmly believe that we have the best election laws in the country, and I think that our citizens can sleep soundly at night knowing that they live in a state where every vote is counted. That being said, we can’t rest on our laurels. We need to continue to improve our election laws so that South Dakota remains the most voter-friendly and ballot-secure state in the America.
Finally, I should note that I believe good process matters. Too often, legislators read an internet story and then write a bill. Legislation works best when we work with the affected parties (in this case, the auditors) in drafting any changes. We know what we read on the internet. They know how things actually work. If we want to make progress on this issue, or any other, we need well-vetted and well-considered proposals. The improvements we are making to elections this year are the direct result of the good work and willingness of our county auditors to work with our members. Thank your local auditor!
FEBRUARY 10, 2023:
Protecting South Dakota Ag Land by Representative Will Mortenson (R-Central South Dakota)
When I’m not hustling through the Capitol or working at the ranch, I am an attorney. I largely represent farmers and ranchers in central South Dakota. I help them set up a partnership or an LLC, navigate regulation, buy, sell, and lease land, and (hopefully) pass their farms and ranches on to their kids and grandkids. It is rewarding work for good people.
There just aren’t as many farmers as there used to be in South Dakota. Bigger and faster equipment, better seed genetics, and more precise technology added up to one farmer covering more ground. Gains in productivity means fewer farmers and bigger farms. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as long as we keep our South Dakota ag land for South Dakotans.
So, when Governor Noem announced that she was interested in keeping our ag land out of foreign hands, I was thrilled. I know that outside interests have been increasingly targeting our ag land. I’ve seen large farm and ranch purchases by companies from other states. These companies could be owned by anyone. Maybe the owners are a group of New York investors. Maybe it is a sovereign wealth fund. Maybe the owners are a blend of South Dakotans, foreign citizens, and corporations. I don’t know who is buying our ag land, but we can no longer afford to turn a blind eye. I’m glad the Governor made it a priority to keep our South Dakota ag land for South Dakotans.
In South Dakota, we are tied to the land. Agriculture is our biggest industry. Hunting, fishing, and hiking are our preeminent forms of recreation. Our ag land is our heritage, and we must protect it. That’s why South Dakota banned foreign ownership of more than 160 acres of ag land a few decades ago. But – we left a big loophole for corporations, LLCs, and partnerships. Foreigners can own these types of entities and own as much ag land as they wish. Not only isn’t it illegal, we have no way to know if it is happening.
Last week, I introduced a bill (HB1189) to find out if foreign interests or foreign governments own our ag land. The bill, which I proposed in partnership with Governor Noem and our South Dakota ag groups, passed the House Ag Committee this week. HB1189 would require disclosure of foreign ownership for any company (partnership, LLC, corporation, etc.) that holds ag land. This bill complements a bill Governor Noem introduced a bill in the Senate, which would set up a new board to review ag land purchases to see if foreigners are buying our ag land and, if so, which ones could go forward and which could not. Safe to say – we’re giving a lot of attention to protecting our ag land this year.
The nature of farming and ranching is changing. More people than ever in our state’s history live in town. We can’t and won’t go back to one-family-per-quarter. The economics just don’t work anymore. Some changes in agriculture are good and some are bad. But, just because some changes are inevitable doesn’t mean we have to accept harmful changes. I don’t want a future where all our ag land is held by non-South Dakotans. When I’m in my Fort Pierre law office in a few decades, I still want to be helping South Dakota farmers and ranchers pass their operations to their kids and grandkids. It’s our land, and they aren’t making any more of it. We need to preserve it for generations to come.
FEBRUARY 5, 2023:
Remembering the Importance of “No” by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-District 24)
I first ran for the legislature talking about the things I am “for:” better schools, lower taxes, safe communities, and strong agriculture. Those are the causes I believe in and my legislative priorities. I will support them for as long as the people of central South Dakota send me to the Capitol. When I first ran a couple years ago, I imagined championing those causes by voting “Yes” on bills in those areas and giving speeches about why we should be “for” a given law change.
Two and a half years later, I understand that voting ‘No’ may be the most important thing I do in the Legislature.
I serve as Chairman of the State Affairs Committee. To date, our committee has rejected more bills than any other committee. We give strong scrutiny to every bill and I find myself regularly pumping the brakes on bills rather than pushing wholesale change.
Remember – every bill changes South Dakota. I love South Dakota. It’s my home and the place I care most about. Legislation that seeks to change our state needs to pass a high hurdle. As a common sense conservative, change comes hard for me. If four parts of a bill are good for South Dakota, but one part is bad, I’m bound to vote against the entire bill. It isn’t enough that a bill sounds good on the surface or makes for a good slogan. I’m interested in what does good, not what looks good.
Believe me – it’s a lot more fun to be for something than against it. Telling my colleagues that I don’t support their bill isn’t enjoyable, nor is it something I do lightly. However, I owe them a duty of uprightness and honesty, the same that I owe the voters. So, I spend a lot of my day delivering bad news to my friends. “No” isn’t fun, but it is necessary in government.
So, throughout the year, you will see and hear about me voting ‘No’ on a number of proposals. Sometimes I even agree with the sentiment of the bill, but if it has unintended consequences or creates too much government trying to achieve its goal, I will wind up voting ‘No.’
I am okay if we don’t rush into every controversy that emerges on the Internet or in some other state. I’d rather we get a policy right in South Dakota than be first. I’d rather lead the nation in common sense than lead the nation clicks or ‘Likes.’
I find a lot of reasons to vote ‘No,’ and I will stand by that ethic. We’ve got a good thing going in South Dakota, and we will keep it if we don’t change too many laws.
As I told you the campaign, I’m going to keep my eye on the ball: making South Dakota an attractive place for hardworking young families. That means quality education, strong agriculture, and a good measure of freedom. I’ll never forget our debt to the men and women in uniform and those keeping us safe at home. I’d appreciate your feedback and advice throughout the session. Don’t ever hesitate to drop me a line at Will.Mortenson@sdlegislature.gov.
JANUARY 28, 2023:
Property Rights vs. Progress by Representative Will Mortenson (R-Central South Dakota)
One topic has emerged above all others among farmers and ranchers in grain elevators, sale barns, and coffee groups across South Dakota: Eminent Domain. More specifically, eminent domain as it relates to carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines.
One such pipeline will transport CO2 from ethanol plants in the Midwest (including Onida’s Ringneck Energy) to North Dakota, where the CO2 will be pumped underground. In exchange for pumping the CO2 underground, the federal government will issue billions of dollars in tax credits to the pipeline company. The ethanol plants will benefit from lowering their carbon intensity score, thereby making the ethanol they sell more profitable in states with strict green energy laws.
If it’s good for ethanol, why the controversy? The answer is that the pipeline companies are attempting to purchase easements on farms and ranches for the pipeline to cross. If a landowner doesn’t want to sell, the pipeline companies are threatening sue the landowner and attempt to force them to sell through a process called eminent domain. To this point, no such lawsuit has been filed. It is unclear how such a lawsuit might play out. It is clear, however, that threatening ag producers with eminent domain lawsuits gets them hot under the collar.
Eminent domain runs contrary to our free market system by granting one party the authority to force another party into a land sale. The purpose of eminent domain is to prevent a single holdout landowner from thwarting a project that would provide substantial benefit to thousands of members of the public. Typically, the party asserting eminent domain is a public entity: the state, a county, a road district. In some cases, the Legislature granted the eminent domain authority to utilities like water, electricity, or fuel.
I approach this issue wearing three hats: ag landowner, legislator, and real estate attorney. Whatever my thoughts on the Green New Deal, I would like the carbon pipeline projects to go forward. I understand the benefit to ethanol and South Dakota is open for business. However, I don’t think they should be able to use eminent domain for their projects. They should either use existing rights of way or buy easements from landowners under a willing-buyer, willing-seller transaction, as they have been doing for the last year or two.
We can be open for business and supportive of our ethanol industry, while remembering property rights and respecting our farmers and ranchers. I believe the power of eminent domain should be reserved for projects with clear public benefit, like roads and utilities that serve the public broadly. It is critical that we address these issues this year, before the PUC rules on whether the pipeline can go forward and before any eminent domain suits have been filed. Doing so after the fact would not be fair to these projects.
I am not looking for a bill that targets Summit or any carbon pipeline, specifically. While the project’s impact on central South Dakota drew my attention, I believe we should look generally at who can use eminent domain and how eminent domain is carried out when it is authorized. It isn’t government’s job to say which projects have merit and which don’t. I’m good with the carbon pipelines going forward, but believe they should do so by continuing to work with farmers and ranchers to purchase easements from willing sellers. That would be good for ethanol, and good for landowners, and good for South Dakota.
JANUARY 22, 2023:
Capitalizing on our Capitol Lake Opportunity by Representative Will Mortenson (R-Central South Dakota)
In the last few years, your central South Dakota legislative delegation has been urging our fellow legislators to fix our faltered fountain and improve the Capitol Lake complex. Last year, we got a key ally: Governor Kristi Noem. In a joint effort with the Governor, we secured $3.5 million dollars to develop a Master Plan for Capitol Lake, improve the water quality, and fix water source that feeds into the formerly-flaming fountain.
Since 2008, the fountain has not held a flame and engineers have reported that the pipes below the fountain have corroded and are leaking, creating a sink-hole risk. The situation is untenable and requires attention. That area contains monuments and memorials to our heroes. We can’t wait around until a problem emerges. We know a problem is coming. We need to fix it now.
Since last session, Governor Noem’s team commissioned the development of a Master Plan for Capitol Lake, which we as legislators are looking forward to hearing and reviewing. The plan will likely cover the plan for managing the monuments while the fountain is being rehabilitated, proposals for new veteran memorials (including the Lakota Code Talker monument), and a plan for renovation and improvement of the Capitol Lake Visitor Center. I believe it is critical that our veterans, first responders, and other affected citizens have a chance to review and have input on the plan, before it is put into effect.
To that end, I am inviting all interested parties – veterans, first responders, central South Dakota citizens, and promoters of South Dakota tourism – to join in an effort to improve our Capitol Lake complex. I’m glad that our forebearers didn’t cut corners in building the state Capitol. They built a structure in which our state can take pride, and that has lasted for over 100 years. Capitol Lake should be a fitting companion. We cannot afford to leave this project half done and should not cut corners. We should make improvements that will last a generation and benefit South Dakotans for decades to come.
I’m working on an appropriation, along with Rep. Weisgram, Sen. Mehlhaff, and several other pro-veteran legislators, to fund the completion of the water project and the implementation of the Master Plan to Improve Capitol Lake. As anyone can see who has driven by in the last few months, crews are hard-at-work dredging the lake for additional capacity. However, we have yet to start fixing the fountain issue. So, we have two needs: completing the water project and improving the campus.
I know there is a lot of excitement and a lot of enthusiasm surrounding the Capitol Lake project. It is a special place that has generated special memories for thousands of South Dakotans. I remember visiting it when I was a kid. Now, I take my children there every chance I get. This emotional connection that so many of us feel inspires enthusiasm. That’s good. We need that. Anyone interested in helping or providing perspective should email me at Will.Mortenson@sdlegislature.gov.
We have a big opportunity to fix the fountain and improve our Capitol Lake complex. I hope we seize the opportunity, but we can only do so together.
JANUARY 14, 2023:
Organizing the House by Rep. Will Mortenson (R-Central South Dakota)
The first week in the House of Representatives is largely ceremonial. The Governor, constitutional officers, and Legislators were sworn-in as their families and supporters looked on. The Legislature heard the State of the State from Governor Noem, the State of the Judiciary from Chief Justice Jensen, and the State of the Tribes from Crow Creek Chairman Peter Lengkeek.
While much of the week was about pageantry, the House took some important procedural steps. As Washington, DC showed us, organizing the House is not a foregone conclusion. When elected officials become more interested in politics than governing, you get the sort of gridlock and muck that Congress saw when it attempted to organize. It took the U.S. House fourteen votes and a full week just to elect a Speaker and organize.
The good news: South Dakota still works. We organized in one vote. We elected a Speaker (Hugh Bartels of Watertown), Speaker Pro Tempore (Mike Stevens of Yankton), and Chief Clerk (our own Patricia Miller) within an hour. Our committees all assembled and started meeting. Several bills have already been heard, with one defeated and others progressing. In South Dakota, I’m proud to say that your Legislature is still focused on getting the job done.
I have a new job this year, serving as the House Majority Leader. The sixty-three House Republicans elected me to serve in that position in November. Serving the caucus as Leader generally entails gathering caucus consensus and advancing the caucus position. My goal is to keep all the Republicans in the boat, even if we won’t all be rowing in the same direction. Each of my members was elected by thousands of South Dakotans and has strong ideas about the best direction for our state. I’m not there to tell them what to do, I’m there to listen to where they want to go, and to get them there.
As Leader, I’ll be doing a fair amount of speaking on behalf of the caucus and negotiating on behalf of the caucus with the Senate, Governor, and Democrats. In particular, we take caucus positions on budgetary matters and the Leader is the chief advocate for the caucus position. So, in addition to answering to my constituents from Philip to Highmore, I will be answering to House Republicans from across the state.
Regardless of the leadership position, I pledge to maintain the same accessibility, the same focus on central South Dakota, and the same willingness to listen to all sides of a debate. Serving in Legislative leadership means more hours-to-task and more requests for my attention, but it also provides opportunities for me to shape policy with central South Dakota in mind.
As I have told you since day one, I’m going to keep my eye on the ball: making South Dakota an attractive place for hardworking young families. That means quality education, strong agriculture, and a good measure of freedom. I’ll never forget our debt to the men and women in uniform and those keeping us safe at home. I’d appreciate your feedback and advice throughout session. Don’t ever hesitate to drop me a line at Will.Mortenson@sdlegislature.gov.
DECEMBER 20, 2022:
State Budget: Obligations and Opportunities by District 24 Representative Will Mortenson
I listened to Governor Noem present her budget address and realized state budgets come down to two things: fulfilling the state’s obligations and seizing opportunities that are presented. Like a budget in our home or business, every expense is a tradeoff for another expense. So, while we might like to start 100 new programs, cut all the taxes, and double the salary of every teacher and state trooper, each proposal is weighed against the others.
Fulfilling core obligations is my top budget priority. To that end, Governor Noem proposed a 5% increase for state employees, schools, and Medicaid Providers. The budget also includes targeted increases, over-and-above the 5%, to stabilize our nursing homes and provide additional dollars to fund paid family leave for state employees. In addition, the Governor has asked for $112 Million to build a second women’s prison and to start buying land and doing design costs on a new, replacement men’s prison. These prisons are expensive to build and more expensive to operate, so we’ll scrutinize every dollar and every square foot going into them. Still, we must fulfill our duty to keep the public safe. Prisons are a need and not a want. Finally, we are looking to meet our obligation to our servicemen and women by making National Guard tuition completely free at our universities and tech schools.
The Governor also proposed that we seize an opportunity, amid a strong economy and a firm budget situation, to exempt food from the sales tax. While the Food Tax proposal is an issue that the Legislature has considered several times, our strong economy and past budget restraint make revenue reductions a real possibility this year. I have heard several proposals for cutting taxes (property tax or sales tax) or exempting products from the sales tax (food, clothing, baby formula/diapers). We will be careful not to put our state into deficit or debt, while trying to find the largest benefit to South Dakotans. I’m convinced that we can and should cut taxes if we can afford to do so. We may never have another opportunity like this. Delivering a tax cut is a priority of mine.
Finally, and I’m not to be a Scrooge around Christmas, but I give more scrutiny to new programs and new types of spending. I’m a First-Things-First guy. If you can’t pay to heat your house, you shouldn’t be buying a new big screen. So, I will be hard on new programs and new spending, no matter who proposes them. I will also be hard on proposals that use one-time money for ongoing spending. Overspending happens in good times, and we pay for it during the hard times. We must remain disciplined and restrained.
In South Dakota, we have not overspent or overcommitted. Our budget is in a stable, strong position. We are a low-tax, low-spend state. We got that way by focusing on core priorities, instead of creating new programs or spending beyond what we could afford. So long as we remain conservative and cautious, we will continue to be able to fund our core priorities and seize opportunities when they come.
NOVEMBER 14, 2022:
Time to Start Thinking About Elections, by District 24 Representative Will Mortenson.
The postman and the garbage man are both going to have lighter loads this week – the election is over. That means the postcards and letters will stop. The ads you see on TV will go back to convincing you to buy prescription drugs instead of convincing you that a candidate for office is on drugs. While Election Day 2022 is fresh in our minds, we should reflect on the processes by which our elections are carried out. While most South Dakotans are (mercifully) forgetting about elections, I’m going to get to work in thinking about them.
Over the last two years, we heard a lot about election security, election integrity, mail-in voting, ballot harvesting, drop boxes, tabulation machines, and ID requirements. The stories raised eyebrows, raised questions, and raised my interest in how South Dakota administers elections. I have never been a poll worker. I have never been a County Auditor. I’ve never lent a hand in administering any election. I worked on campaigns for about ten years, and learned some aspects of election administration, but never paid much attention to our process soup-to-nuts. This year, that changed.
In the last year, I took it upon myself to get informed. I read statutes. I read articles and talked with legal experts in the election field. This fall, the Hyde and Sully County Auditors (both sharp, capable, trustworthy gals) invited area legislators to watch a public test of the vote tabulation machines. While there, I peppered them with every question I could think of, trying to remember every concern that reached my email inbox, whether sent by one of my neighbors or one of the out-of-state activists pushing on this topic. Our Auditors were up to the task of answering every question.
In Sully County, we went a step further. Auditor Susan Lamb asked Rep. Weisgram and I to personally fill out ten ballots, hand count them, and run them through the tabulation machine to test its reliability. After filling out ten unique ballots, Rep. Weisgram and I hand counted them. Doing so took more than a minute per ballot (twenty different items on the ballot, three seconds per item, a little transition time). After that, we ran them through the machine, which took about ninety seconds. The results were identical in all races except Justice Mark Salter’s retention. My hand-tallied sheet said 5-5. The tabulation machine said 6-4. Surprising no one, we saw that the machine was correct upon recount.
We made an error counting just ten ballots at 9 AM while highly caffeinated. After that exercise, I realized that hand counting is not feasible. It is slow. It is less accurate. It drives poll workers nuts. In short – it doesn’t work. The delay reduces trust. The inaccuracy leads to integrity questions. The burden on poll workers might drive them away entirely. If you’ve seen recent headlines from Tripp County, you’ll know that Weisgram and I weren’t alone in our experience. Still, we shouldn’t stop looking for ideas that do work, just because we realized one idea does not work.
Shortly after the 2020 election, Governor Noem called South Dakota an example for the nation in how to carry out secure and reliable elections. The Governor rightly pointed to our mandatory ID laws, our avoidance of same-day registration and our prohibition on counting ballots received after Election Day. Compared to other states, we’re doing it right.
Just because we’re doing well doesn’t mean we can’t do better. I am working with colleagues in the Legislature on plans to make our elections more secure, our results more reliable, and our administration more straightforward. We aim to make voting easier and cheating harder. I’m confident we can grow and preserve the confidence that South Dakotans have in our election system, without causing unintended headaches. While this year’s election may have just concluded, but the discussion about our election system has just begun.
Comments