With crucial items on the November ballot, including federal offices, statewide initiatives, and referred laws, voter education, and turnout are essential for Dakota Rural Action (DRA) members. By voting, we can elect leaders who will champion policies that support sustainable agriculture, environmental protection, and rural economic development—issues central to DRA and our community.
Low voter turnout could lead to the election of officials who prioritize corporate interests over our local family farms, weaken environmental protections, and undermine local control of land and water resources. This would be a setback for the causes we champion, such as resisting the pipeline and ensuring our livelihoods are safeguarded. Not voting could send the wrong message, potentially harming our communities in state and local decision-making.
It’s crucial to avoid blanket voting this election. Voting solely based on party affiliation or a single issue overlooks the true qualifications of each candidate. By evaluating candidates on their merits, we can ensure the most capable individuals are elected—especially in local elections where leadership directly impacts land use, education, public services, and environmental protection.
Dakota Rural Action has been advocating for these issues as a non-partisan organization for nearly four decades and is committed to providing education to South Dakota voters in order to see past party affiliations to evaluate the merits of proposed law changes.
Here is where DRA stands on some of the Initiated Measures/Amendments/Referendums in South Dakota:
IM 29 Marijuana Legalization: DRA Votes YES
- Economic Development: Legalizing marijuana could create new opportunities for small-scale farmers and entrepreneurs in South Dakota, contributing to rural economic development. Additionally, our state has some of the poorest counties in the nation, one of the worst teacher pay rates, and our counties are perennially struggling to make ends meet. Increased tax revenue from the legal sales of marijuana would go a long way towards helping our communities stay funded and able to reinvest in public infrastructure.
- Regulation and Safety: Legalization would allow for the regulation of marijuana, ensuring that it is produced, distributed, and consumed safely.
- Racial Disparities of the ‘War on Drugs’: The measure could address social justice issues by reducing the number of arrests and incarcerations for marijuana-related offenses, which disproportionately affect marginalized communities. Rather than wasting tax-payer dollars on court fees and enforcement of existing laws, dollars could be reinvested into community safety and preventative programs.
- Local Control: Legalization could empower local governments to regulate marijuana businesses within their jurisdictions, allowing communities to decide how best to integrate the industry into their local economies.
- Aligning with Members Values: Many of our members do support marijuana legalization as part of a broader agenda that includes the self-determination of local communities, individual rights, social equity, and economic innovation.
Referred Law 21 – DRA Votes NO
DRA has been organizing against the carbon pipelines seeking to cross our state since the first letters were sent to landowners. RL 21 is the ballot version of the highly controversial Senate Bill 201.
- “Summit Bill of Rights”: The bill was strategically (mis)titled as a ‘landowner bill of rights’ – even though it was supported by the pipeline company and opposed by the landowners. The majority of the benefits put into law were items already able to be negotiated during private easement negotiations. The tradeoff was removing local control from counties being able to enforce their own laws without explicit permission from the PUC. Landowners gained little, while Summit weakened one of the major obstacles to getting their project rammed through.
From https://www.sdpropertyrightslocalcontrol.com
- RL21 erodes local control: The bill changes current law by mandating that transmission facility regulations be subject to Public Utilities Commission (PUC) orders, stripping local communities of their decision-making powers.
- Restrictions on Fees: The bill limits the ability of local government to impose fees, including those crucial for emergency response, effectively shifting the financial burden of potential pipeline incidents onto taxpayers.
- Inadequate Protection for Citizens: RL21, as passed, contains insufficient safeguards for citizens and property owners who would live in close proximity to the proposed pipeline. It totally fails to address the severe risk of possible catastrophic pipeline failures, which could endanger the lives and property of thousands of citizens.
- Vague Terminology and PUC Handcuffing: Ambiguous language within the bill restricts the PUC’s discretionary powers, compromises the commission’s ability to make informed decisions for the citizens’ welfare, and invites potential litigation.
- Important provision removed: A section was deleted that stated “Without such a finding by the commission, no route shall be designated which violates local land use, zoning or building rules, or regulations, or ordinances.” It is critical that this remains the law in South Dakota because it is central to local control. Right now, if the PUC doesn’t rule that a local ordinance or regulation is unreasonable, then the local regulation or ordinance stands. That law has worked successfully for 135 years in South Dakota, and there is no reason why it should be changed just so a private pipeline company with foreign investors wants to change the rules.
Amendment F – DRA Votes NO
DRA opposes Amendment F because it threatens healthcare access for vulnerable populations, particularly in rural communities while imposing unnecessary administrative hurdles and potential financial burdens. Supporting healthcare access aligns with our mission to promote the health, well-being, and economic stability of South Dakotans. Breaking down some of our major concerns if this amendment were to pass:
- Overriding the Voice of the People: For decades, our legislature has undermined the will of the people of South Dakota who have spoken through the ballot initiative process. The Medicaid expansion that took effect on July 1, 2023 and was a significant step forward in providing healthcare to more South Dakotans. Amendment F threatens to undermine this progress by making it harder for people to access the benefits they are entitled to. If the people wanted work requirements, we would have passed them when we expanded medicaid.
- Unintended Consequences: Studies from other states that have implemented work requirements have shown that such policies often lead to significant reductions in Medicaid enrollment without a corresponding increase in employment. Instead of helping people find work, these requirements can lead to worse health outcomes and greater financial strain, as individuals lose access to necessary healthcare services.
- Threatening access to healthcare: imposing work requirements on Medicaid recipients could result in thousands of eligible individuals losing their healthcare coverage. Many people who rely on Medicaid are in low-wage jobs, seasonal work, or are caregivers, and may not meet strict work requirements even though they are working.
- Bureaucratic Burden: Implementing and enforcing work requirements would likely create a significant bureaucratic burden, leading to increased state costs and administrative hurdles for Medicaid recipients.
- Potential for Increased Public Costs: While proponents of work requirements argue that they save money, the reality is that they can increase costs in the long run. Without access to preventive care and routine medical services, individuals are more likely to require expensive emergency care, which can strain both the healthcare system and state resources. This can lead to higher healthcare costs for everyone and a greater burden on taxpayers.