Making Waves with Dave Roetman

Dave Roetman
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Politics
  • Updated Weekly

South Dakota politics, straight from the people making the decisions. Host Dave Roetman interviews South Dakota legislators, statewide officials and candidates about public policy, legislation, issues advocacy and South Dakota ballot issues. Every episode is a long-form conversation with the person who wrote the bill, cast the vote, or is asking for yours. Guests have included Attorney General Marty Jackley, State Treasurer Josh Haeder, Commissioner Brock Greenfield, Sen. Chris Karr, Rep. Scott Odenbach, Sen. Mykala Voita, Sen. Taffy Howard, Sen. Kevin Jensen, Rep. John Hughes and Don Haggar. Dave Roetman is a conservative civic and campaign activist in Sioux Falls. The show is free. Full episodes and show notes: https://daveroetman.substack.com Follow on X: https://x.com/DaveRoetman Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61594671035802 Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@DaveRoetman daveroetman.substack.com

  1. 1d ago

    Amendment I Explained: Sen. Kevin Jensen on Medicaid Expansion and the 90% Federal Match

    Sen. Kevin Jensen of District 16 has chaired Health and Human Services in both the South Dakota House and Senate for a total of eight years. He joins Dave to make the case for Amendment I, the constitutional amendment the Legislature put on the ballot. It would end expanded Medicaid coverage if the federal government drops its share of funding below 90%. Jensen explains the federal match: traditional Medicaid splits roughly 51% federal and 49% state, while expansion under the Affordable Care Act is 90% federal and 10% state. South Dakota’s share has doubled in two years, from $18 million in the first budget to about $34 million now, with total spending near $340 million. He says Congress debated cutting the expansion match back to the traditional rate in 2025. If that happened, the state would have to find well over $100 million a year, in a Legislature that fights over $5 and $10 million items at the end of every session. That money would come from teacher pay, state employees and other priorities. Jensen’s bottom line is that nothing changes as long as Washington keeps its 90% promise. Amendment I only kicks in if the federal government backs out, and it protects South Dakota taxpayers from hundreds of millions of dollars in exposure. He’s a firm yes on I. “If the federal government doesn’t change, nothing happens. It stays the same. You can sleep at night knowing that as long as the federal government holds their 90 percent, nothing’s going to happen.” “This amendment only kicks in if the federal government backs out. So you can blame the federal government, not your state.” Read the official text of Amendment I (HJR 5001) and the Attorney General's explanation on the South Dakota Secretary of State's website. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit daveroetman.substack.com

    Amendment I Explained: Sen. Kevin Jensen on Medicaid Expansion and the 90% Federal Match

  2. 5d ago

    Rep. John Hughes on Amendment L: Why It Should Take 60% to Change Our Constitution

    Rep. John Hughes (District 13), who wrote Amendment L, explains why changing the South Dakota Constitution should take 60% of the vote instead of a simple majority. We talk about what L does and doesn't do, the L-No ads, and the outside money behind ballot campaigns. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit daveroetman.substack.com

  3. Mar 20

    Interview with Dale Bartscher, Associate Director of SD Right to Life and Candidate for District 35 House

    Dale Bartscher, Associate Director and lobbyist for South Dakota Right to Life and a candidate for House District 35, joins Dave Roetman to review the 2026 legislative session. Bartscher describes three pro-life bills that passed: HB 1257, clarifying that miscarriage treatment and ectopic pregnancies are not abortions; HB 1274, giving the Attorney General more tools against companies mailing or trafficking abortion pills; and HB 1313, requiring at least a three-minute fetal development video in public schools. He also notes a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk. Turning to his campaign in the Rapid City area district that includes Ellsworth Air Force Base, he describes himself as a Christian, conservative, Republican, and recounts growing up on a farm near Mitchell, 30 years in ministry, helping start the Family Heritage Alliance, and advising Marty Jackley’s campaign for governor. Topics: South Dakota Right to Life, HB 1257, HB 1274, chemical abortion pills, HB 1313, fetal development video, Charlie Kirk resolution, District 35 campaign, Ellsworth Air Force Base, Family Heritage Alliance, conservative leadership “As Conservatives, we are not far-right, we are not far-wrong, we are just right. We are right on the issue of protecting life. We are right on the issue of support for our 2nd Amendment Rights. We are right on the our support for the first responders and military personnel. We are right on our advocacy for our elderly and disabled. We are right when it comes to parental responsibility. We are right in prioritizing the education of our children, whether it is public school, private school or homeschool. These and other Conservative issues remain the core values of the Republican Party. And I support them and I will stand with them.” - Dale Bartscher Dale for South Dakota - Campaign website, House District 35 South Dakota Right to Life HB 1257 amend the definition of an abortion. HB 1274 prohibit the dispensing, distribution, sale, or advertisement of certain articles or things for purposes of an unlawful abortion and provide a criminal and civil penalty therefor. HB 1313 require education in prenatal human growth and development. HCR 6002 honoring the life and achievements of the late Charlie Kirk. Full transcript About this transcript: It was machine-transcribed in-house and then edited for readability. Filler words and false starts are removed, and the meaning is unchanged. Timestamps are approximate. [00:00] Dave Roetman: This is the Making Waves Podcast. My name is Dave Roetman. We’re here today with Dale Bartscher, Associate Director of South Dakota Right to Life. Dale, welcome. Dale Bartscher: Thank you, Dave. Good to be here with you. Dave Roetman: You’re a man of many parts, and you’re very influential in Pierre, and you play mean guitar, too. Dale Bartscher: Well, I work at it. Dave Roetman: Well, tell us a little bit about legislative session and what accomplishments you had. I understand you had several bills that you managed to help pass. And just tell us a little bit about what happened at legislative session. Well, thank you, Dave. Dale Bartscher: Well, Dave, I have been with South Dakota Right to Life now for eight years, come this September 1st. I served as executive director of South Dakota Right to Life, or seven of these, and here this last April 1st, about nine months ago, I and my associate director generally positions, and so now I am the associate director of South life and I see their lobbyist at the state capitol during the legislative session. I enjoy that immensely. There’s an oft repeated saying among lawmakers in Pierre, the good news is that South Dakota’s legislative session lasts only nine weeks. The bad news is, it’s the longest nine weeks of your life. Now, there’s probably some truth to that, but I have to say that I’ve been honored to be a lobbyist these last eight years. This year at the State Capitol, Dave, as you well know, there was... Quite a bit of drama. And South Dakota Right to Life, we were grateful that at the end of the day, we were able to see three very, very significant pro-life bills passed. And hopefully will be signed shortly by the governor. We anticipate that to be so. And then we saw A good resolution passed as well, pro-life resolution. So it was a very successful session for us at the State Capitol and let me just kind of briefly walk you through those three bills because I think your listeners should know we were busy at it. When I say we saw them passed I so appreciate the collaborative effort. That South Dakota Right to Life has with our allied friends. Friends such as, well, the governor’s office for one thing, Ian Fury serves as the governor’s communications director, but he is also the unborn child advocate to the governor’s office. No other state in the country can claim such a position, so we’re grateful for the work relationship that we have had with the governor’s office. But we’re thankful for the collaboration we had with the Family Voice organization, with the Catholic Conference here in South Dakota, and with CWA, Concerned Women for America. So the lobbyists for those organizations, along with South Dakota Right to Life, along with strong pro-life legislators in both the House and the Senate were able to get some things done. So this year- the three significant bills. Let’s begin with House Bill 1257. It was a definition of the abortion bill, an act to amend the definition of abortion. This bill simply, David, adds clarity to our pro-life laws, specifically explaining that miscarriage treatment and ectopic pregnancies do not count as abortions under South Dakota law. Our law has already provided that these and other pregnancy-related complications for them, but in light of the misinformation that we’ve seen in recent years, the decision was made to specifically explain that these treatments are not abortions and are allowed under South Dakota law. So, we are grateful that House Bill 1257 was passed. We’re thankful that House Bill 1274 was passed. It’s our chemical abortion pill bill and this bill simply gives the Attorney General some additional tools to prosecute the companies that are mailing or trafficking drugs for illegal abortions into the state. These pills end the life of an unborn child and have a 22 percent higher complication rate than the industry had previously claimed. This was big and we’re so grateful that the Attorney General, Marty Jackley, came in person and advocated for the passage of House Bill 1274. Dave Roetman: That’s very important because, like you said, 20% greater chance of spinal complication. Can’t imagine that you take a pill... Comes in the mail something might go wrong at home so that that’s really a danger to women. Dale Bartscher: Well absolutely it’s a self-induced pill at home when those complications happen these women make their way to the emergency rooms or to a urgent care unit somewhere nearby and it’s illegal but they’re doing it anyway and currently at least 60 to 70 percent of all induced abortions are done by the chemical abortion pill. [05:00] Dave Roetman: We needed 1274 in a big way. And that of course just gives extra tools for the Attorney General to actually enforce the law. Dale Bartscher: Enforce the law, go after criminal and civil penalties. Currently, the Attorney. Dave Roetman: General doesn’t have that, but this is good and proper. I’m guessing that civil penalties are going to be really important to all of that. Extremely important. Out of state. The last one is. Dale Bartscher: House Bill 1313, which is our fetal development classroom video bill. This bill simply requires education in the form of at least a three-minute video on the prenatal human growth and development in South Dakota’s public schools. This measure promises to help students gain an appreciation for the dignity of the unborn human life and to think with greater clarity on ethical issues at the beginning of life. So in the public school system, they’re going to be seeing, going forward, at least a three minute video. Just sharing and they can visualize the prenatal, the baby in the mother’s womb. Dave Roetman: It kind of brings it to life, doesn’t it? That sounds like health class to me. So tell us about the resolution. Dale Bartscher: The resolution was a resolution honoring the legacy and the accomplishments of Charlie Kirk. And we’re so grateful for this resolution. I would encourage folks to go online and read the resolution. It was a House concurrent resolution. It passed on the House floor and the Senate floor with every single Republican vote. And so we’re thankful. We all realize that Charlie Kirk had a tremendous influence and impact on the minds and hearts of individuals, particularly young people across our country and really the world. Dave Roetman: That’s heartwarming. He really deserves it. The tragic loss. Big loss. All right, well thank you. Is there anything else you’d like to discuss about legislative session or what’s happened in Pierre this year? Dale Bartscher: Well, we have one more day left. It’s our veto override day, and the veto override day will be Monday, March 30th in Pierre, and it’s a time to come together and see what happens. The governor has vetoed one bill, and so we’ll see what happens on Veto Override Day, but it’ll be the final day. It’ll be the pin in the ending of the legislative session, and then we’ll gear up for next year. Dave Roetman: And next year, you might actually be voting on some of these bills yourself. So tell us a little bit about your candidacy. Dale Bartscher: Well, so I’m a candidate for the House District 35, and I’m running as a Christian, conservative, Republican, and in that order, in western South Dakota, District 35. So District 35, Rapid City, encompasses much of Rapid Valley, Box Elder, and a little bit of Ellsworth Air Force Base. And so, Dave,

    Interview with Dale Bartscher, Associate Director of SD Right to Life and Candidate for District 35 House

  4. Feb 14

    Interview: National Committeewoman Heidi Engelhart

    Heidi Engelhart, National Committeewoman for the South Dakota Republican Party, joins Dave Roetman after a Republican National Committee meeting where members voted to hold a midterm convention, with the time and place not yet released. Engelhart then walks through three federal election bills: the SAVE Act, requiring proof of identity and citizenship to register, which passed the House and sits in the Senate; the SAVE America Act, sponsored in the Senate by Mike Lee, which adds photo ID at the polls, limits some mail-in voting and requires cleaner voter rolls; and the Make Elections Great Again Act, which would also require auditable paper ballots and ban ballot harvesting and ranked choice voting. She cites polling support for voter ID, addresses Republican concerns about REAL ID and federal overreach, and asks listeners to call their senators and pray for Senator Thune on the filibuster. Topics: Republican National Committee, midterm convention, SAVE Act, SAVE America Act, Make Elections Great Again Act, voter ID, proof of citizenship, voter roll maintenance, filibuster, Senator Thune, congress.gov “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.” - Article 1, Section 4 of the US Constitution The US Constitution Voice of the Plains - Heidi Engelhart’s substack H.R.22 - SAVE Act - This bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. H.R.7296 - SAVE America Act - To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. H.R.7300 - Make Elections Great Again Act - Full transcript About this transcript: It was machine-transcribed in-house and then edited for readability. Filler words and false starts are removed, and the meaning is unchanged. Timestamps are approximate. [00:00] Dave Roetman: This is the Making Waves Podcast. My name is Dave Roetman. We’re here with Heidi Engelhart, National Committeewoman for the South Dakota Republican Party. Welcome, Heidi. Heidi Engelhart: Thank you, Dave. Glad to be here. Dave Roetman: You were just at an RNC meeting. Because they have meetings every quarter. Well, technically it’s three times a year. But they have quarterly meetings. And what was the big topic of conversation at the RNC meeting? Heidi Engelhart: The big topic this time was our bringing in a midterm convention. So we had to all join together to vote in a midterm convention. This is just basically a ceremonial convention. There is no need for states to have to worry about changing bylaws. The RNC chairman will decide the delegates and how this all works and who attends. Where it’s going to be. None of that has been released, so time, place has not been released, but it’s going to be a huge celebration for the victories that President Trump has brought to America already. It’ll be a fun To get people to the polls so that they know the importance of getting everybody out so that President Trump agenda goes through the next two years. Dave Roetman: That makes a lot of sense because the national conventions are normally only when we have a president up for election. They actually are quite a big deal and they get a lot of attention and they do move the needle. More people will tune in, find out what’s going on and if you have a big enthusiastic convention that translates into more votes in November. Heidi Engelhart: Right. It sets the pace and it gets people excited and they want to get involved and they want to move the Republican principles forward. And yeah, it’s a great thing to get people out to vote, get them excited. Dave Roetman: Awesome. I look forward to that. You also have been talking to a number of people. You’ve been talking to our national delegation and you’ve been discussing issues. One of the things in the news and what’s in the Congress and the Senate right now is an election legislation and specifically the SAVE Act and the SAVE America Act and there’s some confusion about what these are and there’s more of them so I mean more than just two so could you tell us a little bit about them? Heidi Engelhart: So there are three main election security bills going through Washington, three that are gaining attention. One of the things is because their names are so familiar, that people were in the beginning quite confused on what was going on. We had the SAVE Act to begin with, and now we have the SAVE America Act, and then the other one that’s gaining some notoriety is the Make Elections Great Again Act. All three do something different. There’s two that are very similar, but the last one covers other areas. I can go over those with you. One thing that I want to point out when it comes to our federal government and our elections is the federal government can, Congress can create law to regulate our federal elections. I’m just going to read that. I’m going to read that right from our Constitution. So it’s article one, Section 4, the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed by each state by the legislature thereof but the congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations except as to the places of choosing senators which that last part the amendment 17 took care of that one but so they can create law to regulate our federal elections so that’s what these bills cover our federal. Dave Roetman: And that has been a controversy because people are saying that the federal government should not be holding our elections, which I agree with, but we’re talking about federal elections. That’d be the president and the U.S. Senators and U.S. Congressmen, and they can provide, or they can impose by law, regulations. On these elections. Heidi Engelhart: Got it. Right there in the Constitution. Right there from our Constitution. Okay, so I will start with the SAVE Act. The SAVE Act has been around for a little while now and it is sitting over in the Senate. Now the SAVE Act covers voter ID when you register to vote. That’s basically what that one covers. So it’s just kind of plain and simple, short and sweet, 28 pages, easy to read through. [05:00] Ask people to go in and read these bills so that they also know they’re short the font is large so thank goodness for that but yeah and they can go to congress.gov and look for these they can put in the save act save america act make elections great again act but they should have the 119th congress or if you put in the save act you’ll find out how many save acts there are out there and have been for several years. So yeah, so the key provisions of the SAVE Act and that is to show voter ID when registering to vote. There are five forms of that you can show. And that is a driver’s license with real ID, a driver’s license without real ID, US passport, tribal identification, and military ID. And with military ID, thus you need to also prove that you were born here in the United States. So it’s not just one thing. It’s there’s different forms that can be used and the purpose of this is really just to strengthen our elections that only U.S. Citizens are voting in our elections so that one is sitting over in the senate. Dave Roetman: That was passed by the house already. Heidi Engelhart: Right. So, this one has gone all the way through the House. And it is over in the Senate. And it has been quite a while since that one has been sitting there. A major there’s talk of needing to remove the filibuster whatever but if we even went to a majority vote right now we are lacking on that so that’s where that one sits so then we have the SAVE America Act And this one has been extremely popular this last week. Very, very, very similar to the SAVE Act. Correct. But it does add a different aspect. And I think this is where people were getting confused on this, but the SAVE Act, this bill amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to impose stricter federal requirements for voter registration and voting in federal elections. This one You’d have to bring voter ID to register to vote. You have to have, or sorry, you have to show identification to register to vote and you have to show photo ID. When you show up at the polls to vote. And this also, this is going to restrict some mail-in voting and other processes like that. And then it also requires states to clean up their voter rolls. This is the one, it’s past the House. It just passed the House. I think it was Wednesday night. And now it is sitting over in the Senate. And this is the one that we’re hearing so much about now. This one, Senator Mike Lee is the sponsor in the Senate. And we have 49 co-sponsors. And that’s so far where it’s sitting. Now, what I had heard this morning is there’s a chance that Senator Susan Collins could come on to this, sign on to this. I don’t know for sure. I’m just saying what was on the news this morning, one aspect. And then we would have 50. We have to overcome that filibuster the way things stand right now. So we actually need 60. But even if we took this down to a majority vote, we’re sitting. We don’t necessarily have that support yet. So that’s where that one is sitting. It’s getting a lot of popularity. Call your senators. Let them know how you feel about this. Moving this through. Voters need to take an active role in that. Otherwise. And you know people should. Dave Roetman: Contact their senators even if they’re co-sponsors they should already still contact their senator because the senators need a little bit of a morale boost sometimes they’re like you know pat on the back like you’re doing the right thing

    Interview: National Committeewoman Heidi Engelhart

  5. Feb 4

    Update From the SD Capitol From President Pro Tem Senator Chris Karr

    Senator Chris Karr, President Pro Tem of the South Dakota Senate, joins Dave Roetman for a quick update from the Capitol during the 2026 session. Karr discusses a bill from Senator Pischke to allow mourning doves to be hunted in the road right-of-way, and his own appropriation for buffer strips and other practices to clean up surface waters, focused on the Big Sioux River. He explains a separation of powers dispute that began when Lieutenant Governor Tony Venhuizen broke a 17-17 tie on a bill; the Senate sided with Karr 24-10 on appeal, and he opposes the governor’s request for a Supreme Court advisory opinion. He also covers property tax bills, his opposition to shifting sales tax to offset owner-occupied property taxes, data center incentives, and his bill to limit student cell phone use in schools. Topics: road hunting, mourning doves, Big Sioux River, water quality, separation of powers, tie-breaking vote, Supreme Court advisory opinion, property taxes, data centers, cell phones in schools “You’ve got to look at the spending side of things in order to stop the growth. Lets look at how we assess, how we value, what are we valuing and how we are spending these property tax dollars.” - Senator Chris Karr SB 115 remove the prohibition pertaining to the shooting of mourning doves located within specific areas. SB 135 protect residents from increased utility costs and utility shortages caused by data centers and clarify authority to regulate data centers. SB 198 restrict the use of a cell phone by a student during instructional time. SB 228 make an appropriation for eligible water, wastewater, storm water, and nonpoint source projects and to declare an emergency. Full transcript About this transcript: It was machine-transcribed in-house and then edited for readability. Filler words and false starts are removed, and the meaning is unchanged. Timestamps are approximate. [00:00] Dave Roetman: This is the Making Waves podcast. My name is Dave Roetman. We’re here with Chris Karr, President Pro Tem of the Senate. Welcome, Chris. Chris Karr: Well, Dave, good morning. Thank you for having me. Dave Roetman: You’re welcome. Thank you for being on. You’ve only got a few minutes here because you’re a busy guy, so let’s get right into it. You have some bills that are coming up in the legislature that are very interesting. One is some hunting bills. Of hunting, could you tell us a little bit about that? Chris Karr: I appreciate you. Let me give you the update from the Capitol here. 15 minutes or less. Dove hunting was a bill brought by Senator Pischke. Basically, Wanted to allow doves to be shot by hunters in the right-of-way. So that’s the current practice for upland and waterfowl. So your pheasant, your ducks, your geese, all can be shot in the right-of-way. So it’s just treating mourning doves in the same, putting them in the same category. I think on its face, it makes a lot of sense. There’s just always been a lot of concern about folks. Breaking the law, shooting them off power lines, things like that. I guess the way I think about it is if somebody’s going to break the law, they’re going to break the law no matter what. So we can’t control that. That started here in the... The Senate will see where it goes in the House. There’s concerns that it’ll bring out more opposition against road hunting, so that concerns me. I’m a proponent of our road hunting. If you do it lawfully and respect private owners and property. Dave Roetman: That’s a good point to make because road hunting is legal in South Dakota. In this case, you’ll allow a new species to be hunted. Chris Karr: Yeah, yep, in the right-of-way. In the right-of-way, of course. Dave Roetman: So you also have a bill about cleaning up the environment a little bit, our waterways. Chris Karr: Water’s been a passion of mine for several years, and about five years ago I brought a bill, started trying to understand what’s going on And we have some issues as the surface waters, they all get designated certain uses. Are failing at least one of their specific use. So that might be recreating or fishing or something like that. It really gave me pause and I wanted to understand what was happening and what we can do to clean up our surface waters. I focused on the Big Sioux. It’s the South Dakota’s river, if you will, and it touches something like 20 counties. And, you’re talking about hundreds and hundreds of miles of shoreline. So I am at this point bringing forward an appropriation to put more dollars into some of the best practices that we have in South Dakota and those are buffer strips primarily They also do some livestock containment for smaller livestock operations so smaller than a CAFO I’m looking forward to having several meetings, trying to understand and hear from those folks in the water district world, the ag world, and go, what are the next best practices? What do we need to do? How do we educate the landowners about protecting the water, just good. Dave Roetman: Conservation practices right? Conservation is a conservative issue and has been since before Teddy Roosevelt. That’s right. You also have something going before the Supreme Court pretty soon, a separation of powers issue. Could you tell us a little bit about that? Oh yeah. Chris Karr: Well i think so far that’s probably one of the more interesting things in my from my perspective and is my position as the president pro tem is really looking at this institution and the integrity of it. What happened was early in session we had a bill, and it doesn’t really matter what the bill was, but we had a tied vote on the floor, 17-17. We’re missing a senator The lieutenant governor, as our presiding officer, chose to cast a vote in the affirmative and essentially passing that bill. I brought a point of order to say that he can’t do that. He overruled me. We each laid out our constitutional arguments. So I appealed his ruling. The body voted, it was 24-10. So the Senate was with me and my argument to say there’s a separation here and you don’t have that ability. In the Constitution it says it needs a majority of members elect. And that presiding officer is not elected, an elected member of the Senate. And that’s kind of my basis. What’s happened since then, the governor decided to exercise what he thinks is his ability to ask the Supreme Court for an opinion on an advisory opinion on this matter. [05:00] We have taken a stance, I’ve taken a stance, that that’s not really appropriate either at this time because The questions that he can ask the Supreme Court in that advisory opinion have to be dealing with the executive branch and executive branch functions. And the question they’re asking is about whether or not the presiding officer in the Senate can cast a tie-breaking vote on final passage. And when that lieutenant governor steps into the presiding officer position he’s no longer representing the executive branch he’s now operating in the legislative branch so i’d say that that question is not appropriate because it’s now the executive branch asking about a legislative function to the supreme court And so I’m opposing them even answering this question at this time. Dave Roetman: Well, that’s very interesting. These kind of issues have, of course, been coming up since the founding of the Republic and, of course, even during the Roman Republic. It’s very interesting that we’d have these kind of process questions. And just for context for our listeners, the Lieutenant Governor presides over the Senate. And he kind of wields the gavel and is the presiding officer. That’s kind of a tradition, correct? Chris Karr: Yeah, it’s been a tradition. There’s a lot of states that have, exercised that model, and some of them have changed, and we’ve changed the duties of the Lieutenant Governor as well. So now that’s pretty much the involvement of the Lieutenant Governor in our chamber. The President Pro Tem, that’s my position, does all the committee assignments, the bill assignments and oversees the rest of the functions. Got it. So I got to recognize that the Lieutenant Governor Tony Venhuizen has done a good job. He’s very respectful. He communicates with leadership and myself. I just have to acknowledge that this isn’t about the man. This is about an institutional question and a separation of powers. Dave Roetman: Well, it seems all very civil so far. Kudos to both of you. Thank you. Before you go, could you tell us a little about what’s happening with the property taxes? That’s, of course, on everyone’s mind. Chris Karr: And that’ll continue to be, I’m sure. There’s several bills. I think taxation has like 20 bills right now, Senate taxation. I don’t know how many are in the House. But they’re all touching some facet of property taxes, whether it’s a TIF or dealing with opt-outs. And there’s only a handful of bills that really deal with some revenue and a source of revenue. I think we’ll get some of these bills out that what I’ve been calling kind of the guardrail bills and plugging the holes in the boat. You got to look at the spending side of things and in order to stop the growth, right? Let’s look at how we assess, how we value, what are we valuing and how we’re spending these property tax dollars. That’s a big part of the equation as well. So that’s what some of these bills are doing. As far as finding real dollars to provide property tax relief, that’s going to of course be the larger hurdle. I believe we’ll try to push some ideas through. I just don’t know where we’ll coalesce. You got to have the Senate, the House, and the executive branch all agree on something. A big issue like this really should come from top down and you know should start with the executive branch but what we’ve seen so far has just been the growth limit that the governor brought last year. I

    Update From the SD Capitol From President Pro Tem Senator Chris Karr

  6. Jan 29

    Interview: Amanda Radke

    Amanda Radke, a grassroots property rights activist, joins Dave Roetman to discuss American Land and Legacy, the new landowner organization she helped start, and the property rights rally held at the Capitol Rotunda the day before the 2026 session. Radke explains HJR 5001, sponsored by Representative Spencer Gosch and Senator Mark Lapka, a proposed constitutional amendment to bar eminent domain for private economic development, citing the Kelo decision. She reports it passed the House 62 to 5 but calls an amendment adding the word “solely” hostile. She also describes SB 88, the Bosley bill, which would repeal the invasive survey law from 1185 after a unanimous South Dakota Supreme Court ruling, and recounts the fence line case of Charles and Heather Maude and Attorney General Marty Jackley’s help in avoiding a North Dakota lawsuit over HB 1052. Topics: American Land and Legacy, property rights rally, HJR 5001, eminent domain, Kelo decision, SB 88 Bosley bill, invasive surveying, HB 1052, carbon pipelines, data centers, Maude family fence dispute “My message to the people of South Dakota whether you are on a rural area or an urban area is George Washington said it best that freedom and property rights go hand in hand, you can’t have one without the other. Your American Dream, your ability to own property, whether that is land or a home is a fundamental God given inherent right that is protected under the Constitution. For myself and so many others, we are committed to making sure you can be in your home, you can stand on your own ground and you don’t have to feel like a sitting duck waiting for somebody else to seize what is not theirs.” - Amanda Radke American Land Legacy HJR 5001 proposing and submitting to the voters at the next general election an amendment to the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, prohibiting the transfer of private property to a non-governmental entity for the purpose of economic development or increased tax revenue and requiring a declaration of necessity. SB 88 clarify the procedure for a potential condemnor to examine real property absent the property owner's permission. Case Dismissed on SD Ranch Family Indicted on Fencing Issue HB 1052 (2025 law passed and signed) prohibit the exercise of eminent domain for a pipeline that carries carbon oxide. Attorney General Jackley Appreciates North Dakota AG Wrigley’s Decision Not to Sue South Dakota Amanda Radke Full transcript About this transcript: It was machine-transcribed in-house and then edited for readability. Filler words and false starts are removed, and the meaning is unchanged. [?] marks a word or phrase we’re unsure of. Timestamps are approximate. [00:00] Dave Roetman: This is the Making Waves Podcast. My name is Dave Roetman. We’re here with Amanda Radke, a grassroots activist and leader. Welcome, Amanda. Thanks for having me. Thanks for being on. I understand that you started a new organization. Could you tell us a little bit about that? Amanda Radke: Yeah, sure. Well, I just got to say it’s been a while since we’ve been able to reconnect. You had interviewed us early on in our RL 21 fight, which of course was a victorious achievement in defeating that bad bill in 65 of 66 counties with 60% of the vote. And so appreciate your support back then. As we’ve moved forward in this land owner fight with many property rights battles that we’ve kind of walked through the fire on and are on the other side, we felt it was maybe important to start getting organized beyond just, how we’ve been kind of just battling it as we come. And so we’ve started an organization called American Land and Legacy, which is basically just going to be a land page for landowners to be able to communicate and get updates on bills and to understand where there’s action items and so that kind of rolled out here a few weeks ago and in conjunction with our fourth property rights rally that we hosted at the Capitol Rotunda which you know with the passage of HB 1052 to eliminate eminent domain for CO2 pipelines, which we’ve heard from so many people in states across the country that are emulating that legislation. We didn’t realize the impact we would have. In fact, Iowa is using the same language right now that they’re considering in the Senate as we speak. But we had this fourth rally, and I thought, maybe now that that immediate threat is gone for so many people that maybe this movement would quiet down but it continues to grow and pick up steam and it was our second largest rally and the best part about it was is that there were I would say 50 percent of the people in attendance were brand new faces that we had never seen before. A lot more West River people they’re realizing that there are a lot of threats and encroachments on their property rights coming down the pike as well. And so it’s been very encouraging to see the momentum grow and the conversations continue and really it’s uniting people, I believe, in every corner of the state of South Dakota. Dave Roetman: That is wonderful to hear. I say it all the time is that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and you cannot just vote, every couple of years. And expect that there’s going to be good outcomes, you have to watch the watchmen. And you have to be holding the feet to the fire of legislators and you have to see what they’re doing. So that’s wonderful that you’ve got that organization and that you’re continuing the fight. Amanda Radke: Yeah, and we still, some of us chuckle, when some of the farmers that were impacted early on by this pipeline first showed up to Pierre, they wore plaid shirts and blue jeans. And there was even an article written about them about how the farmers were breaking decorum in the Capitol. So that’s forward [?] artwork [?] They got to the Capitol, they realized that really a lot of the politicians were really owned by the donor class and the lobbyists and they didn’t care. And yet they’ll campaign on agriculture and that farming and ranching is the backbone of their state, but yet they didn’t want the farmers and ranchers at the Capitol. And so I think the farmers and ranchers of the state have a lot to be proud of. They’ve achieved a lot. They’ve changed the conversation in Pierre. They’ve changed the legislative makeup of our elected officials in Pierre in a lot of ways. And so I’m just proud of the agricultural community. And really now I’m seeing with so many projects coming down the pike, including things like data centers coming into the Sioux Falls and Brandon area, that this conversation is going. Into urban areas where the message is pretty clear. We’re not against projects. We just want the opportunity for local control to be upheld, for community members to be able to have the conversations and be able to have that input to express their concerns, and ultimately for property rights to be protected. And so it’s urban, rural. It truly is connecting so many great people and so I smile because it’s just that momentum is just picking up steam and I’m excited to see what the people of South Dakota can get done next. Dave Roetman: As a man who lives in Sioux Falls I can tell you that property rights is an issue in urban areas. It’s not just rural. There are different threats to property in the rural areas as opposed to urban. But the principles remain the same and the solutions I think remain the same and I think that you’re absolutely right. It’s picking up steam all over the country as you’ve noticed. Let’s talk a little bit about what’s happening now in the legislative session. I understand that you recently testified in the legislature. Could you tell us which bill you testified about and what was the outcome? Amanda Radke: Sure, so the bill is House Joint Resolution 5001 sponsored by Representative Spencer Gosch in the House and then Senator Mark Lapka and really it focuses on eliminating eminent domain for private gain that goes all the way back to that Kelo versus New London decision at the Supreme Court that split decision that I really think one day will be overturned. [05:00] If folks want to learn more about that case, I would encourage them to go watch the movie Little Pink House on Amazon Prime. It is a true story of a woman who lived in an urban area in a little pink house and a Pfizer manufacturing company wanted to develop and build a business there. And that went all the way to the Supreme Court where they determined that for the economic development of the community, they could seize through condemnation, her little pink house and a whole host of houses as well. And so her house was condemned, it was tore down, and then Pfizer never actually built and it’s a bare lot now. And so it continues the conversation now to here and today, if you have a corner lot in Sioux Falls. And a strip mall or a convenience store wants to come in and the government can justify under economic development or increasing the tax base that this company can make more money and add more value than you can the homeowner. Right now as it sits that is something that can happen and has happened in the state of South Dakota as we’ve seen by the 160 landowners that were condemned for a Green New Deal carbon sequestration pipeline. 5001 seeks to not change the constitution but fortify within our state constitution what the founding fathers intended when they talked about property rights and so over time we’ve seen that distorted to be used for things like economic development and we wanted to get back to the basics and so one of the misnomers is that people think it’s all encompassing. It doesn’t impact utilities like water or electricity. It doesn’t impact those very basic things that people need to heat their homes and to survive. It would perhaps touch things like data centers. A lot of people don’t realize that those data centers are going to have a huge footprin

    Interview: Amanda Radke

  7. Jan 26

    Interview with Senator Mykala Voita, District 21

    Senator Mykala Voita of South Dakota Senate District 21 joins Dave Roetman to discuss her work on the Appropriations Committee during the 2026 session. Voita reports on a summer study of community support providers, which serve people with intellectual and behavioral disabilities and would be 9.3% or $21.9 million behind their costs under the governor’s recommended budget. She describes an appropriations work group seeking 5% general fund cuts, including unused “phantom” FTEs, and argues the state budgets at too high a level to see program costs, noting a missed chance for deeper detail in the Bison accounting system upgrade. She also discusses SCR 604, designating July as a month of prayer and fasting, SB 124 on lab-grown meat with Representative John Sjaarda, a direct-to-consumer beef sales trigger bill, and her support for SB 88. Topics: Appropriations Committee, community support providers, Medicaid, state budget cuts, phantom FTEs, Bison accounting system, government transparency, SCR 604, prayer and fasting, SB 124, lab-grown meat, direct beef sales “The Legislature is the people’s arm of government. When you have the Executive branch running the show, not getting the details to the Legislative Branch, you are effectively cutting out the people in that process, and I don’t think that’s right.” - Mykala Voita Mykala Voita campaign website HB 1057 prohibit the manufacture, sale, and distribution of any product containing cell-cultured protein, and to provide a penalty therefor. SB 88 clarify the procedure for a potential condemnor to examine real property absent the property owner's permission. SB 124 temporarily prohibit the manufacture, sale, and distribution of any product containing cell-cultured protein, and to provide a penalty therefor. HB 1064 provide for the sale of producer-raised meat and meat food products directly to consumers pending legalization under federal law. SCR 604 urging the people of the state of South Dakota to return to the Lord Most High, the Almighty and Uncreate, and plead for His mercy upon the state. Full transcript About this transcript: It was machine-transcribed in-house and then edited for readability. Filler words and false starts are removed, and the meaning is unchanged. [?] marks a word or phrase we’re unsure of. Timestamps are approximate. [00:00] Dave Roetman: This is the Making Waves podcast. My name is Dave Roetman. We’re here with Mykala Voita, senator from District 21. Welcome, Mykala. Mykala Voita: Hey, Dave. Thanks for having me again. Dave Roetman: Absolutely. Your last podcast was very popular, so I’m happy to have you on again. Let’s just get right into it. You were on a summer study about the community support providers. Could you tell us a little bit about how that went and what are the issues that are going on with them? Mykala Voita: First of all, community support providers, they are the folks who basically contract for the state, fulfilling a constitutional duty to care for people with intellectual and behavioral disabilities. These guys, they’re pretty much completely funded by Medicaid, the Medicaid program. There’s several different waivers that they operate under. I won’t get into all the nitty-gritty detail on that because we could be here for a long time, but the summer study was focusing on trying to find efficiencies in both the state and federal methodologies and our waivers. Because, with inflation, costs go up, trying to retain good help, we just see that the delta between what we are funding at the methodology rate and their actual cost, it just keeps growing. We came out of that summer study recommending the Division of Developmental Disabilities to work on their new waiver, which will be renewed in 2027. So they’re already starting to work on that. And we’re trying to work in some changes in billing and stuff like that that we hope will take some of the administrative burden back off of these folks. Other than that, we just we’re going to have to put our brains together and come up with something creative to find another revenue stream to help keep the ongoing dollars that is the state’s duty to fund, keep that level up. In 2023, the community support providers were funded at 100% of their methodology, so 100% of their cost. That gap has been growing since. Currently, if we don’t do anything other than the governor’s recommended budget this year, they’re going to be 9.3% behind or $21.9 million in total, unfunded services. $10.8 million of that will be the state share. That’s where we’re at with that so I hope that we can work a little bit something out to catch some of that up. Dave Roetman: That’s a large gap in a very short period of time and that’s largely due to inflation? Mykala Voita: Yeah inflationary increase workforce I mean we know that everything just keeps going up. Dave Roetman: Yeah, and it’s important work, and it’s constitutionally mandated. Yes. All right, well, I hope we can resolve that problem. You’re also, besides appropriations, and you’re on a subcommittee. Could you tell us a little bit about the subcommittee and what that’s about? Mykala Voita: I got put on a subcommittee. We’re calling it the 5% cut. What we’re doing is we’re looking for 5% reductions in the general fund budget. Our state budget, we have general funds. Federal funds and other funds. We are trying to find places where we can find reductions, unutilized FTEs, analyzing different rates that we use to calculate our budgets, our revenue, and see can we put our heads together and find 5% that we can cut from the general fund. It’s been very interesting trying to dig into this and I actually started digging into this back in during the interim because this is something that has been one of my goals since I’ve been on appropriations. The problem that I’m finding, the problem that I’m running into is that we budget at such a high level that when we have agencies come in, they give us their budget hearing. A lot of the agencies have different divisions underneath their agency and the level that we budget at, so where we can actually see the state accounting system. It’s so high that, we don’t have the details of what programs are actually operating under each of these. Divisions, or they’re called budget centers. We don’t get to see the actual budget cost of each program. So when you’re trying to find efficiencies and programs that aren’t necessary or statutorily required, it takes a lot of investigative work. Trying to get information from the agency. Trying to dig into actual raw numbers because you can’t get information from the agency. It’s going to be interesting to see what we can come up with. We’ve got a list of several things that we asked staff to help us find. We’re creating a list of unutilized FTEs, we call them phantom FTEs. There’s agencies that have over-budgeted allotments of FTEs that are historically unused. [05:00] They just sit there open. When it comes to the next year, those could come back in reversions and that’ll be where some of your one-time funding comes in that the state always fights over. Another thing that contributes to one-time funding is under forecasting revenues. If you set your revenue projections and you have your budget actuals come in, and you have extra money, well that’s another thing that’s going to get tucked in as excess or can get tucked in as excess that next fiscal year. Another thing is looking at Department of Education trends. I will give the department this they did finally lower their projected student enrollment this year which historically they had been holding out. They had been over budgeting for what the actual student enrollment was so that left extra money in that part of the budget. Another place is the medicaid enrollment and medicaid eligibles versus what was utilized there’s a lot that goes into that trying to find the historical forecast of are we over budgeting there because once again that’s extra money that it’s gonna get it’s going to get stuck in other places. So it’s just it’s very interesting. It’s been a very thorough learning process for me really digging into the nitty-gritty of all this. Dave Roetman: Sounds like that’s a lot of detail. This is something that’s going to go on just this legislative session or is this going to be an ongoing thing throughout the year? The subcommittee. Mykala Voita: Well this is it’s one of our appropriations work groups. We are slated to meet up to five times and then report to the committee with our findings. I think this is something that should be continually done by people that are on appropriations. If we could budget at a deeper level than we do right now. That would require a very committed, appropriations committee, but in my opinion, that is what the appropriations committee’s job is. The legislature is the people’s arm of government. When you have the executive branch running the show, not getting the detail to the legislative branch, you’re effectively cutting out the people in that process, and I don’t think that’s right. Dave Roetman: Yeah, it sounds to me like there needs more transparency in government here. Mykala Voita: So good luck with that. Oh, we had a great opportunity to push for that with this project Bison that’s coming online soon. They’re making changes to the accounting system and how the state can share records and stuff like that. It’s just a huge upgrade because we were operating a dinosaur in South Dakota. Dave Roetman: Tell us about that. What is Bison? Mykala Voita: It’s a tech IT project. They’re updating all of the accounting stuff. There’s going to be way more transparency, way more checks and balances to help combat possible fraud, stuff like that. And when they were designing this, we had discussions. Do we as the legislature do we as the appropriations com

    Interview with Senator Mykala Voita, District 21

  8. Jan 21

    What is the Future Fund? Small Town Nursing Homes Shutting Their Doors - What Can Be Do?

    Representative Marty Overweg of South Dakota House District 21, the Assistant House Majority Leader, joins Dave Roetman early in the 2026 session to discuss the Future Fund and small-town nursing homes. Overweg explains that the Future Fund, funded by about $24 million a year from unemployment insurance, is spent at the governor’s discretion, and describes a bill from GOAC, which he co-chairs, to put guardrails on it in statute rather than rely on a recent executive order. He then describes a bipartisan bill with Representative Erik Muckey, prompted by the closing of the Good Sam nursing home in Corsica, to bar non-compete clauses when medical facilities are sold in underserved areas or towns of 3,000 or fewer. He also discusses the budget reserve, about 900 drafted bills, and pressures on the state budget. Topics: Future Fund, GOED, legislative oversight, GOAC, executive order, nursing home closures, non-compete clauses, Good Sam, Sanford, state budget reserve, rural health care There’s dignity in being born, there’s dignity in life, and there’s dignity in death. And when you go to the nursing home, those people are going there and that’s probably the last place they are going to life. They need dignity.” - Marty Overweg. Legislative Research Council - Links to video of Committee meetings here SB 1 - amend the process by which moneys are distributed from the employer's investment in South Dakota's future fund. Corsica leaders want nursing home to stay Future Fund deadlock reflects deeper wedge over economic development in South Dakota Full transcript About this transcript: It was machine-transcribed in-house and then edited for readability. Filler words and false starts are removed, and the meaning is unchanged. [?] marks a word or phrase we’re unsure of. Timestamps are approximate. [00:00] Dave Roetman: This is the Making Waves Podcast. My name is Dave Roetman. We’re here with Marty Overweg. Marty, welcome. Marty Overweg: Hey, thanks Dave. It’s always good to be here. I’ve been here before and I enjoy it. Dave Roetman: Could you tell us what district you’re representing? Marty Overweg: I represent District 21. I’m the assistant majority leader in the House of Representatives. I sit and chair on the Ag and Natural Resources Committee. I’m vice chair of state affairs and I’m also in the summertime in the interim committee. I’m co-chair of GOAC. Which is government oversight and accountability. Dave Roetman: Those are all very important committees. Thanks for being with us. Marty Overweg: Well, yeah, I like them. They’re fun. A lot of action. Dave Roetman: Speaking of action, the Future Fund was recently in the news. Can you explain to us what the Future Fund is. Marty Overweg: Sometimes a future fund gets mixed up with GOED, which stands for Government or the Governors. Office economic development. That is a board that businesses can go to for, oh, if they’re going to employ enough people. There’s a bunch of different walkthroughs that they can get and they have to go to a board sometime to get matching money. Sometime they can get their tax, their sales tax on equipment back. But then the future fund. Now the future fund is different. That is the fund, whoever the governor is, that governor holds in his hand that whole fund. And they can write checks to anybody. If you remember when Kristi Noem was governor and she just paid for the advertising on the race car. She just was able to do that on her own without checking basically with anybody. And the future fund is funded by unemployment insurance. So for the unemployment insurance that a business pays, a certain amount of that. Goes into this future fund. And it’s about $24 million a year that the governor gets at his discretion or her discretion. So we’ve been working on actually GOAC came with a bill as a committee this year and it’s in the Senate right now to put some guardrails up. Some pretty good guardrails. More checks and balances have to go through some more committees before they just go out and spend the money. Lately in the news has been the $69 million that that the Future Fund gave to the CJ Swans [?], the new building in Sioux Falls. That’s in the news. That was GOED and Future Fund money to up to the tune of $69 million. Now whether you agree with the Future Fund or you don’t, it. It’s still good government to have legislative overwatch. And where people get mixed up is, yes, there is overwatch in the board of internal controls, but only the state auditor is the only elected Official on that board. The rest of them are all either appointed by who’s ever governor or by people who was appointed by the governor. So we’re trying, the legislative branch is the people’s voice. So we think that the legislature should have some overwatch and some guardrails up on who’s ever just spending this money. Dave Roetman: That seems obvious to me. I mean, this is money that’s been taxed away, because that’s taxed. The legislature’s literally the branch of government that’s supposed to appropriate money. Marty Overweg: Yeah. So we’re having a hard time. Of course, the governor’s office does not like our bill, does not like to be, have any controls. So we’ll see where that goes. If you know, the governor two days ago put out an EO, the executive order, and it put a lot of our guardrails on. The future fund but they don’t want it in statute it’s just an executive order which means it can go away yeah we want to take some of those same guardrails in our own and we want to put them in statute because you know You gotta remember, elections have consequences. Eleven months from now, we might have a whole new governor, we might have a whole new legislature, we could have a whole new board, and so that’s important for us to put rules for the future. At least I believe it is important. But I’m a legislator. Dave Roetman: I’d agree with that. I mean, this is more than just, I think, a difference of opinion between the two branches. This is actually a fundamental part of government. Marty Overweg: Absolutely. It’s the people’s tax money, or the people’s money. It needs to be watched where it’s going. Dave Roetman: All right, fair enough. Now there’s another bill that you’ve recently dropped. It’s a bipartisan bill and it has to do with nursing homes. Yeah, so. Marty Overweg: The town I live by, 10 miles from, is Corsica. [05:00] And you probably have heard it in the news. It was a Good Sam home. Sanford, who owns Good Sam, they shut the doors on it. The problem is the community would like to try and keep that nursing home. Or in some sort of medical practice in there, whether it’s a leisure living, trying something. But what Sanford does is they’ll sell it but with a non-compete. So that means you could never put any medical facility in that building ever. Even to the next person you sell it to. It’s a lifelong forever and it’s just... It’s horrible because these nonprofits like Sanford and Good Sam, they don’t want to be a part of the small community, but they also don’t want anybody else to. It’s kind of like a little kid. It doesn’t want to play the toy, but won’t let anybody else do it. So I’m working this bill with Erik Muckey. So it’s a bipartisan. Republican-Democrat bill, and we’re gonna try to put some guardrails on and say that if you’re in an underserved area, which is a lot of the state, or in a community of 3,000 or less, that nobody may sell a medical facility of any kind with a non-compete. Dave Roetman: It’s very interesting that this would be happening. Most small towns have some sort of nursing home. And it’s expensive to build a facility like that. And what do you do with a facility that’s designed to be a nursing home if you’re not using it for a nursing home? Marty Overweg: Absolutely. And then that goes the problem. It’s very important. If we learn anything through COVID, Dave, is... There’s dignity in being born, there’s dignity in life, and there’s dignity in death. And when you go to the nursing home, most people are going there and that’s probably the last place they’re gonna live. They need dignity and they need to be treated. They need to see the kids on the weekend, the grandkids. If we start making our elderly go to nursing homes 100 miles or even 80, 50 miles away from home. They don’t get seen, they don’t get visited, right? This is so important for life to keep these in small-town nursing homes if we can. We’re putting in this bill. Hopefully we can change Good Sam and Sanford’s mind and they’ll come to the table. I don’t know. It’s always hard to go up against those. Dave Roetman: They’re big corporations even though they’re non-profit. Well, good luck. That sounds like a just cause. Marty Overweg: Yeah, thank you. Dave Roetman: How is session going so far? It’s only been a weekend. Give us the temperature of the room. Marty Overweg: Well, it’s early. We’ve had some stuff happen, but nothing unbearable. Your second year of your session usually goes quicker because we have more bills. The new people have a year underneath their belt, so committees get going right away. We’re moving bills out of committee already. I mean, if you’re watching, we’re working. Another thing is, yeah, and for your listeners, all the committee rooms now have video along with audio. That’s awesome. Yeah, so you can watch me. My wife tells me how bald I’m getting now. You know if everybody listened to the governor’s this is one thing where that we’re starting to talk about now already is the governor and his in his budget said he wanted to move the slush fund. From 10%, which we normally carry every year just in case for emergencies, up to 12.5%, I think. And you can check my numbers, but I think that’s around 70 or 80 million dollars. He left $14 million on the bottom line, whic

See All (77)

About

South Dakota politics, straight from the people making the decisions. Host Dave Roetman interviews South Dakota legislators, statewide officials and candidates about public policy, legislation, issues advocacy and South Dakota ballot issues. Every episode is a long-form conversation with the person who wrote the bill, cast the vote, or is asking for yours. Guests have included Attorney General Marty Jackley, State Treasurer Josh Haeder, Commissioner Brock Greenfield, Sen. Chris Karr, Rep. Scott Odenbach, Sen. Mykala Voita, Sen. Taffy Howard, Sen. Kevin Jensen, Rep. John Hughes and Don Haggar. Dave Roetman is a conservative civic and campaign activist in Sioux Falls. The show is free. Full episodes and show notes: https://daveroetman.substack.com Follow on X: https://x.com/DaveRoetman Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61594671035802 Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@DaveRoetman daveroetman.substack.com

Information