The Battle Over South Dakota’s National Guard Deployment
The state of South Dakota finds itself at a crossroads, with the local Senate rejecting a controversial bill that sought to limit the circumstances under which the state’s National Guard can be deployed. At the heart of this legislative battle is Senator Tom Pischke from Dell Rapids, who introduced the bill with the aim of requiring either an official declaration of war or Congressional action before the South Dakota National Guard could be deployed.
Pischke’s reasoning is steeped in a deep respect for historical principles. “The founding fathers, wary of unchecked power, ensured the power to wage war rested with the representatives of the people,” he asserted. “Not with a single executive, not with military strategists, and certainly not through bureaucratic loopholes or executive fiat.”
This legislative move has sparked intense debates among South Dakota lawmakers, particularly among those who have previously served in the military. One such voice is that of Republican Senator Glen Vilhauer from Watertown, who opposes the bill, highlighting the evolving role of the National Guard. “I joined the National Guard, not the state guard,” he stated, emphasizing the national implications of their duties.
Mark Morrell
Opposition also came from the highest levels of the South Dakota National Guard. Adjutant General Mark Morrell has been a vocal critic, arguing that the National Guard serves as a crucial combat reserve for both the Army and Air Force. “We stand ready to defend our nation at home and abroad,” Morrell wrote, emphasizing the dual readiness to respond to domestic crises and overseas conflicts.
Morrell believes that the issue Pischke’s bill attempts to address is fundamentally a federal one, best resolved through dialogue with South Dakota’s delegation in the US Congress. “A resolution is best found in dialogue with our delegation in the US Congress,” he stated, appreciating the legislative decision to defeat the bill and affirming the role of the National Guard in South Dakota’s strength, safety, and freedom.
The proposed bill, SB 82, intended to create a state law to restrict the federal mobilization of the South Dakota National Guard, was not just a local legislative concern but part of a broader national discussion about the balance of power between state and federal military responsibilities. The conversation reached into the heart of discussions about states’ rights and the responsibilities of citizen-soldiers, noteworthy in South Dakota’s political landscape.
Throughout the debate, voices from within the state capital in Pierre to rural towns like Dell Rapids and Watertown engaged in this narrative, all focusing on the core principles regarding who should have the authority to deploy the state’s military forces.
Meanwhile, South Dakota’s communities continue to look to their National Guard not just in terms of military readiness but as integral members of their localities—neighbors, friends, and family members who are deeply woven into the fabric of South Dakota life. These citizen-warriors embody the spirit of self-governance that the state holds dear.
The Senate’s decision to reject the bill may close a chapter in this ongoing narrative, but it underscores the complexity of governing such a unique dual-purpose force as the National Guard. With its roots firmly planted in the defense of the nation and its state, discussions on the Guard’s role are sure to continue.
As South Dakota continues to navigate these legislative waters, the state’s leaders are challenged to balance state interests with national obligations, ensuring that their policies reflect both the heritage and future aspirations of its citizens.