South Dakota’s legislature is currently embroiled in a heated debate over Senate Bill 223, a proposal introduced by Sen. Sue Peterson, R-Sioux Falls. This bill seeks to make significant changes to the process of referring school district opt-outs to a vote, a move that has sparked controversy across the state.
Senate Bill 223, if passed, would provide petitioners more time—doubling the current period from 20 days to 40 days—to gather signatures for school district opt-out elections. It also modifies the signature requirement, necessitating signatures from 5% of those who voted in the last school district election or at least 50 voters, whichever is greater. This legislation represents a push towards easing the pathway for taxpayers to challenge local school board decisions.
Supporters of the bill, including its sponsor, Sen. Peterson, have framed it as a property tax relief measure. They argue that it makes the process of holding a referendum on school district opt-outs more attainable. Opponents, however, perceive it as an attack on public education, fearing it could destabilize the budgets of school districts across the state.
Sioux Falls School District Superintendent Jamie Nold was vocal in his opposition, expressing concerns that the bill threatens public schools’ ability to balance budgets and maintain local control. Nold emphasized that the existing system already allows for public input on budget-related decisions through board meetings and elections.
Larry Rhoden
The Sioux Falls School District, like many others in South Dakota, often opts out to secure additional funding beyond what is provided through existing tax levies and state aid. However, the recent attempt to gather sufficient signatures to demand a vote on a $21 million opt-out fell short, with only 2,302 signatures collected out of the required 5,490.
The implications of Senate Bill 223 were highlighted by the dramatically low voter turnout in the last school district election, with just 2.33% of eligible voters participating. Under these circumstances, the reduced signature requirements proposed by SB 223 would have significantly lowered the hurdle to refer such opt-outs to a public vote, requiring only 148 signatures instead of thousands.
While the bill passed the Senate and a committee vote, it faces scrutiny and mixed opinions in the House. Critics argue the changes would make it too easy to disrupt important fiscal decisions made by school boards, potentially costing the Sioux Falls School District $63,000 for additional elections held in odd-numbered years.
Detractors like Heath Larson, lobbyist for the Associated School Boards of South Dakota, suggest that the current system reflects community trust in school boards. “Maybe the people in the local community are supportive of what the local school board is doing, and they trust their local school boards,” Larson stated.
Awaiting a decision from Governor Larry Rhoden, SB 223 embodies broader tensions in South Dakota’s fiscal and educational landscape. The need for balance between governance efficiency and public oversight remains a core concern as the state navigates its educational funding priorities.
Stakeholders from across South Dakota, both in and out of Sioux Falls, anxiously watch the bill’s progression. The outcome will shape not only local education funding but also set a precedent for how citizen involvement in such financial decisions can be facilitated in the future.