In a significant development from South Dakota’s state legislature, a proposed bill, known as Senate Bill 82, aimed at limiting the circumstances under which the state’s National Guard could be deployed, was decisively defeated on the Senate floor. The legislation, introduced by Sen. Tom Pischke, co-majority whip from Dell Rapids, sought to ensure that an official declaration of war or Congressional action would be required before deploying the state Guard.
Mark Morrell
The debates surrounding the bill brought to light the rich tapestry of South Dakota’s political, social, and military landscape. An area graced with the vistas of the Black Hills and driven by a robust agricultural sector, South Dakota values both its deep roots in American history and its progressive steps towards the future. It is within this environment that the discussion of SB 82 unfolded, engaging both legislators and citizens in a dialogue that echoes on a national level.
Sen. Tom Pischke articulated a vision that aligns with that of the founding fathers, emphasizing, “The founding fathers, wary of unchecked power, ensured the power to wage war rested with the representatives of the people. Not with a single executive, not with military strategists, and certainly not through bureaucratic loopholes or executive fiat.” His stance resonates with many South Dakotans who cherish their democratic freedoms and the historical legacy of their state.
However, opposition was fierce. One notable voice was that of Watertown Republican Sen. Glen Vilhauer, a veteran with personal ties to the National Guard. His perspective is enriched by the experience and ethos of the Guard’s commitment to both state and national defense. Vilhauer stated, “When I joined the Guard, the oath I took said I would protect and preserve the Constitution of South Dakota, as well as the preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States. I’m going to borrow a term from my colleague across the aisle here – I joined the National Guard, not the state guard. Please vote against this.”
Glen Vilhauer
In his opposition, South Dakota National Guard Adjutant General Mark Morrell highlighted the multi-faceted roles that the state’s guardsmen and women play. “Gov. Rhoden’s priorities are making sure that SD remains strong, safe, and free. The South Dakota National Guard (SDNG) members and their families across our great state play a vital role in each of those. We are a trained and ready military force who are the primary combat reserve of the Army and Air Force and we stand ready to defend our nation at home and abroad.” His commitment underlines the ready state of the Guard whenever called upon, whether it be deployment overseas or responding to crises within South Dakota.
The bill, according to Morrell, attempted to address a federal issue better resolved through dialogue at the Congressional level. “SB 82 sought to create a state law attempting to restrict the federal mobilization of the South Dakota National Guard,” Morrell observed. He further emphasized, “In short, the bill tries to solve a federal issue, and a resolution is best found in dialogue with our delegation in the US Congress.” The defeat of the bill was viewed as a reaffirmation of the Guard’s current operational dynamics.
This outcome has profound implications for South Dakota and its residents, who view the National Guard as an integral part of both their military heritage and community life. Known for its wide-open spaces and friendly small-town atmospheres, South Dakota relies heavily on the presence and contributions of its National Guard, not only for protection but also in terms of community involvement and civic pride.
Ultimately, the legislature, through this decision, aligned itself with the sentiment expressed by Morrell, who expressed his appreciation: “As citizen-warriors, we are committed to this grand experiment in self-governance. So we value the spirited and respectful debate and dialogue in working on different legislative ideas.”
South Dakota’s political landscape, colorful and diverse as its scenic trails and prairie lands, continues to evolve with each legislative session. The discussions around SB 82 have not only highlighted issues of governance and military readiness but also served as a reminder of the state’s commitment to both its historical ideals and its future aspirations.