The Anchor of the Closed Loop: A Portrait of Administrative Neglect
In the hierarchy of South Dakota county government, the State’s Attorney is the chief law enforcement officer. They are the sworn gatekeeper of the law, tasked with ensuring that both citizens and government boards play by the rules found in the South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL).
But what happens when the gatekeeper decides the law is optional?
In one South Dakota county, the State’s Attorney has become the “anchor” of a system that protects government non-compliance at the expense of taxpayer rights. Here is the succinct reality of how that loop operates:
1. The Doctrine of “Accepted Procedure”
When presented with documented evidence of a local board violating state statutes, this State’s Attorney issued a staggering justification: Because the board had been breaking the law for so long, the illegal actions were now considered “accepted procedure.” By this logic, a law only exists if it is followed; if a board ignores it habitually, the law simply ceases to apply.
2. Willful Blindness as a Policy
Transparency is the enemy of the closed loop. When residents provided this State’s Attorney with a copy of a board’s internal “bylaws”—documents being used to justify the illegal ousting of an elected official—the State’s Attorney’s response was a flat refusal to even read them. By remaining willfully blind to the evidence, the office ensures it never has to prosecute its political allies.
3. Ignoring the State’s Highest Legal Office
The State’s Attorney’s role includes interpreting the law for county officials. However, when the South Dakota Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion confirming that residents had a legal right to petition for withdrawal from a specific district, this State’s Attorney ignored it. She allowed the county to keep residents “hostage” in an unauthorized taxing district, effectively overruling the state’s highest legal authority to protect a local revenue stream.
4. The “Hire a Lawyer” Shufflestep
Perhaps the most egregious act of this office is telling residents who report documented fraud to “just hire a private lawyer.” The State’s Attorney is paid by taxpayers to enforce the law. When she tells a resident to spend their life savings on a private lawsuit to force a board to follow the SDCL, she is effectively saying that justice in her county is a “pay-to-play” system.
5. Weaponizing the Police
The loop closes when the State’s Attorney allows law enforcement to be used as a tool of intimidation. When a resident uses satire and public records to expose these failures, this office allows “cyber-harassment” reports to be filed against the whistleblower. It is a clear attempt to use the threat of criminal prosecution to protect a corrupt status quo.
Conclusion
A State’s Attorney who refuses to read the evidence, ignores the Attorney General, and protects illegal “procedures” is not a prosecutor; they are a bodyguard for the government. Until this “anchor” is held accountable to her oath, the law in this county will remain whatever the boards want it to be.