By 
PIERRE — Political gamesmanship thrust simmering disputes around data centers, electricity generation, nicotine sales and a long-held constitutional standard in the South Dakota Legislature into the political spotlight this week.
But it’s who didn’t cast any votes from the floor of the state Senate who’s taking the most flak following a historic day at the state Capitol Tuesday.
With the Legislature’s “crossover day” deadline upon lawmakers — that’s the final day for legislation to win approval from the chamber in which it originated — an already heavy calendar stretched into the evening.
Some blame a series of procedural maneuvers. Some blame Piedmont Sen. John Carley’s unannounced and unexplained absence from the Capitol building
“What have we experienced the last few days? Accusations of gamesmanship, accusations of individuals trying to lobby the presiding officer. What does this kind of holding, which defines the role of Lieutenant Governor in the Senate, encourage? It encourages just that, the gamesmanship that we’ve seen and experienced,” said Sen. Chris Karr in the waning moments of the day’s Senate proceedings and hours after a hunt for Carley had begun.
Dodging a tie-breaker
While it’s not certain where Carley went or why he did not attend afternoon proceedings, his absence dashed hopes data center–friendly legislators in the Senate had that previously defeated legislation championed as pro-economic development could advance.
While Carley had already cast votes this week opposing both Senate Bill 193 and Senate Bill 239 — which propose adjustments to South Dakota’s tax and regulatory laws to attract large-scale data centers — his absence meant the Senate president — Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen — would not be asked to break any tie votes.
Because Sen. Arch Beal is absent this year due to health issues — excused by legislative leaders — the 35-member Senate has been operating with 34 members. That’s created a dynamic where proponents of legislation that the body is evenly divided or nearly so can be advantaged by having opponents present if the lieutenant governor is a reliable ally. In contrast, without an even number of senators casting votes, there’s no scenario in which senators would be deadlocked.
The political posturing and the friction around the Senate president’s influence on legislative policy decisions has festered throughout this year’s legislative session.
Karr, the Senate president pro tempore, earlier this year challenged the lieutenant governor’s authority to break tie votes on constitutional grounds. The South Dakota Supreme Court earlier this month affirmed that the lieutenant governor, when acting as Senate president, has the constitutional authority to break ties.
Until Tuesday, senators had largely maintained levity around the divide over the role of the lieutenant governor in Senate proceedings. But it became clear that was no longer the case when Carley’s absence was seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid reconsideration of Senate Bill 193 and Senate Bill 239.
Moving on
Carley’s opponents on the data center measures invoked an obscure legislative rule requiring leadership or the sergeant at arms — the Legislature’s security arm — to locate an absent senator and compel his attendance.
After nearly an hour’s delay, Venhuizen informed the Senate that Carley had last been seen in the back of the chamber lobby shortly before noon and that his car was no longer at the Capitol. Multiple attempts to contact him by legislative leaders, the sergeant at arms and Gov. Larry Rhoden were unsuccessful, Venhuizen said, citing a report delivered minutes earlier.
“They have searched all the offices in the building and have not found him,” Venhuizen said.
The Dakota Scout was also unable to reach Carley for comment Tuesday. Calls and texts went unreturned.
With his whereabout still unknown, the Senate then faced a choice: proceed without him or wait.
Led by Sen. Mike Rohl of Aberdeen, a group of senators pushed to delay votes on SB 239 and SB 193. When that effort failed, Rohl moved to force debate on 10 bills that otherwise would not have required discussion, having cleared committee with bipartisan support and little opposition.
“We all know what today is, we all know the importance, we’re all elected to be in our seats making these votes,” the District 1 senator said.
But after a majority of senators opted to move forward with votes — both measures again met defeat.
“We have the Sargent at arms report and we see he wasn’t here — I don’t think he was even here for caucus so I don’t see the point in sitting here all night waiting to find Sen. Carley,” said Sen. Mykala Voita, one of 19 senators who either grew impatient or saw political advantage in proceeding without Carley’s presence. His absence eliminated the possibility of a tie vote on the reconsidered bills, each of which had failed by a single-vote margin the previous day.
Rohl wasn’t done, though, later forcing another delay of the day’s proceedings by demanding that an unrelated bill be read in full from the floor. He began reading portions himself after Carley allies suggested the legislative clerk not shoulder the task.
Rohl told The Dakota Scout on Tuesday evening that his motivations were not rooted in support for SB 239 but in holding Carley accountable to the Legislature and his District 29 constituents.
Venhuizen responds
The procedural fight spilled into other crossover-day legislation, including a proposal to ask voters whether the lieutenant governor should continue serving as president of the Senate.
Senate Joint Resolution 508 would place that constitutional question on the November ballot. It passed Tuesday with 19 votes in the Senate and now heads to the House.
Venhuizen told The Dakota Scout he enforces Senate rules uniformly and without political or personal interest.
“My job as the president of the Senate is to run the room the right way without bias, and thats what I’ve tried to do. We’ve had an unusual couple of days with all the motions being made, but thats up to the senators. My job is just to apply the rules,” Venhuizen said, noting that in 2023 he voted against a similar proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot. “If there’s a tie, I’m allowed to break the tie. I’m not sitting up there cheering for ties or maneuvering for ties.”
