Rep. JD Wangsness is seeking re-election to the South Dakota state House after voters first sent him to Pierre in 2022. Prior to his current term, Wansgness served in the House after being appointed by Gov. Kristi Noem. He served as one of the Majority Whips during the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions. He faces fellow incumbent Rep. Scott Moore and former House Speaker Spencer Gosch in his 2024 re-election bid.
Wangness’ District 23 consists of the communities of Eureka, Miller, Mobridge, and Glenham. It stretches east to the edge of Aberdeen.
The Dakota Scout sent a series of questions to all legislative candidates running in contested races for the state House and Senate in the June 4 primary election. Candidates were asked to limit their responses to each question to 150 words or less.
Age:Â 53
City of residence: Miller
Profession:Â 4th generation farmer/rancher
Public service/community service experience: Seven years on the Hand County Commission, three years in the state House of Representatives
Family information: Wife Tina, son Ben (16)
1) What's the government's role in facilitating economic development in South Dakota?
Primarily, get out of the way. Let capitalism work. A low tax, low regulation business environment, that encourages economic development is what our state needs. Limited government at the federal, state and local levels is best for South Dakota.Â
2) If you could have dinner with any person, dead or alive, who would it be and why?
My first wife. She passed away a couple years ago from cancer. She was a wise woman and I would like to have her input on how I’m doing.
3) Does the "Landowner Bill of Rights" -- adopted by the Legislature amid opposition to carbon pipeline companies using eminent domain -- strike the right balance between the interests of property owners, counties and the ag industry - and should voters get a say when they head to the polls in November?
Yes, SB 201 provides significant protections for landowners in the unfortunate circumstance that Eminent Domain is exercised.Â
The surcharge provides an annual payment to landowners impacted by the pipeline and revenue for counties, something both were asking for. (Also, counties should not be unilaterally zoning economic development out of existence, remember limited government?)
It also cleared up some ambiguity for the PUC permit process. No grey area, Yes or No.Â
Of course the people should have a say, that’s why we have the referral process.