Veto overrides unlikely as South Dakota lawmakers return to Capitol
In home care, cell cultured protein regulations to get last look during 101st Legislative Session Veto Day
PIERRE — It’s Veto Day in South Dakota.
State lawmakers return to the Capitol Monday for the final day of South Dakota’s 101st Legislative Session, where they’ll consider whether to override a pair of vetoes issued by Gov. Larry Rhoden. A proposed ban on lab-grown protein sales in the state and new regulations for in-home non-medical care providers had passed in the Legislature, but failed to earn the Republican governor’s support.
Both measures face steep odds of survival. Neither enjoyed veto-proof levels of support among lawmakers.
Here’s a look at the two measures getting one last look from legislators at the state capitol when lawmakers convene Monday afternoon.
House Bill 1077 would have banned the sale of lab-grown meat in South Dakota by classifying it as an adulterated food.
The bill divided South Dakota ranchers and farmers, including some lawmakers who are beef producers. While supporters of HB1077 see the bill as a preemptive strike to protect the state’s livestock industry from what they see as an emerging threat driven by corporate investment and environmental policy. Opponents — including the governor — countered that the bill undermined free-market principles and risked costly legal challenges, especially given that lab-grown meat is not yet sold in the state.
While it passed the House 45–22, that margin was two votes shy of the 47 necessary to eclipse the two-thirds mark.
In his veto, Rhoden — a Union Center rancher — questioned whether banning a product not yet on the market was a prudent use of state authority. His decision reflected a balancing act between protecting traditional agriculture and avoiding government overreach.
Rhoden’s second veto— stamped last week on House Bill 1138 — is also likely to hold. That measure would have required non-medical home care agencies to obtain state licensure and meet new training and background check standards.
The proposal drew support from advocacy groups concerned about the growing number of elderly residents relying on in-home services. Proponents argued licensure would bring accountability and transparency to an expanding but largely unregulated sector.
But the bill also faced resistance — including from within state government.
In his veto message, Rhoden raised concerns that the measure would create a false sense of security for families while placing new burdens on small providers, particularly in rural areas. He also pointed to the limited capacity of the Department of Health, which is already dealing with staffing shortages and a surge in complaints tied to existing regulatory responsibilities.
The bill’s licensing fee and added requirements, he argued, could reduce access to care by discouraging smaller operators from continuing to provide services.
While more than two-thirds of House lawmakers voted for the regulations, only 20 senators supported the legislation. It takes 24 votes to achieve two-thirds in the 35-seat Senate.
Because both measures originated in the state House, representatives will be first to take up Rhoden’s vetoes when the Legislature gavels in at 1 p.m.
