Sarah Mechtenberg (D), who is running for the S.D. House of Representatives, was unable to attend.

Each candidate was allowed an opening and closing statement. In between were questions mostly surrounding upcoming ballot initiatives and personal rights.

The first question, however, revolved around Second Amendment issues, particularly “red flag” laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs). These are civil proceedings that allow family members and law enforcement to request a court order to temporarily remove firearms from someone who may be a danger to themselves or others.

Nelson stated her support of the Second Amendment.

“I believe that if you start with red flag laws, you are going to slowly — that’s the first step, if not of many — to start slowly chipping away at our rights to our Second Amendment,” she added.

Her opponent, Sarah Carda, also stated her support for the Second Amendment but tempered it with some concerns.

“The majority of the people, over 65% of the people in the United States, thinks there should be some sort of reasonable gun legislation,” she said. “I don’t think we’re talking about taking away all the guns; that’s just simply not going to happen.”

Stevens said he has dealt with similar measures in past legislature sessions.

“I’m a member of the NRA, and I would be against that type of legislation,” he said. “We’ve had those type of things come before the Legislature before, and we have them trying to put restrictions on that. The problem is trying to define — even if you were to get into that discussion, there’s always who’s defining what makes up someone who shouldn’t be able to have access to firearms?”

Auch pointed to the founding of our country for her answer.

“The Second Amendment is basically the right to bear arms,” she said. “It has very little to do with hunting. Hunting is like a byproduct of gun ownership. The Second Amendment was put in place to bear arms and to form a militia against a tyrannical government. That is the reason for the Second Amendment. So, red flag laws would actually be something that would attack our Second Amendment rights.”

Harens, although supporting the Second Amendment, said times have changed drastically since the late 1700’s.

“When they created the Second Amendment, we didn’t have the guns we have today,” he said. “I’d like to see somebody get a gun, put the powder in, put the shell in, versus somebody who comes out with an AK-47. There’s a big difference in the guns today. If you look at all the guns that have been used in shootings, most of them have been semi-automatic weapons.”

The candidates were asked about their feelings on private property rights, especially in regard to eminent domain and, specifically, about Senate Bill 201 — the proposed carbon pipeline.

The official language of SB201 cites: “Provide new statutory requirements for regulating linear transmission facilities, to allow counties to impose a surcharge on certain pipeline companies, and to establish a landowner bill of rights.”

In the last legislative session, Stevens voted for the bill and Auch voted against it.

“I certainly believe in property rights, as well,” Stevens said. “But, the rights that we have are not absolute rights. Two years ago, the bill came up about whether or not to support that bill. I didn’t feel like it met the definition of a commodity carrier, and so I voted against it. I did vote for the bill this time.”

He went on to compare it to zoning laws which dictate what can and can’t be built in certain areas.

Auch, while stating she does support the ethanol industry, was against the bill because of safety concerns and landowner rights.

“CO² is an extremely valuable commodity that can be used for several things,” she said. “With a CO² pipeline, when you compress it in a pipeline, and under 23,000 pounds of pressure in an eight-inch pipe, it becomes very dangerous. … SB201 wasn’t necessarily an eminent domain bill … it is forcing people to put something on their land that isn’t safe.”

Nelson said SB201 was the reason she ran in the first place during the June primary.

“The concern is private property rights,” she said. “The thing about it is, when you looked at SB201, it was when you talk about eminent domain, you’re talking about construction that’s going to benefit everybody and it’s the government that’s doing it. It’s your local school district, maybe it’s your county. … The thing about it is, with all of this, this is private companies getting in bed with our government and taking away private property rights, plain and simple.”

Both Harens and Carda had concerns about private property rights and whether or not the pipeline would “benefit all.” Harens questioned whether or not CO² is truly a commodity, while Carda said she’d like to see how the bill fares in court.

For Initiated Measure 28, the “Grocery” tax repeal, all five candidates opposed the bill for various reasons.

• Stevens: “IM28 would be a disaster for our state, our cities and our counties. We have to remember our tax revenue, sales tax, that’s our biggest type of income.”

• Auch: “(Now that IM28) has been clearly defined — that it would remove tax on tobacco products, marijuana gummies that are used for medicinal purposes and over-the-counter medications — it completely takes all of the rational reasoning away from removing the sales tax on food.”

• Harens: “We’re one of two states in the nation that taxes food. The other is Mississippi. Do we want to compare ourselves with Mississippi? (South Dakota) keeps changing the numbers, so it’s hard to know.” He also mentioned a Florida tax that he said only applied to out-of-state residents, where if you had a Florida ID, you didn’t have to pay tax on groceries.

• Nelson: “I am for cutting taxes on food — potatoes, meat, fruit, vegetables, dairy. Any of you who have been to the grocery store lately see how much tax we are paying on our food. … We need food to survive. I’m not going to support this, and the reason why is because the definition has become clear. Tobacco is not something we need. It will be tax free. That’s not right. And we talk about gummies and marijuana or whatever, that’s ridiculous. The intent of this was to be just food, things that we need to survive and to give families a break.”

The abortion amendment (Amendment G) would provide for a state constitutional right to abortion in South Dakota, using a trimester framework for regulation, which would prohibit the state from interfering in those decisions during the first trimester. In the second trimester, the state could intervene in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman. In the third trimester, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion, except “when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman.”

• Auch: “Amendment G is the abortion bill that would take away all regulation in the state of South Dakota. I am 100% against Amendment G. … and I’m 100% pro-life, except (for the safety of) the mother. I believe that the abortion regulations we have in place in the state are adequate and a good place for us to be in our state.”

• Harens: “We have doctors who are not practicing anymore because they’re afraid they’ll do something wrong and end up in jail. The problem with this one, you’re taking away the rights of the woman. Those rights have to be taken into consideration. Everybody’s really concerned about abortion, but then when we get down the road a couple years, we don’t even feed the children in the summertime, so there’s a big difference there. Be pro-life, (but) be pro-life all the way along.”

• Nelson: “I am 100% pro-life.” She alluded to a time in her past where her life was in danger and she had already lost one of her twins. “They had to save my life because I already had a daughter at home. The thing about it is, when the mother’s life is at risk, they’re either going to deliver the baby or the baby is going to die anyway, because it’s not far enough along.”

• Carda: “I just think it’s so unfortunate, this has become so (politicized) in that it deciphers between the parties in many ways. I am pro-life. My faith demands that I’m pro-life. That’s important to me, but I’m also not just pro-birth. South Dakota has gone to the ballot twice about this issue and the people made a choice, and yet we’re still here. So, I think the fact that this is on the ballot right now, I really think it’s going to be up to the people, and we have to respect that as a group. We need to understand what the people want and work within that.”

• Stevens: “I’m going to be voting against this, but we need to look at it a couple of different ways. Number one, I think it’s a real mistake that it’s being presented to our citizens under an amendment basis. I think that’s really hard to change.” Stevens went on to speak about a case he took to the S.D. Supreme Court in 1986 that set into law that a viable fetus was a “person” in a wrongful death lawsuit.

The candidates’ responses:

• Harens: “This is another reason I’m running. Every year there’s been a vote on vouchers for South Dakota. Every year, it’s lost, but every year it gets more and more votes. The (state) constitution says public schools — that’s what it says. It does not say private or homeschool. If you start taking money out of the education budget, … that’s going to decimate what happens in South Dakota.”

• Nelson: “Yes, I am for vouchers. There better not be any strings attached. And that’s the thing that is important. … There cannot be any strings attached to it, any thing that the parents or the schools have to do, going backward. … I do not want an astronomical amount given to these families. In Iowa, where vouchers have come in … these private schools have increased their tuition.”

• Carda: “I don’t think there’s a one-size-fits-all education system for our children, and that’s why we have options. Our own children went to Sacred Heart School. That was a faith for us. We thought that was important, amazing teachers and a great experience. I’m not going to make the public pay for my faith choice with my children. That’s just not fair. It’s not how we are constitutionally set up. … Public education is the great equalizer.”

• Stevens: “I served on the school board for 22 years and I would not, under any circumstance, support a voucher system. … The accountability thing is really important, because right now, homeschoolers do not have any accountability whatsoever. If money was given to them, they could use it to help pay car payments, house payments, whatever it might be, with no accountability as to what academics are used. Whereas, the public school system and our taxpayers require accountability for us at all times.”

• Auch: After stating she had supported voucher bills in the past, Auch said, “The South Dakota Constitution, Article Eight of the Constitution, requires that your property taxes go toward public schools. We have a responsibility to educate our children through the public school. We also have a responsibility to those children. We have responsibility to those parents. And we have a responsibility to teachers. … I’m not really sure what the solution is, but I’m concerned for our students, parents and teachers.”

Early voting begins Friday and the general election is slated for Tuesday, Nov. 5.

To view a video of the forum, visit KYNT’s YouTube channel.