Oh where, oh where have our legislators gone? Oh where, oh where can they be?

The South Dakota 100th Legislative Session is officially over. It’s time to review how our District 27 legislators performed throughout the 38-day session in Pierre.

Performance Summary of District 27 State Legislators

First of all, you will see that our Democratic legislators (Peri Pourier and Red Dawn Foster) outperformed their Republican colleague (Liz May) by missing more days from the state legislature in 2025. Pourier and Foster had an absentee rate of 11% and 13%, respectively. This chronic absenteeism is reflected in the number of votes not cast by either Pourier or Foster. However, they have no problem grabbing the $16,348 check for their missed votes. Pourier missed 30 votes this session, whereas Foster gets the award for missing the most votes not cast at 44. On the other hand, Representative Liz May only missed three days this session, costing her to miss 10 votes. For the record, all the minutes for the 2025 legislative session show that all three legislators had excused absences. Rarely have I found a legislature with an unexcused absence documented in the minutes of the House or Senate Daily Journal.

When our legislators miss votes, that means your voice is not being heard in either of the two legislative chambers in Pierre. When you want your representative or senator to vote a certain way, and you call the Senate or House switchboard operator, and your legislator is not there, you are out of luck with that message getting to them. Keep in mind, there are 38 days in this session. Many legislatures have perfect attendance records and take their job seriously. Every vote matters.

I recognize that there will be times when a legislator has urgent commitments, illnesses, unexpected deaths in the family, inclement weather, national guard duty, and so forth that make them unable to attend to their official responsibilities as a state legislator; however, if one runs for an elected office to represent their constituents, then they ought to do their best in making sure they are present to cast every vote.

I contacted the Chief of Legislative Operations Rachel Person on January 20, 2025, to follow up on what is considered an “excused” absence. For government transparency purposes, I asked her if the excuse is documented and made available for public inspection, such as to attend a funeral, sickness, maternity leave, incapacitation, broken down vehicle, disciplinary actions of the legislator, in committee meetings, medical appointment, etc. It should be a concern to all taxpayers when a part-time legislator has a consistent pattern of being absent during the legislative session. Our legislators are elected to do the work of the people. When there is observable chronic absenteeism by a legislator, the public has to hold our legislators accountable and be made aware of their "excused" absences. To state "excused" on the recorded minutes of each day doesn't tell the taxpayer why they missed critical votes. If an elected official is receiving a salary from the taxpayers, then the public ought to know the excuse as to why a particular representatives and/or senator continue to miss critical votes on the floor or in committee hearings while the legislature is in session.  

In her response, the Chief of Legislative Operations informed me that a marked excuse “is between the legislator and leadership, or chair of a committee, as to why they are excused, but they do need to obtain approval from leadership to be excused [emphasis added].”  Most are not gone unless they have a valid reason for it. Ms. Person further explained to me that a member is “marked excused during a committee meeting, it may be that they simply were not present during that particular meeting, which could be because they had to miss part of a meeting to present a bill, or multiple bills, during another committee meeting that is taking place at the same time. That happens often.”

When one reviews the number of bills introduced by both our senior legislators (Foster and Pourier), who are now in their fourth term and have 7 years of experience serving in the state legislature, one could make the argument that they are absent because they are the prime sponsors of a bill. Therefore, they would be absent from a committee hearing to introduce their legislation. However, that is furthest from the truth. Pourier introduced zero bills this legislative session, and Foster sponsored only four bills this session, her most since she has been in office. Both Pourier and Foster are more focused on getting Concurrent Resolutions and Commemorations passed than doing the heavy lifting of legislation and passing bills that look out for their constituents’ interests. Unlike Liz May, a third-term Republican representative, she introduced five bills this session and cosponsored forty-seven bills, outperforming both Pourier and Foster. Not only is she a seasoned legislator introducing bills, but she also sits on the House Committee on Appropriations and the Joint Committee on Appropriations, which meets Mondays through Fridays with a rigorous meeting schedule. Because she sits on these two committees, she has significant influence on matters pertaining to the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year. She is also a stalwart leader in her party fighting against the use of eminent domain for the construction of a carbon transmission pipeline. I saw firsthand Liz speak at the Senate State Affairs committee hearing on March 3, 2025, in support of a “Do Pass” on HB 1052, which was later signed by the Governor. Nowhere were Foster or Pourier to be found in support of the hotly contested bill.

The impact of our Democratic legislators missing in action should be of great concern, considering it is a short legislative session where every vote matters. For example, Senator Red Dawn Foster missed 40 votes in two days (February 21 and March 10). In other words, District 27 had no voice on the Senate floor during those two days when multiple bills were up for a vote. Meanwhile, other state senators have never missed a vote and proudly represented their district on all matters that pertain to their constituents. Moreover, one would think that Foster, a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, would want to represent her constituents who voted for her by attending the joint session on January 15, 2025, to listen to the State of the Tribes Address. She was absent according to the minutes recorded in the 100th Session of the Senate Journal. Likewise, Pourier refused to show up on the 38th day to override the Governor's veto on HB 1169. She didn't see the need to be present since there were already enough votes in the House to override the veto. She initially opposed HB 1169, which required petition circulators to obtain at least five percent of the total votes cast in the last gubernatorial election from each of the thirty-five South Dakota senatorial districts. This bill would have given a voice to rural voters, but she refused to stand by her vote on the 38th day and chose to stay home while collecting her $16,348 paycheck for not doing the people's work.

In her final response to my email, Ms. Person wrote, “Due to the personal nature of many of the reasons why a legislator may need to be excused, we cannot print them in a public record. If you would like to know the reasons why your legislators are excused, I would recommend reaching out to them with your concerns on their absence.”

Therefore, since the state legislature is unable to make public record why two of our state legislators suffer from chronic absenteeism from doing the people’s work, perhaps the public should begin to ask the following:

Senator Red Dawn Foster and Representative Peri Pourier, you missed a combined 74 votes this legislative session. Your constituents want to know where their voice is when you are not at work. Do you care to explain to District 27 voters why you missed more than 10% of a 38-day legislative session?

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this story when I reveal their voting records.