Jury Selection in Willard Robocall Trial Favors Russ Olson's Wentworth Neighbors

A group of randomly selected Lake County citizens will troop to the courthouse tomorrow to see if they win a seat on the jury for Daniel Willard's robocall trial, which will treat them to lengthy discourses on South Dakota campaign finance law, the First Amendment, and the conflicts therebetween.

Oh, wait, did I say randomly?

As I understand the process, the state and Willard both get to strike three jurors. That means the first 18 names on the jury list are probably all the further down we need to go to see who's likely to hear the case.

This case is happening in Lake County because resigning Senator Russell Olson is claiming the harm (remember, Olson, calls it terrorism) from Willard's robocalls. Olson lives in the Wentworth ZIP, 57075, as do 892 other Lake County residents. Wentworth/57075 makes up 7.97% of Lake County's 11,200-person population (I'm using 2010 Census data). Those percentages would shift a bit if we were talking just legal adults eligible for jury duty, but let's roll with what we have.

Given those numbers, one would expect a list of 18 people randomly drawn from Lake County to include maybe one or two of Russ's Wentworth neighbors. Do some math, and you discover that there's a 95% chance that an 18-person random sample of Lake County residents should include no more than three Wentworthers.

The first 18 names on the Willard trial jury list include nine people from Wentworth.

Run this experiment one million times, and you should get that many 57075 residents in your jury pool three times.

In an infinite universe, anything can happen. In Lake County, anything includes a jury pool with a highly unlikely geographical bias toward the influential aggrieved party.

Tangentially Related Judicial Trivia: Did you know that it is a Class 2 misdemeanor to ask the sheriff or deputy sheriff to place yourself or anyone else on a jury? See SDCL 16-13-44. Lawyer friends, can you explain to me where that statute came from? And has anyone ever been prosecuted under it?

Lake County to Extend Bike Trail, Save Trees!

The Lake County Commission went on the road Tuesday to "research" (I giggle just a little) their bike trail extension plans. Real research would have included riding their bikes out to Lake Madison.

Connecting the current spur of the bike trail that ends at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service entrance (hey! FWS! Close that facility before you close the Booth Hatchery!) to the county's public access area on the southwest shore of Lake Madison. To get there, the county needs to lay about one and a quarter miles of new trail south along Highway 19, then east parallel to 236th Street, along the south edge of the remaining county poor farm land. That eastward stretch has a shelterbelt on it. The commissioners and highway superintendent Scott Mathison had the good gosh-darn sense to suggest that the county save the trees:

Once on site, the commissioners and Lake County Highway Superintendent Scott Mathison seemed to feel the north side of the trees was best. They seemed to agree that putting the trail along the road or going through the shelterbelt would likely require taking out several trees, which would be an expensive proposition.

Mathison seemed confident that the trail would work on the north side by taking out the volunteer bushes and trimming up trees. The commissioners did not take any formal vote on the matter [Jane Utecht, "County Takes Research Road Trip," Madison Daily Leader, 2013.08.21].

Yay for trees! Madison's bike trail currently runs through mostly open country. After a mile or two of leaning into the sun and stiff south wind, all pedalers will enjoy that quarter mile of shade and shelter. Keep those trees!

The county could save a little concrete by continuing the southeasterly diagonal of the first part of this trail extension right on through the Sunset Harbor development right to the public access area beach. Residents there would enjoy quick and easy bicycle access, and cyclists from town could get to the beach faster with less time spent alongside the noisy highway. Developer Dan Lemme might be interested in such a trail proposal. He met with commissioners on their road trip at Sunset Harbor and proposed that the county swap him some of its poor-farm land for the squiggly, woodsy strip of land he owns on the south shore of Herkimer Pond. Utecht's text is fuzzy here, but she reports that Lemme suggested continuing the bike path through that area for beach access. Perhaps Lemme would also support the mountain-bike loops that Tony and I think would be a great idea!

Connecting the current Madison bike path to the county's beach is a good idea. But remember: if you really want bicycle bliss, you've got to build a loop. I have my plan for a loop around Lake Herman; our county commissioners should think big and extend their current trail in a long figure out around Lake Madison and Brant Lake down to Chester and back!

Dakota Ethanol Pays $75K Penalty for Environmental Violations

Dr. Blanchard has been hammering on the inefficiency and immorality of our federally subsidized ethanol industry. Now the EPA adds some black marks to the local ethanol industry.

Joe O'Sullivan at ThePostSD.com reports that back in October, Dakota Ethanol in Wentworth paid a $75,000 penalty to the Environmental Protection Agency for violations of the Clean Air Act. According to the EPA, Lake County's big ethanol plant emitted more volatile organic compounds than allowed, didn't do the right testing, and "failed to maintain the internal floating roof on the liquid inside several storage vessels at the plant."

The same settlement extracted $150,000 from ethanol producers Poet, James Valley, and Northern Lights for similar Clean Air Act at the Groton and Big Stone ethanol plants. Think of it as a rebate on our federal subsidies for the industry.

Now I know Dakota Ethanol was disappointed with the EPA for delaying adoption of the E-15 standard. But really, fellas, do you think breaking other EPA rules is going to encourage them to vote your way? Maybe this is why Kristi Noem was so intent on demanding the EPA administrator's resignation.

The Department of Justice has the full details of the Dakota Ethanol violations and Poet-James Valley-Northern Lights violations online.

South Dakota Shows Extremes in Poverty, Income

I suppose I shouldn't get too excited about South Dakota's supposedly growing wealth. GDP growth be darned, South Dakota is still home to the most impoverished county in the United States. Take a look at the data from the U.S. Census Small Area Poverty and Income Estimates for 2009, and you'll learn that Ziebach County on the Cheyenne River Reservation has a 62.0% poverty rate. Buffalo County, home of the Crow Creek tribe on the Missouri River, has the lowest median hosuehold income in the country, just $18,860. (Remember, median means it's the halfway mark: half the households in Fort Thompson are living on less than that.)

South Dakota has seven counties among the 30 with the highest overall poverty rates. However, greater suburban Sioux Falls in Lincoln County has the ninth-lowest poverty rate in the nation, a mere 4.2%. Median household income in Lincoln County is $72,894, almost four times the median in Buffalo County.

Child poverty in Lincoln County is a mere 5.4%, compared with 76.7% in Ziebach County. As this PDF map of South Dakota school districts shows, we have a concentration of white districts (o.k., pale green) around Sioux Falls with exceptionally low child poverty rates, below 9%.

Add those extremes, and South Dakota comes out right in the middle, with a 14.2% poverty rate among all ages, just below the national average of 14.3%. We rank 27th among the states and D.C. New Hampshire, Alaska, Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey are best off, with poverty below 10%. West Virginia, New Mexico, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Mississippi have the most poverty, with Mississippi the only state cracking 20% (21.8%, to be exact).

We are similarly middling in child poverty: our state rate of 18.9% of all kids (i.e., under 18) in poverty ranks us 26th nationally, under the national average of 20.0%. But being a little above average still means nearly 111,000 of our neighbors, including 37,000 of our kids, are in poverty.

Table 1: Poverty and Income in the United States Source: U.S. Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2009
State and County	People in Poverty	% in Poverty	Kids (Under 18) in Poverty	% Under 18 in Poverty	Median Income
United States	42,868,163	14.3	14,656,962	20	50,221
Alabama	805,223	17.5	274,243	24.6	40,547
Alaska	61,949	9.1	22,221	12.3	66,712
Arizona	1,065,728	16.5	396,006	23.3	48,711
Arkansas	519,026	18.5	185,268	26.6	37,888
California	5,132,640	14.2	1,846,994	19.9	58,925
Colorado	618,676	12.6	201,208	16.6	55,735
Connecticut	318,008	9.3	95,570	12	66,906
Delaware	96,409	11.2	33,851	16.7	56,985
Dist. Columbia	100,489	17.6	32,621	29	58,906
Florida	2,712,692	15	857,326	21.5	44,755
Georgia	1,585,116	16.6	575,429	22.7	47,469
Hawaii	131,896	10.4	39,214	13.7	63,741
Idaho	217,528	14.4	76,630	18.5	44,644
Illinois	1,671,343	13.3	586,040	18.7	53,974
Indiana	895,619	14.4	310,140	19.9	45,427
Iowa	342,309	11.8	109,384	15.6	48,065
Kansas	359,692	13.2	118,187	17.1	47,709
Kentucky	771,876	18.4	251,684	25.3	40,061
Louisiana	769,001	17.6	274,805	24.8	42,460
Maine	161,504	12.6	46,349	17.5	45,708
Maryland	509,141	9.2	157,164	11.8	69,193
Massachusetts	658,497	10.3	187,931	13.3	64,057
Michigan	1,565,559	16.1	513,550	22.2	45,254
Minnesota	558,118	10.9	172,134	13.9	55,621
Mississippi	620,446	21.8	230,409	30.7	36,764
Missouri	850,316	14.6	291,359	20.7	45,149
Montana	142,257	15	44,840	20.9	42,222
Nebraska	212,312	12.2	67,346	15.3	47,470
Nevada	323,738	12.4	117,742	17.6	53,310
New Hampshire	110,769	8.6	31,278	11	60,734
New Jersey	798,258	9.4	269,659	13.3	68,444
New Mexico	359,030	18.2	129,552	25.8	42,830
New York	2,708,119	14.2	878,114	20.2	54,554
North Carolina	1,475,063	16.2	503,713	22.5	43,754
North Dakota	72,911	11.7	20,022	14.1	47,898
Ohio	1,699,288	15.1	577,026	21.6	45,467
Oklahoma	575,711	16.1	199,277	22.1	41,716
Oregon	536,813	14.3	166,073	19.4	48,325
Pennsylvania	1,517,347	12.5	466,423	17.1	49,501
Rhode Island	122,379	12	39,988	17.9	53,243
South Carolina	753,286	17.1	258,848	24.4	42,580
South Dakota	110,863	14.2	36,884	18.9	45,048
Tennessee	1,055,635	17.2	352,943	24	41,715
Texas	4,143,077	17.1	1,655,085	24.3	48,286
Utah	321,441	11.7	110,852	12.9	55,183
Vermont	69,137	11.5	17,371	14	51,219
Virginia	805,555	10.6	255,156	14	59,372
Washington	803,266	12.3	249,767	16.2	56,479
West Virginia	316,155	17.8	91,059	24.1	37,423
Wisconsin	682,973	12.4	215,052	16.7	49,994
Wyoming	53,974	10.2	17,176	13.2	54,400

Breaking it down by county, my home county of Lake comes out 18th for median household income at $45,322, not quite $300 above the statewide median, and a few thousand above my own. Lake County's poverty rates for all residents and for kids are about the same, a tick or two above 12%.

1074 counties in the United States have higher median household incomes than our fair Lake County. 2101 counties have lower median household incomes than we do. Not bad!

Table 2: Poverty and income in South Dakota, by County. Source: U.S. Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2009
Place	People in Poverty	% in Poverty	Kids (under 18) in Poverty	% Kids in Poverty	Median Income
South Dakota	110,863	14.2	36,884	18.9	45,048
Aurora	348	13	127	19.7	40,900
Beadle	2,138	13.5	719	19	42,348
Bennett	1,242	37.8	530	49	32,137
Bon Homme	864	15.5	196	15.9	39,485
Brookings	3,942	14.7	574	10.3	46,733
Brown	3,455	10.2	944	12.1	47,378
Brule	739	14.6	256	20	40,113
Buffalo	893	43.6	405	51.5	18,860
Butte	1,343	14.2	488	20.6	38,015
Campbell	162	12	31	12.9	39,048
Charles Mix	2,137	24.3	954	36.2	33,135
Clark	428	12.7	141	18.6	40,806
Clay	2,573	23.1	441	19.5	38,421
Codington	2,952	11.4	856	13.3	44,548
Corson	1,578	39	691	52.6	26,426
Custer	830	10.9	271	18.6	46,441
Davison	2,384	13.1	670	15.4	41,441
Day	848	15.9	275	22.2	36,702
Deuel	403	9.6	132	13.3	43,678
Dewey	1,834	31.2	849	40.9	29,804
Douglas	355	12.6	108	16.8	41,049
Edmunds	463	12.2	127	13.7	46,490
Fall River	1,264	18.6	367	27.8	34,464
Faulk	282	13	72	15.1	43,600
Grant	744	10.7	192	12.2	42,559
Gregory	796	20.3	252	30	31,580
Haakon	233	13.5	72	18.3	40,447
Hamlin	623	10.9	241	14.3	46,444
Hand	377	11.9	109	15.7	42,791
Hanson	287	8.1	124	12.4	53,377
Harding	169	15.6	46	20.5	39,496
Hughes	1,835	11.4	562	14.4	56,239
Hutchinson	851	12.5	270	16.4	39,880
Hyde	186	13.7	59	18.8	40,674
Jackson	947	36.1	447	52.7	30,375
Jerauld	305	16	79	20.4	39,786
Jones	170	16.4	71	28.6	38,843
Kingsbury	573	11.2	140	12.6	41,629
Lake	1,390	12.2	294	12.1	45,322
Lawrence	3,355	15	800	17.6	41,227
Lincoln	1,704	4.2	641	5.4	72,894
Lyman	921	23.8	383	32.8	34,318
McCook	533	9.8	167	11.6	45,730
McPherson	430	18.1	107	22.1	31,945
Marshall	547	13.5	178	18.3	39,303
Meade	3,001	12.9	921	16.6	44,568
Mellette	757	38.2	332	52.7	27,455
Miner	295	12.5	87	15.5	38,370
Minnehaha	18,519	10.5	5,642	13.1	48,443
Moody	609	9.7	204	13	47,045
Pennington	13,863	14.1	5,013	20.4	46,972
Perkins	490	17.4	139	22.9	33,755
Potter	259	13	75	19.4	43,348
Roberts	2,008	20.6	795	29	36,718
Sanborn	333	13.9	103	18.6	41,364
Shannon	6,977	51.6	3,090	57.2	25,048
Spink	743	12.3	214	14.3	43,905
Stanley	270	9.7	107	15.5	51,185
Sully	146	10.9	39	11.3	48,816
Todd	4,491	45.3	2,191	57.1	24,742
Tripp	1,107	20.4	400	30.1	38,887
Turner	739	9.2	203	10.9	47,749
Union	889	6.2	290	8.1	58,785
Walworth	867	17.2	275	24.2	36,704
Yankton	2,484	12.3	711	14.5	46,028
Ziebach	1,582	62	593	76.7	25,084