Political Smokeout

House-Senate disagreement sinks domestic violence reform

The two feuding sides on a domestic violence reform bill reached a compromise Wednesday — but a new objection coming out of left field sunk the effort and the bill.

A coalition including law enforcement, domestic violence shelters and a conservative activist organization had come up with a proposal to get rid of outdated language in domestic violence laws. Under the current language, fighting roommates could potentially draw domestic violence charges, while a dating couple who didn’t live together might not qualify.

The proposed version, making violence between couples in a “dating relationship” count as domestic violence, passed the Senate but met difficulty in the House, which preferred language referring to “persons living in the same household.” Rep. Dan Kaiser, R-Aberdeen, then successfully put on language restrict that to “persons of the opposite sex” living together.

When a conference committee of the House and Senate met to hash out the differences Wednesday morning, however, the two opposing sides had come to an agreement.

“We wanted to narrow that scope of household to an actual relationship,” said Kaiser. “Quite frankly homosexual relationships wouldn’t be covered, and I feel they’re domestic relationships, when they get assaulted and beat up, they deserve the protections everybody does.”

The compromise, which was also endorsed by law enforcement and the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault, would have defined domestic violence as including people “who are or have been involved in a significant romantic or sexual relationship.”

“Whether we like to admit it or not, domestic violence occurs when you have a relationship,” said Dianna Miller, lobbyist for the Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault. “It does not always have to be a married relationship. It does occur in a dating relationship, and we can’t ignore that.”

Kaiser agreed.

“I believe that language really hones down the scope for law enforcement and really puts the appropriate take on what a relationship is,” he said.

But two members of the conference committee weren’t on board.

Rep. Troy Heinert, D-Mission, argued that people accused of domestic violence are “guilty until proven innocent.” He proposed abandoning the proposed definition change and instead removing the language that requires law enforcement to arrest someone charged with domestic violence.

Giving law enforcement discretion about whether to arrest people charged with that crime would solve the problems related to the definition of the crime, Heinert and Rep. Mike Stevens, R-Yankton said.

“The ramifications of getting tagged with a domestic violence is more than just a protection order,” said Stevens, a family law attorney. “We don’t have this problem at all… if we give our law enforcement the discretion to do the right thing.”

Other legislators disagreed.

Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City and a retired police officer, said before domestic violence charges required arrests, “no one got arrested.”

“We went in the same house six times a night and told them to break it up and get on with their lives, and they continued to beat the crap out of each other,” Tieszen said.

Rep. David Lust, R-Rapid City, urged the committee to pass the compromise, and then consider the mandatory arrest issue next year, if Stevens and Heinert wanted.

But Stevens and Heinert weren’t swayed. They voted against the compromise amendment, which got three yes votes and two no votes but lost because amendments need support from a majority of each house.

Afterwards, Sen. Larry Lucas, D-Mission, gave up and moved to kill the domestic violence bill.

He and Miller said they were disappointed and upset with the bill’s failure.

“We have left them now with a law that now we’ve done nothing with and is confusing and will cause more problems than if we had narrowed the definition,” Miller said. “I think there are issues out there people aren’t being honest about and bringing up.”

This is the second year in a row that a proposed domestic violence reform fell victim to disagreements between the House and Senate. Last year a similar bill went to conference committee, but compromise language failed to get House approval.

Bill excluding weekends, holidays from abortion wait passes

The wait before South Dakota women can have abortions is about to get a little longer.

The South Dakota Senate on Thursday approved a bill excluding weekends and holidays from the state’s existing 72-hour pre-abortion waiting period.

It now heads to Gov. Dennis Daugaard for a signature or action.

In 2011, the Legislature passed a law requiring that 72-hour wait and requiring mandatory counseling by anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers before a woman could have an abortion. It was pitched as a way to give women the time and information to properly consider the decision, and resist being coerced into an abortion, though opponents argued it was offensive and unnecessary. 

Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union are currently challenging the counseling requirement in court, having just asked to drop their challenge to the 72-hour period.

This year, anti-abortion advocates brought the bill to exclude weekends or holidays. They said it was to prevent Planned Parenthood, South Dakota’s sole provider of elective abortions, from forcing crisis pregnancy centers to be open on weekends and holidays by starting the 72-hour period on a Friday.

“Weekends honestly shouldn’t be an issue, unless Planned Parenthood would decide to make it an issue,” said Sen. Phyllis Heineman, R-Sioux Falls.

Other supporters of the bill House Bill 1237, said it was a reasonable restriction for an important decision like abortion.

“We are talking about a fatal, irrevocable decision,” said Sen. Bill Van Gerpen, R-Tyndall. “That’s why I think it’s important that we provide these ladies with as much opportunity as needed to assemble the information, get the input, the counsel and advice, and then have time to think.”

Opponents said the bill was insulting by suggesting that women couldn’t consider an abortion on weekends or holidays.

“To suggest that a woman is unable to make a decision in 72 consecutive hours is to (belittle) their ability to think and to suggest that somehow weekends and holidays have something to do with the difficulty of their decision,” said Sen. Stan Adelstein, R-Rapid City.

Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City, said if crisis pregnancy centers are worthy of their name, they should be open whenever women need them, even on weekends.

But the full Senate agreed with Heineman that HB 1237 was a “simple” fix and a reasonable requirement to ask. It passed 24-9 and needs only Daugaard’s signature to become law. Both houses passed the bill with the two-thirds threshold needed to override any possible veto.

Sentinels bill passes Senate, close to becoming law

A proposal to let schools arm volunteer “sentinels” for defense passed the South Dakota Senate Wednesday and could be headed to Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s desk.

The school sentinels bill gives every school district the option to arm teachers, staff or community volunteers, but doesn’t require any district to bring guns into schools.

That permissiveness was the key selling point of the proposal’s supporters.

“The sentinel bill will not put one single gun in any school in South Dakota,” said Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City and the former Rapid City police chief. “Only a local school board can make that decision.”

Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, agreed.

“This is very much about local control, and us trusting the people that are at the helm on those local school districts to make appropriate decisions based on the very unique circumstances that surrounds each one of our 151 school districts,” Rhoden said.

Officially numbered House Bill 1087, the sentinels bill enflamed passions around the state in the aftermath of last year’s mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., school. “If you have not heard about the sentinels bill, it’s probably time to come out of hibernation,” Tieszen quipped.

Many school districts, organizations and officials opposed the bill as it worked its way through the Legislature, saying it would do more harm than good and was flexibility schools didn’t want.

Several senators echoed those arguments in the Senate’s debate Wednesday.

“I think House Bill 1087 is premature,” said Sen. Mark Johnston, R-Sioux Falls. “I think it is our obligation, as we serve the people of South Dakota, to not jump to the conclusion that we need to have an armed sentinel in our schools, but to encourage our school districts, those locally elected officials, to do the analysis.”

Sen. Angie Buhl, D-Sioux Falls, worried that volunteer sentinels wouldn’t be as effective as police in a shooting situation.

“I worry about what happens if we go down the road of confusing lay personnel… with trained law enforcement officers,” Buhl said.

But the Senate voted 21-14 to approve the sentinels bill, agreeing that it gave schools an option for their own protection.

The House previously approved a different version of the bill 42-27. 

Now the bill heads back to the House, which has to address Senate amendments. The House version required decision on school sentinels to be made in secret, while the Senate removed that secrecy provision. The Senate also passed an amendment letting voters refer a decision to adopt a sentinels program to a public vote.

The House could accept the Senate changes, kill the bill, or appoint a conference committee to negotiate a compromise version.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard has not said whether he will sign the sentinels bill, but has said he likes the concept.

House committee kills two teen driving bills, passes two more (updated)

An alliance of urban conservatives and rural lawmakers defeated two proposed restrictions on 14 and 15 year old drivers Tuesday, while two more passed.

Rejected on concerns about government overreach and inconvenience to rural families were a restriction on the number of passengers young drivers could have, and a six-month extension in the amount of time before 14-year-olds can get a permit to drive without an instructor.

“We have eight kids, and they were all driving by the time they were 7 or 8 years old,” said Rep. Dean Schrempp, D-Lantry. “If the parents would just work a little bit with these kids, they’d be ready to drive at an earlier age.”

Rep. Lee Qualm, R-Platte, said his kids also started driving at age eight. The burden, Qualm said, should be on parents to know when their children are capable of driving alone.

The limitation on passengers had exemptions for family members and for trips to and from school and school events in an attempt to satisfy rural concerns. But Rep. Kyle Schoenfish, R-Scotland, worried limiting passengers would just lead to more inexperienced teen drivers on the road.

Rep. Lance Russell, R-Hot Springs, argued in forceful terms that the bill went too far limiting individual’s rights to do what they want with their vehicles, including letting their kids drive with passengers.

“If they’d had enough cars in the Soviet Union in Stalin’s time, he probably would have thought this a really good idea,” Russell said.

Supporters of the two bills had argued they would help save lives.

“These are the times we make decisions that will save one or two or three families next year,” said Rep. Steve Hickey, R-Sioux Falls.

Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City, said two issues above all contribute to teen drivers getting into accidents: “youth and distraction.”

Statistics distributed at Tuesday’s committee hearing said traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for teenagers — even those who aren’t driving themselves. Two-thirds of South Dakota teens who die in car crashes were passengers while another teen was driving, according to a lobbyist for State Farm Insurance.

Rep. Peggy Gibson, D-Huron and a strong supporter of the teen driving proposals, said she will try to revive the six-month delay, but is giving up for this year on the passenger limit due to lack of support.

After the hearing, Gibson and other supporters were angry.

“This committee has just made a sham of our work,” said Gibson, who helped draft the bills as part of a teen driving task force. “I’m disappointed and I’m embarrassed by the ignorance of some of the comments that were made today.”

Gibson accused opponents of the two proposals of prioritizing convenience over safety. She referred to the remarks of Rep. Dennis Feickert, D-Aberdeen, who said his brother would have to “take time from his important work on the farm to see to it that his (14-year-old) son is able to participate in activities in the school he goes to in the fall” if the bills passed.

“How do they get to school right now?” Gibson said. “We’re talking about convenience over saving lives.”

Russell, however, said the supporters of the bill hadn’t made the case that these changes were necessary.

“I just have not heard compelling testimony that we need to change what we’re doing in this state and dramatically restrict those young people who, like my son, are more than capable of, within a just a few weeks, I think, to have a full license,” Russell said.

Though two teen driving bills were defeated Tuesday, the House Transportation Committee passed a third — a ban on cell phone use by 14- and 15-year old drivers.

Unlike a proposed ban on texting while driving for all drivers currently awaiting a hearing in the House, this bill would include all use of cell phones and other mobile communications devices by those young drivers.

By preventing young drivers from the distraction of texting or talking on their cell phones, advocates said they could prevent accidents.

“I’d hate to be a law enforcement officer in this instance, because I think it’s going to be tough to enforce, but I think it’s a very important move,” said Feickert.

A fourth bill, standardizing statewide driver’s education, also passed the committee — but with an amendment appropriating $50,000 to pay for the effort. Supporters called that an attempt to defeat the bill, because bills appropriating money need more votes to pass, and said they would try to remove it on the House floor.

All four bills were proposed by a task force created by the Legislature to study teen driving in South Dakota.

School sentinels bill passes committee 5-4

A proposal to let schools arm volunteer “sentinels” to protect against threats is on its way to the South Dakota Senate.

The school sentinels bill, House Bill 1087, passed a key Senate committee 5-4 Friday, and needs only approval from the Senate to head to Gov. Dennis Daugaard to be signed into law.

Under the proposal, school boards could vote to arm sentinels provided local law enforcement approved and the sentinels underwent training with the state.

Rural schools, located far from local law enforcement and without police resource officers, want the proposal’s flexibility, advocates said.

“If we think we’re immune in South Dakota from school violence, we should probably think again,” said Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City. “Our local school officials and local school boards need to be making a decision about the security of their schools.”

Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, and other supporters emphasized the local control.

“For the schools that do not want ever to have anybody armed… they should want this bill,” Craig said. “It is this bill that guarantees that they make the decision to never have anyone armed.”

But what Sen. Larry Lucas called “the (key) issue of the 2013 legislative session” has plenty of opponents. Most major school groups testified in opposition, saying the sentinels program was risky and unwanted.

Jeff Marlette, a general in the South Dakota National Guard and the superintendent of the New Underwood School District, lamented that South Dakotans would now ask if “our state has gotten so bad and so dangerous and so unsafe that we must now attend school in an armed fortress.”

Lobbyists for the state’s school boards and school administrators proposed an alternative, to set up a task force studying school security. If that task force recommended school sentinels, they said, they could support it, but saw the current proposal as too rushed.

“This amendment would give you another option to talk about school safety,” said Wade Pogany, executive director of the Associated School Boards of South Dakota. “Let’s put a task force together that’s made up of these stakeholders and bring recommendations so school boards could have options to look at.”

But the committee rejected that amendment, with members questioning whether such a task force would produce new mandates and objecting to the last-minute nature of the proposal.

The Senate committee did make several changes to the proposal, notably removing a section added in the House that kept decisions about the sentinels program secret.

Tieszen, the prime sponsor of the bill, endorsed that change.

“This must be a publicly made decision,” Tieszen said.

Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls, supports keeping the decision private. He said it would keep would-be attackers in the dark about which schools were and were not defended, and thus provide more protection to everyone.

Once a district has adopted a sentinels program, decisions about it — such as which people were armed — could be made behind closed doors.

Another change might be coming in the full Senate. Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, said he’s interested in specifying that voters can refer a decision to create a sentinels program to a public election.

Senate passage isn’t assured, with many lawmakers skeptical. Sen. Jason Frerichs, D-Wilmot, suggested the sentinels bill wasn’t necessary because volunteers could be deputized by their local sheriff to defend the school.

Sen. Corey Brown, R-Gettysburg, said he likes the concept but has too many unanswered questions.

“If we’re going to do something like this, I need to feel more than reasonably confident that we’ve covered all our bases,” Brown said.

But supporters said the sentinels program is both needed and well-thought-out.

“I don’t think anyone has promoted this as the ultimate solution to the problem we face,” said Rhoden. “But it is a step.”

Sen. Dan Lederman, R-Dakota Dunes, said it was a good proposal that keeps decisions with local government.

“What I like about this bill is its permissive nature,” Lederman said. “This bill will maximize local control.”

Sen. Russell Olson, R-Wentworth, lambasted schools for opposing the local option.

“Do you just want the softballs? Do you just want the easy decisions?” he asked school representatives. “When it gets tough should it come back to the Legislature? Make up your mind.”

The Senate must take action on the sentinels bill by March 5, though it has yet to be scheduled for debate. Because the Senate has amended the version passed by the House earlier this month, the House would then get another vote, to either approve the Senate version or try to negotiate a compromise.

Craig said House members will likely be divided on whether removing the secrecy provision is a good move.

If the Legislature approves the sentinels bill, it will head to Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who likes the concept and is studying the proposal’s specific details.

Floor speeches as performance art

If you weren’t listening to the Senate’s floor debate about the proposed ban on texting while driving today, you missed one of the more unusual floor speeches I’ve heard in my five years covering the South Dakota Legislature. (And that’s counting last year’s Valentine’s Day poetry.)

“I’d like to offer today to the Senate a historical analogy,” began Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City, as he rose to support the ban. “My analogy is based on historical fact. The literary license is, however, entirely mine. So please join me March 3, 1913. Gentlemen of the 13th Session of the Legislature…”

And then Tieszen proceeded to give a five minute speech, in character as a 1913 state senator, allegedly debating a ban on drunken driving. He proceeded to one by one rebut certain alleged objections to a ban on drinking while driving — objections that all happened to be the same raised in 2013 by opponents to a ban on texting while driving.

Listen to the unique in-character speech here:

After Tieszen finished, Sen. Ryan Maher tried to riff on the speech by talking about Prohibition before segueing into an attempted amendment.

How will Senate State Affairs vote on ‘sentinels’?

Earlier, I speculated about what the decision to send the school sentinels bill to the State Affairs committee instead of the Education committee meant for its fate.

Yesterday, I did something better: I checked on each of the members to see what they thought about it.

A few of them were on the record with opinions about the bill; those who weren’t, I called.

You can read more about the state of the sentinels bill here.

Here’s where things stand now with the Senate State Affairs Committee:

• Brown: Undecided. Doesn’t have a problem with the “concept” but is “struggling” with a few components of the bill.
• Frerichs: Doesn’t ”support the bill in its current form,” would need “to change it pretty drastically” to vote for it.
• Johnston: Has called the sentinels bill premature, saying other discussions of school security needs to come first.
• Lederman: A sponsor of the bill, has spoken critically of making schools gun-free zones.
• Lucas: Is “not going to support it.”
• Olson: Supportive as long as it maintains its local control.
• Rave: Leaning toward supporting the bill, but is “well aware of the concerns” and could change his mind.
• Rhoden: Supportive; believes the state should “let the local governing body make the decision for themselves.”
• Tieszen: Prime sponsor of the bill, has testified for it.

Taking a bit of a leap (some of these statements have been more decisive and clear than others), I’d categorize the committee like this:

Yes votes (4): Lederman, Olson, Rhoden, Tieszen

No votes (3): Frerichs, Johnston, Lucas

Undecided (2): Brown, Rave

With nine members on the committee, the bill needs five votes to pass, and is already one short. If either Brown or Rave votes yes, or one of the no votes changes their mind (without any yes votes flipping), House Bill 1087 will probably pass out of committee.