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domestic violence shelters and a conservative activist organization had come up with a proposal to get rid of outdated language in domestic violence laws.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.

House overwhelmingly approves ‘Building South Dakota’

By a 56-13 vote, the South Dakota House passed a complex, bipartisan economic development package Tuesday.

It was passed without amendment and will now head over to the Senate, where the bill’s sponsors plan on introducing an amendment to clarify and fix existing language.

The vote came after several proposed changes by Rep. Stace Nelson, R-Fulton, both rejected on voice votes.

Nelson asked the House to split the bill into multiple parts, arguing it was unconstitutional by containing multiple subjects. Other lawmakers disagreed, saying all the bill’s parts are related to economic development.

He also proposed an amendment adding new open meetings requirements, which a majority of lawmakers argued was unnecessary given existing open meetings law.

Outside of Nelson’s motions, there was very little debate on the bill. Rep. David Lust and Rep. Bernie Hunhoff spoke in favor of the bill as effective economic development, and Rep. Don Kopp spoke against it on the grounds that it contained too many subjects.

‘Building South Dakota’ development bill passes committee

It was a “love fest” Monday for a bipartisan economic development package that passed unanimously out of the House State Affairs Committee.

Around 20 different groups and individuals testified in favor of the “Building South Dakota” plan, including businesses, economic development officials, legislators, local governments and education groups.

The complex proposal includes tax incentive for large business projects, grants for local infrastructure and affordable housing, and millions of dollars for education.

It would be funded by tax revenue from projects incentivized by the fund, and from part of the state’s “unclaimed property” revenue from banks.

No one testified against Building South Dakota, part of Senate Bill 235. Several lawmakers had skeptical questions about part of the proposal, but the committee voted 12-0 to send SB 235 to the full House.

“I think it’s an outstanding effort,” said Rep. Mike Verchio, R-Hill City.

Rep. Justin Cronin, R-Gettysburg, said the bill was a great package even though he doesn’t “agree with every single part.” Rep. Scott Munsterman, R-Brookings, called it a “good comprehensive model for economic development for all of South Dakota.”

Democrats helped refer Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s economic development bill in 2011, arguing it was “corporate welfare” and spent scare state resources that were better spent on education and health care.

But they’re on board with the Building South Dakota plan, saying its safeguards, transparency and money for education and housing make the bill a good package.

“We’ve got a lot more transparency, a lot more accountability, a lot more vetting,” said Rep. Bernie Hunhoff, D-Yankton and the Democratic leader in the House. “From now on, the more incentives you give out, bring them on, because we’re going to trigger a whole lot of good things.”

Not testifying at Monday’s hearing were representatives of Daugaard’s office. The governor likes some parts of the bill but continues to negotiate with legislators on others.

House Majority Leader David Lust said the governor’s office has expressed unease about taking so much money from the state’s Unclaimed Property fund. Daugaard aide Tony Venhuizen declined to comment about the governor’s concerns about Building South Dakota.

The bill now heads to the House floor, which must pass it on Tuesday if it’s to become law. It would then head to the Senate for approval or further changes.

Either on the House floor or in the Senate, proponents will propose several changes to the bill. Its basic structure will remain the same, but some parts will be tweaked, including letting large projects file for incentives earlier than 90 days before the start of construction.

Sen. Corey Brown, R-Gettysburg and the prime author of the legislation, said none of the coming changes will significantly impact the structure of the legislative package.

Rhoden’s gun ‘finding’ killed by House committee

House Majority Leader David Lust’s skepticism proved fatal for a gun rights bill Monday morning.

Sen. Larry Rhoden had brought forward Senate Bill 207, which included a statement of the Legislature’s opinion about Second Amendment rights and directed the state attorney general to “be vigilant and proactive in protecting” those rights.

Rhoden and Attorney General Marty Jackley said the bill would be helpful by making the Legislature’s position on gun rights clear and providing straightforward direction to future attorneys general on the subject.

Democrats had generally opposed SB 207 as it moved its way through the Legislature, but the measure drew a more powerful opponent Monday in the person of Lust.

The first part of the bill, Lust said, should be in the form of a resolution, not a bill. He also objected to the directive to the attorney general, saying the state constitution already obligated the attorney general to defend people’s rights and that the Legislature shouldn’t pass bills telling constitutional officers how to do their jobs in “subjective” terms.

“I don’t view this as a Second Amendment issue at all,” Lust said. “I view this as a legislative issue.”

On an 8-4 vote, the House State Affairs Committee chaired by Lust agreed and killed SB 207. Lust was joined by three other Republicans and the committee’s four Democrats.

When will we see the economic development bill?

After the jump is my story from today’s paper, summarizing the new economic development package unveiled by a bipartisan group of legislative leaders yesterday.

It was a tough story to write, because I had only descriptions (often vague) of the bill’s mechanics to go on.

That’s because the specific language of the bill hasn’t yet been released.

UPDATE: Now it has. Read the bill here.

The leaders promised it would be posted online at some point this weekend, though they didn’t say where that would be posted.

Hopefully that actually happens, so people can study the idea before the 7:45 a.m. hearing on Monday when it will be adopted.

From some of the language used Thursday, I gather the reason bill text wasn’t released immediately was they were still tweaking the proposal. 

“We’re on the verge of one of the more complex and bipartisan compromises I’ve seen put together in a long, long time,” Rep. Bernie Hunhoff, D-Yankton said. (Emphasis added.)

Once I see a final version I’ll post about it here.

Here’s my story:

Read More

Amendments coming to campaign finance bill

Senate Bill 200, to tighten South Dakota’s campaign finance laws after last year’s robocalls, hasn’t yet had a dissenting vote in its journey through the Legislature. But its march toward passage hit a temporary delay Monday morning when members of the House State Affairs Committee proposed several possible changes to the bill.

Some of the changes were cleanup, making sure that phrases about penalties were included in all sections and not just some. Others were more substantive — several committee members worried that people could bypass the disclosure requirements by running an email campaign themselves, so therefore incurring no or minimal cost.

Secretary of State Jason Gant said he was amenable to the mentioned changes, but encouraged the committee to view the bill as a step forward even if it didn’t fix every problem.

“When folks want to get around campaign finance laws, they’re going to dig, dig, dig and find a way,” Gant said.

After a number of proposed amendments were mentioned, committee chair Rep. David Lust announced that he was postponing action on the bill until Wednesday to give lawmakers times to draft amendments.

Insurance reform, bank regulation and legislator expense bills pass House

Bills touching on health insurance plans, bank regulation and legislator expenses passed South Dakota’s House of Representatives Wednesday.

All three bills saw spirited debate and close votes as the House raced to meet today’s deadline for approving all its bills. They all now head to the Senate, which has to approve them before they can become law.

The closest vote came on House Bill 1212, increasing the daily expense allowance for legislators from $110 per day to the federal employee rate for South Dakota, currently $123 per day.

Rep. David Novstrup said the legislator expense rate hadn’t been raised for 13 years, and that better compensating lawmakers for their expenses would make it easier for people who aren’t wealthy to serve in the Legislature.

Several opponents said lawmakers shouldn’t increase their compensation before giving raises to other groups, such as teachers or state employees.

The bill passed 36-33, the bare minimum number of votes needed for passage.

HB 1212 was relatively straightforward, but the other two measures passed before the House went into recess for an hour Wednesday dealt with complicated subjects that had lawmakers asking questions.

One would have required insurers to accept medical providers located outside their networks. That measure, House Bill 1142, was pitched as promoting “patient choice.”

“Let the patient decide where they want to go,” said Rep. Hal Wick, R-Sioux Falls.

Opponents said it actually hurt patient choice and would drive up costs.

Rep. Spencer Hawley, D-Brookings, said people right now can choose between a cheap health plan with a limited network and a pricier plan with a bigger network. He said HB 1142 would remove that option and force everyone to pay more.

HB 1142 passed 39-30.

The third bill, giving the secretary of the Department of Revenue authority to write rules governing how the state’s bank tax is collected.

Rep. David Lust, R-Rapid City, said the proposal would let the state react to changing conditions in the banking industry and keep its bank taxes fair.

The bank tax bill, House Bill 1045, passed 43-26.

Representatives also debated a fourth bill, letting the unborn children of undocumented immigrants receive prenatal care, but before it could be voted on opponents requested an analysis of the cost to the state of this change.

Under the Legislature’s rules, staff now have two days to come up with that analysis.

With several big bills touching on economic development and abortion still on the agenda, the House then recessed for an hour so lawmakers could discuss those issues in closed party caucuses.

The first Political Smokeout smokeout failed today

The first smokeout since the creation of this Political Smokeout blog ended up being more smoke than fire.

Rep. Stace Nelson tried to revive House Bill 1222, which — in the revised version he hoped to persuade the House to adopt — would have declared that federal executive orders infringing on gun rights were null and void in South Dakota

Nelson argued that yesterday’s late afternoon hearing was on short notice and didn’t have a full discussion of the bill.

House Majority Leader David Lust disagreed, saying the bill had a full hearing.

Most of the House agreed with Lust, defeating Nelson’s smokeout attempt 45-23.