Political Smokeout

Round three for fight commission bill Monday as Hickey readies counter-punch

A proposal to regulate fighting sports in South Dakota has a key hearing Monday as opponents prepare to try to derail the most controversial part of the plan.

Sen. Mark Johnston, R-Sioux Falls, and others support creating a South Dakota Athletic Commission, which would regulate sports such as boxing, kick-boxing and mixed martial arts. South Dakota currently has no such commission, meaning those events either avoid the state or happen without oversight.

The result, Johnston argues, is people getting hurt or even killed fighting in unsanctioned bouts. The athletic commission created in Senate Bill 84 would have the power to create rules, such as requiring medical testing and banning fighters who’ve suffered blows to the head.

But Gov. Dennis Daugaard and others say the athletic commission would legitimize these violent sports and lead to more, not fewer, people getting hurt.

“I’m offended that the state would legitimize cage-fighting and the bloody violence that those kinds of spectacles create,” Daugaard said in January. “I think it’s interesting that we declare that it is a crime for one human being to strike another, and yet the state now proceeds to legitimize, and label a sport, cage-fighting.”

Rep. Steve Hickey, R-Sioux Falls, feels the same way. When SB 84 comes up for a hearing at 10 a.m. Monday, he plans to offer an amendment he sees as a compromise — creating the athletic commission, but limiting it to sports such as boxing and traditional martial arts such as karate and judo. Mixed martial arts would be banned in South Dakota.

“The conversation on violence in society needs to start somewhere. Why not with our most violent entertainment, and that’s mixed martial arts,” said Hickey. “There’s a reason two governors have been reticent to appoint a commission: it’s because they agree with me that elbowing a guy in the head, kneeing him in the face, is beyond where we need to go.”

Hickey compared violent sports to smoking and pornography and said in all three cases, society needs to draw a line.

“With smoking we drew a line at pot, and with adult entertainment we’ve drawn it at child porn,” Hickey said. “I say that mixed martial arts is the child porn of sports.”

The supporters of the athletic commission proposal aren’t getting on board with Hickey’s alternative. They defended mixed martial arts from Hickey’s characterization of it as unusually brutal.

The supporters of the athletic commission proposal aren’t getting on board with Hickey’s alternative. They defended mixed martial arts from Hickey’s characterization of it as unusually brutal.

“I think once we get the rules in place it’s going to be as safe as a lot of the other sports we have nowadays,” said Rep. Dean Schrempp, D-Lantry. “But it has to be regulated.”

Johnston said he appreciates Hickey’s “societal concerns” but disagrees with his judgment.

“The sport of mixed martial arts is not cage-fighting. If he were really concerned about cage-fighting, he should support the bill in its current form because that’s really what we’re trying to stop,” Johnston said. “Mixed martial arts is just that: it’s an art. It’s a combination of boxing, kickboxing and wrestling.”

Schrempp doubts banning mixed martial arts would stamp it out, despite the felony penalties for organizing or participating in those events in Hickey’s amendment.

“It’s going to go on anyway whether we try to stop it or not,” Schrempp said. “Even if he gets an amendment on it, it’ll be like it is now — people will still have them.”

If Hickey’s amendment were adopted, it could save SB 84 from an anticipated veto.

“It looks like something the governor could support,” said Tony Venhuizen, a senior adviser to Daugaard, about Hickey’s amendment.

Supporters aren’t worried. They believe they have the votes to pass the bill and override any veto. It passed the Senate with 29 votes, above the 24 needed to override a veto. Schrempp said he’s confident the support in the House will also be over the two-thirds threshold.

Lawmakers at Saturday’s legislative forum in Sioux Falls were split on the matter. Several agreed with Hickey that mixed martial arts is beyond the pale.

“I don’t think this is a healthy thing we should be encouraging,” said Rep. Isaac Latterell, R-Tea.

Rep. Anne Hajek, R-Sioux Falls, said she had clashed with mixed martial arts in past years when it went on at the Minnehaha County fairgrounds.

“Why in the world would we ever think this is entertainment?” said Hajek said.

But Rep. Herman Otten, R-Tea, said he had mixed feelings. He disapproves of mixed martial arts and doesn’t let his son watch it, but said that might be a decision best left up to parents.

(This post has been updated to expand a quotation.)

No consensus on key subjects at Sioux Falls forum

There was little consensus on many of the highest profile issues of the 2013 Legislature at Saturday’s final Sioux Falls legislative coffee of the year.

On questions about Medicaid expansion, guns in schools, abortion and texting while driving, the 11 local lawmakers present demonstrated why those issues have been so controversial with collegial but consistent disagreement.

“This is an opportunity for us as a state to be in a leadership position and say, ‘We want to help these people who can’t help themselves,’” said Rep. Paula Hawks, D-Hartford, about expanding Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty limit.

Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Tea, took a different tack.

“This has got absolutely nothing to do with not wanting people to have health care,” Otten said. “It does have to do with affordability and making sure we keep our budget within our means.”

The “school sentinels” bill to give districts the option of arming volunteer defenders was praised as common-sense and permissive — and blasted as a step in the wrong direction.

“We’re not talking about giving everyone guns,” said Rep. Steve Hickey, R-Sioux Falls. “The conversation is what about the districts that can’t have a law enforcement officer. Is there another person that could be qualified to get in there? I’m in favor of giving the school district that option.”

Rep. Marc Feinstein, D-Sioux Falls, worried that putting more guns in schools would lead to innocent students being shot if there were ever an incident, citing an incident in New York City last year where trained police officers shot bystanders while trying to take down a shooter.

A ban on texting while driving also drew both advocates and skeptics. Rep. Anne Hajek, R-Sioux Falls, said the ban could create “a culture of kids who start driving, who realize you don’t text and drive.” Rep. Mark Mickelson, R-Sioux Falls, said he was having a hard time coming up with arguments “about why someone should text and drive.”

But Otten said the ban would be impossible to enforce, and Rep. Isaac Latterell, R-Tea, suggested it was an example of government trying “to be everyone’s parents.”

A proposal to exclude weekends and holidays from South Dakota’s 72-hour pre-abortion waiting period inspired some of the morning’s sharpest language, with Feinstein quipping that “you don’t get pregnant just between 8 to 5 on weekdays” and Latterell concluding “unequivocally” that “Planned Parenthood does not care about women.”

Saturday’s legislative forum was sponsored by a range of groups including the Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce. It was the fourth and final of four Chamber-sponsored legislative forums this session, which has two more weeks remaining.

One-cent bets bill passes Legislature, heads to governor

The cost of bets in South Dakota video lottery machines may be about to go down, though lawmakers are divided about whether the real cost to gamblers will go up.

The South Dakota House on Thursday approved a new one-cent bet denominations for video lottery machines. With the Senate’s early approval, the proposal now heads to Gov. Dennis Daugaard for a signature or veto.

Gambling industry officials supported the bill, saying it would save them money because new games are produced with one-cent bets. Changing the programming to make the minimum bet five cents costs them time and money.

But many representatives voted against the proposal, saying it would make it easier for people to lose their money on video lottery.

“If I were designing these machines, I would find a way to make them more addictive, more fun and more likely to have you enjoy losing money,” said Rep. Isaac Latterell, R-Tea, predicting the one-cent bets would accomplish just that.

Rep. Don Kopp, R-Rapid City, said the effect of the bill would be that “instead of making granny take five hours to spend her Social Security check, it’ll take her 15.”

While supporters touted the roughly $2 billion video lottery has generated for South Dakota since being instituted, some opponents said that was precisely the problem. Because that revenue came from gambler losses, Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, said he had to vote no.

“My conscience forbids me from gaining something, especially monetarily, from something designed for them to lose,” Craig said.

Supporters accused these critics of missing the point, and urged them to vote on the bill and not on the bigger issue of video lottery.

“What we’re trying to do here is keep the games fresh and entertaining,” said Rep. Dick Werner, R-Huron, and a former member of the state Lottery Commission.

The bill wouldn’t make things worse for gambling addicts, said Rep. Tim Rounds, R-Pierre.

“If this bill doesn’t pass today, people will still be losing their paychecks in these machines,” he said.

Also included in the bill, Senate Bill 52, is some legislative cleanup abolishing outdated language. 

After the debate, 39 representatives voted in favor of the one-cent bets, and 28 voted no. That’s over the simple majority the bill needed, sending it to Daugaard. The governor’s office has supported the bill as it has worked its way through the Legislature.

Homeschool scholarship bill fails by one vote

After around an hour of debate spread out over two days, efforts to make the Opportunity Scholarship easier for homeschooled students failed by a single vote.

House Bill 1128 received 35 yes votes and 35 no votes, one vote short of the 36 it needed to become law.

Currently, to receive the $5,000 Opportunity Scholarship, students need to take a broad range of classes and receive a 24 on their ACT test. Starting next year, students who don’t take those classes can still get the scholarship, but only if they receive a 28 on the ACT.

If HB 1128 became law, home-schooled students could qualify for the scholarship with a 24.

Supporters said that was only fair because homeschooled students can’t take those classes as students at formal schools.

“I think the situation as it exists now is inequitable,” said Rep. Isaac Latterell, R-Sioux Falls.

Opposed were people who said passing HB 1128 would create that inequity.

“If the choice is that they want to be eligible for this scholarship at a lower ACT score, their choice is to enroll in a public school,” said Rep. Paula Hawks, D-Hartford.

Supporters plan to try again to pass the bill on Thursday.

Latterell’s address

Introducing himself at the House Local Government Committee hearing this morning, Rep. Isaac Latterell said something interesting: “I live in southern Sioux Falls.”

That’s interesting because on his page on the Legislative Research Council website, Latterell is listed as having a Tea address — specifically, a post office box there.

I asked him about the discrepancy. He said it reflected a recent move.

“I used to live near rural Tea out in the country,” Latterell said. “I’ve told people in my campaign I moved to southern Sioux Falls, which is still in the district. That was something I clearly communicated during my campaign.”

He moved, he said, because of a “bad roommate situation.”

Latterell said he’s updated his official voter registration.

But he said he maintains the PO box in Tea that’s listed as his official address.

“I still do business in Tea,” said Latterell, a first-term Republican.