Political Smokeout

Rhoden still pondering U.S Senate run

State Sen. Larry Rhoden is still considering running for U.S. Senate, the Union Center rancher said.

“We’ve not done a great deal since (the legislative) session got out (in March),” said Rhoden, a Republican. “We continue to (gather) input and look in that direction.”

So far former Gov. Mike Rounds is the only announced Republican candidate for the seat being vacated by Democrat Tim Johnson. Several other Republicans, including Rhoden, state Rep. Stace Nelson and former lawmaker Bill Napoli have expressed interest in the race, while U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem has refused to rule a race out.

Rhoden said he doesn’t have a timeline for making a decision.

“I know that time keeps slipping away, but I still feel we’re at the point where I don’t have to lock down a decision as of yet,” Rhoden said.

The list of 2014 maybes is getting crowded

Here is the list of who is running for Senate in South Dakota in 2014:

• Mike Rounds

Here is a list of people who have said they might run, or have been reported by reputable sources to be considering running:

• Tim Johnson
• Brendan Johnson
• Kristi Noem
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
• Bill Napoli
• Larry Rhoden

The latest update, including confirmation that people are encouraging Rhoden to run (which I feel bad for not getting myself at session, among the many things I didn’t do because I was too busy and generally find policy more important than politics), comes from Roll Call.

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.

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.

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.

SD Senate passes ban on texting while driving

South Dakota’s Legislature is halfway toward banning texting while driving.

A ban passed the state Senate Tuesday and now heads to the House, where similar measures have been defeated in recent years.

The 24-9 vote saw lawmakers endorse the argument that texting while driving is uniquely dangerous and worth singling out for a ban.

“Texting and driving is dangerous, it’s deadly and it deserves to be illegal,” said Sen. Mike Vehle, R-Mitchell.

Overruled were objections from lawmakers who said the law was unnecessary, because South Dakota already has a law banning careless driving.

“Why are you singling out texting while driving?” said Sen. David Omdahl, R-Sioux Falls. “All of these issues fall under the existing careless driving law.”

An attempt by Sen. Ryan Maher, R-Isabel, to limit the ban solely to the state’s larger cities, was defeated.

Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, said he traditionally opposes safety laws such as those requiring seat belts or helmets. But he said texting bans are different and earn his support.

“If I make a choice to not wear a seat belt, that affects my personal safety. If I make a choice while I’m driving down the highway to start texting, that affects my personal safety, but also everyone who’s sharing the highway with me,” Rhoden said.

The ban on texting while driving now heads to the House, where it’s expected to face a tough fight.

Wind incentive bill passes committee

Even as stakeholders haggle over the details, a plan to give tax incentives to wind farms passed a key committee Thursday.

Under the proposal, wind farms could get tax rebates of around 2 percent of their total project costs from the state. In return, they’d forfeit participation in a later rebate program of project income.

“Wind generation in South Dakota has all but come to a standstill,” said Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center. “Despite an excellent wind regime, the large wind developers are telling us that South Dakota’s tax structure puts our state at a serious competitive disadvantage.”

Rhoden said a typical large wind project would face between $7 million and $11 million in up-front taxes, while projects in North Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota would pay around $2 million.

If the incentive program contained in Senate Bill 195 becomes law, those typical wind projects would get perhaps $4 million back in tax rebates, supporters said. Over the lifetime of the project, much of that $4 million would be paid back in the terms of higher taxes on the farm’s income.

The goal of the incentive is a rebate equal to two-thirds of the project’s sales tax, which is 4 percent and is paid on an average of 80 percent of the costs.

Wind industry lobbyists said the incentives in the current bill fall short of that goal, and plan to push for more generous rebates. Dusty Johnson, Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s chief of staff and a former member of the Public Utilities Commission, said the governor’s office is negotiating with the industry over the precise level of support.

“Wind projects that never come here create no jobs. Wind projects that never come here create no taxable income for the state,” Johnson said. “This… bill would make our state more competitive for wind projects.”

The wind incentive bill is expected to be amended, perhaps significantly as it makes its way through the Legislature.

There was no opposition testimony to SB 195, but Sen. Mark Johnston, R-Sioux Falls criticized it and voted against passing it.

Johnston said the wind incentive bill seemed like the state was singling out one industry for support and ignoring the bigger problem.

“Aren’t we just addressing one slice of a bigger economic pie with Senate Bill 195?” Johnston said.

Johnson said he didn’t believe this wind-specific bill would impede the passage of other, more general economic development bills.

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.

Bill forbidding federal gun restrictions passes SD committee

A bill opposed to “all dilution and diminution of Second Amendment rights” is headed to the South Dakota Senate.

Senate Bill 207 passed the Senate State Affairs Committee 8-1 Wednesday. It’s a “legislative finding”, a declaration of the Legislature’s opinion, that declares “the Founding Fathers freely and willingly abjured all legislative and executive authority to regulate gun ownership and usage, as well as the related issue of the maintenance and armament of state militias, to individual citizens and the states respectively.”

It also directs the state’s attorney general to “be vigilant and proactive in protecting, by litigation if necessary, the rights of South Dakota and its citizens against all dilution and diminution of Second Amendment rights from whatever source and by whatever means.”

Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, said the bill is “designed to be a constructive, conservative and reasoned reaffirmation of our Second Amendment rights.”

Attorney General Marty Jackley supported the bill “based on its appreciation for the Second Amendment.”

Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City, worried that the language in the bill was overbroad. 

“My understanding of constitutional law is that all of our constitutional rights are subject to balancing by the courts and subject to some reasonable restrictions,” Tieszen said. “It seems to me to be a little strong and contrary to what i understand our constitutional rights to be.”

But Jackley said his reading of the bill in its entirety was that it did not prohibit regulation. He referred to the phrase in the bill opposed to “federal initiatives directed at the restriction of gun ownership and the right of self defense”, not reasonable regulation.

Sen. Larry Lucas, D-Mission, was the lone no vote. Lucas said the bill would end up entangling South Dakota in costly lawsuits against the federal government.