JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
House of Representatives, Pierre
Monday, January 26, 2015
The House convened at 2:00 p.m., pursuant to adjournment, the Speaker presiding.
The prayer was offered by the Chaplain, Pastor Mercy Hobbs, followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance led by House page Olivia Edoff.
Roll Call: All members present except Reps. Cronin, Munsterman, and Schaefer who were
excused.
APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL
MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the Chief Clerk of the
House has had under consideration the House Journal of the eighth day.
All errors, typographical or otherwise, are duly marked in the temporary journal for
correction.
And we hereby move the adoption of the report.
Respectfully submitted,
Dean Wink, Chair
Which motion prevailed.
The oath of office was administered by Speaker Wink to the following named pages:
Rachel Chester, Olivia Edoff, Bryce Engbarth, Rachel Evangelisto, Taylor Faw, Michael
Greenfield, Jon Haugaard, Megan Kass, Chelsie Lomheim, Seth Schamens, Jordon Silbernagel,
Miranda Stadel, Erica Venhuizen
and employee:
Secretary to the Minority Leader _ Jon Chapman.
Which was subscribed to and placed on file in the office of the Secretary of State.
HONORED GUESTS
Speaker Wink introduced the 2014 Tabor Czech Days Royalty: Queen Liz Kubal, Princess
Isabella Kreber, and Prince Braden Beran.
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES
MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on State Affairs respectfully reports that it has had under consideration
HJR 1001 and returns the same with the recommendation that said resolution do pass.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on State Affairs respectfully reports that it has had under consideration
HB 1069 and returns the same with the recommendation that said bill be amended as follows:
1069oa
On page 1, line 8, of the printed bill, delete "concurrent" and insert "joint".
And that as so amended said bill do pass.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian G. Gosch, Chair
Also MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Education respectfully reports that it has had under consideration
HB 1044 and returns the same with the recommendation that said bill do pass.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Education respectfully reports that it has had under consideration
HB 1043 and returns the same with the recommendation that said bill be amended as follows:
1043ca
On page 1 of the printed bill, delete lines 11 to 15, inclusive.
On page 2, delete lines 1 to 5, inclusive.
And that as so amended said bill do pass and be placed on the consent calendar.
Respectfully submitted,
Jacqueline Sly, Chair
Also MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Judiciary respectfully reports that it has had under consideration
HB 1066 and returns the same with the recommendation that said bill do pass.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Judiciary respectfully reports that it has had under consideration
HB 1065 and returns the same with the recommendation that said bill do pass and be placed on
the consent calendar.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Judiciary respectfully reports that it has had under consideration
HB 1068 and returns the same with the recommendation that said bill be amended as follows:
1068rb
On page 1, line 5, of the printed bill, delete "there is an order by the court,".
On page 1, line 6, delete everything before "shared" and insert "a custody order by the
court, contains a detailed".
And that as so amended said bill do pass.
Respectfully submitted,
G. Mark Mickelson, Chair
MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE
MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has adopted the report of
the Joint-Select Committee relative to the Joint Rules for the Ninetieth Legislative Session.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to transmit herewith SB 29, 34, and 65 which have passed the Senate and
your favorable consideration is respectfully requested.
Respectfully,
Kay Johnson, Secretary
MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
HCR 1001: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Recognizing the difference between the
taxes and fees levied by the State of South Dakota.
Rep. Bolin moved that HCR 1001 as found on page 83 of the House Journal be adopted.
The question being on Rep. Bolin's motion that HCR 1001 be adopted.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 57, Nays 10, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Conzet; Craig; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert;
Gibson; Gosch; Haggar (Don); Harrison; Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie);
Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen (Alex); Johns; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb;
Langer; May; McCleerey; Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson
(Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen; Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Schoenfish; Sly; Soli; Solum;
Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann; Zikmund;
Speaker Wink
Nays:
Campbell; Deutsch; DiSanto; Greenfield (Lana); Kaiser; Latterell; Marty; Russell; Schoenbeck;
Schrempp
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the motion carried and HCR 1001 was adopted.
HCR 1002: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Supporting the continued operation of the
D.C. Booth Historic National Fish Hatchery.
Rep. Romkema moved that HCR 1002 as found on page 118 of the House Journal be
adopted.
The question being on Rep. Romkema's motion that HCR 1002 be adopted.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the motion carried and HCR 1002 was adopted.
HCR 1003 Introduced by: Representatives Bolin, Brunner, Campbell, Craig, DiSanto,
Greenfield (Lana), Haggar (Don), Haugaard, Hickey, Kaiser, Klumb, Latterell, Marty, May,
Qualm, Russell, Stalzer, Verchio, and Wiik and Senators Olson, Haggar (Jenna), Jensen (Phil),
Omdahl, and Van Gerpen
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Urging Congress and the President of the United States to
abolish the United States Department of Education.
WHEREAS, public education was designed by the citizens of the United States to be a state
and local matter; and
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Education has become a bloated, intrusive
agency that performs many functions that could be eliminated or performed by other agencies
within the federal government; and
WHEREAS, many of the employees of the United States Department of Education are
highly paid bureaucrats who directly educate no children in the United States; and
WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan, during his presidency, called for the dismantling of
the department; and U.S. Senator Mike Rounds, during his recent successful campaign, called
for the abolition of the department; and
WHEREAS, the current federal deficit is over four hundred billion dollars, the current
national debt of the federal government is over seventeen trillion dollars, and the need to
balance the federal budget is vitally important to the long-term economic health of our nation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Ninetieth
Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota
Legislature believes that education is a state and local matter that should be free of federal
interference, and therefore, urges Congress and the President of the United States to abolish the
United States Department of Education.
Was read the first time and the Speaker waived the committee referral.
HCR 1004 Introduced by: Representatives Hunt, Anderson, Bolin, Brunner, Campbell,
Craig, Cronin, Deutsch, DiSanto, Gosch, Greenfield (Lana), Haggar (Don), Haugaard, Hickey,
Hunhoff (Jean), Johns, Klumb, Latterell, Mickelson, Munsterman, Novstrup (Al), Qualm,
Rounds, Russell, Schoenbeck, Sly, Stalzer, Stevens, Verchio, Westra, Wiik, and Zikmund and
Senators Rave, Brown, Greenfield (Brock), Haggar (Jenna), Heineman (Phyllis), Holien, Jensen
(Phil), Monroe, Novstrup (David), Olson, Peterson (Jim), Rampelberg, and Van Gerpen
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, Addressed to the United States Supreme Court setting forth
certain facts and expressly enumerating the grievances of the People of the State of South
Dakota, through their elected representatives, with that Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, 410
U.S. 113 (1973), and its progeny and calling for that Court to now protect the intrinsic,
natural, fundamental rights of the children of our State and nation and the intrinsic, natural,
fundamental rights of their pregnant mothers in their relationship with their children, and
the mothers' health by reconsidering and overturning the court's decision in Roe.
WHEREAS, we observe that ours was the first great sovereign nation in all of history
founded on the precept of Equal Rights and Equal Respect for all human persons subject to its
jurisdiction; that our Declaration of Independence declared that all human beings are endowed
by their Creator with intrinsic and inalienable rights by virtue of their existence and humanity;
that it was the promise of our young nation, that its newly formed government would protect its
people against the deprivation of their natural, intrinsic and inalienable rights, which instilled
the admiration of the whole world; and that promise to forever strive to further the realization
of those ideals inspired the peoples of each of our Sovereign States, including the People of the
State of South Dakota, to accept and adopt the Constitution of the United States as their own;
and
WHEREAS, in 1868, our young nation ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution, some twenty-one years before the state of South Dakota joined the Union
and adopted that Constitution; that the Fourteenth Amendment was understood and considered
by all, both proponents and opponents alike, to be a reaffirmation of the natural and intrinsic
rights of mankind; and that the people of the various states, both those already part of the Union
before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, and those which joined the Union
thereafter, relied upon this understanding; and
WHEREAS, in the case of
Madison v. Marbury, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), and subsequent cases,
including
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the
court reserved to itself the exclusive power as final arbiter of the meaning and construction of
the United States Constitution; thus, those rulings place a heavy burden on the court to correctly
interpret the meaning and scope of the Constitution; that beginning at the time of
Marbury, and
at all times since, the members of the United States Supreme Court have striven to faithfully
discharge their solemn duty to interpret our Constitution carefully and correctly. It has been that
Court's constant and courageous efforts to fulfill that mission which has brought esteem and
respect to the Court; and
WHEREAS, despite the good faith efforts of the members of the Court to interpret our
Federal Constitution correctly, the United States Supreme Court has found it necessary to
overturn no less than two hundred and thirty-three of that Court's prior decisions because they
had been incorrectly decided, thereby underscoring the importance of the United States Supreme
Court being open and willing to correct its own errors in its interpretation of our Constitution
as all too palpable: only that court can effectively do so; and
WHEREAS, while the United States Supreme Court found it necessary to reverse itself over
two hundred and thirty times, few of the Court's previous errors so violated the intrinsic rights
of the people of the various states that they gave rise to an active national resistence to those
decisions; yet a small number of the Court's errors that denigrated the great rights of the people
could never gain acceptance and inspired national movements to free the people from the
tyranny of certain erroneous decisions of the Court. Two such cases which inspired such
national movements which resulted in the holdings of those cases being superceded by
subsequent action of the people, or by correction by the Court itself, stand out. In 1856, the
United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 17 How. 393, 60 U.S.
393 (1856), that a class of human beings could be bought and sold as property and be enslaved
consistent with the Court's interpretation of our Constitution, the Court stating, in part, that
African Americans, "were considered a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been
subjugated by the dominant race ..." 17 How 393, 404, 60 U.S. at 404-05. That holding of the
Court helped tear apart our nation as people rose up to oppose it and it has been a blemish on
the record of the court ever since, particularly because it was not the court which corrected its
error. In 1896, following, and despite, the passage of both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution, generally thought to have been in response to the errors of the
Court, most notably that of the
Dred Scott decision, the Court again erred, forcing a national
movement that lasted for three-quarters of a century. In
Plessy v. Furguson, 163 U.S. 537
(1896), the United States Supreme Court held that it was consistent with the Fourteenth
Amendment Equal Protection Clause for a state to force the segregation of a person who has any
degree of African American blood from those persons fully of the Caucasian race. It took the
Court fifty-eight years _ fifty-eight years during which people of the states suffered the
deprivation of their God-given liberty and God-given equality _ to correct its error in Plessy.
The Court did so in multiple decisions in 1954, in Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of
Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); (See also, Brown, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)); in 1955, in
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Dawson, 350 U.S. 877 (1955); Holmes v. Atlanta, 350
U.S. 879 (1955); and in 1956, in Browder v. Gayle, 352 U.S. 903 (1956). Ultimately, after
decades of resistence by the Court, the Court acknowledged that its decision in Plessy was
incorrectly decided at the time it was issued in 1896. The implication of Brown was that the
argument advanced by the segregationists that whole cultures had relied upon the Plessy
decision and, therefore, principles of Stare Decisis required honoring the legal precedent of
Plessy for the sake of consistency _ even if wrongly decided _ could never justify honoring a
profoundly unjust decision because no person, and no culture has the right to rely upon the
ability to commit an inherently unjust and immoral act; and
WHEREAS, these cases demonstrate that the fact that the United States Supreme Court has
held that certain conduct is constitutional or protected by the Constitution, does not mean, in and
of itself, that such a decision is correct or beyond subsequent scrutiny or that the conduct in
question is just or moral. The history of the Court in which the Court has admitted to past errors
_ and especially those cases involving grave injustices _ demonstrate that the Court must always
be vigilant and introspective in revisiting past decisions when errors are brought to its attention.
This is especially true when it becomes evident that a decision fails to be accepted by a large
part of our citizenry because it promotes deep injustice, rightly inspiring great criticism over
decades. There are no words to describe the importance of the Court correcting its errors in the
matters we discuss here; and
WHEREAS, there remains today such a tragic case left on the record of the Court, which,
together with its progeny, continues to violate the intrinsic rights of two large classes of human
beings, and bars the people of the Sovereign States, and their elected representatives, from
taking effective, corrective action to protect the intrinsic rights of those human beings. The
decisions of the United States Supreme Court in 1973, in the case of
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1973), and its companion case,
Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), have never been _ nor
should be _ accepted as valid constitutional jurisprudence by most legal experts.
Roe v. Wade
and
Doe v. Bolton have been the subject of constant criticism from the people of the states, and
legal scholars in even measure. They are not _ nor should be _ accepted by the People of South
Dakota and they are not _ nor should be _ accepted by us, their elected representatives. In short,
the errors of the court in
Roe v. Wade and its progeny have stood, and still stand, in the way of
our ability to discharge our duties to the People of our State; and
WHEREAS, Roe and Doe have even been rejected by the Plaintiffs themselves in those
cases, Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) and Mary Doe (Sandra Cano); that in an extraordinary,
unprecedented, historic fashion, the Plaintiffs in those landmark cases filed Rule 60 motions
asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn their own victories. Both Plaintiffs, acting
independently, moved the Court to vacate the judgments they each obtained because the Court's
decisions were incorrect and led to the legal protection of such extraordinary harm to the women
and children of the nation that they felt compelled to ask the court to correct its errors.
McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 543 U.S. 1154 (2005); Cano v.
Baker, 435 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied 549 U.S. 972 (2006); and
WHEREAS, scholarly legal works which disparage the legal reasoning of the court in
Roe
v. Wade are too vast in number to enumerate in this resolution, but they operate to hold the
Roe
decision and its Court in ill repute, resulting in the realization of the Court's greatest fear _ that
of significant damage to the perception of the Court's legitimacy.
See, e.g., Planned Parenthood
of S.E. PA v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 864-869 (1992). Scholarly works irrefutably establish that
Roe v. Wade was fraught with legal and factual errors and wrongly decided. Examples of such
works are: Keown, J.,
Abortion, Doctors and the Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
England, 1988; Dellapenna, J.,
Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History, Carolina Academic
Press, Durham, 2006; Forsythe, C.,
Abuse of Discretion, Encounter Books, New York, 2013.
The incorrect factual and legal analysis of the court in
Roe, combined with the powerful
evidence now available of the harm that decision has caused the women and children of our
state and nation has left a stain on the record of the court which requires correction and returning
the policy issues to the people. If, in fact, the people have a preferred policy, that preference will
be known and implemented without it being dictated to them by the Court; and
WHEREAS, lack of respect for the Court's decision in
Roe v. Wade has been enflamed by
a majority of the Court leveling serious criticism against
Roe, and numerous reliable accounts
reporting that a majority of the Court even voted to overturn
Roe in the 1992 case which
reaffirmed
Roe by a five to four vote,
Planned Parenthood of S.E. PA v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833
(1992).
See, Dellapenna,
Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History, (2006) at 850 and footnote
124; Lazarus, E.,
Closed Chambers, Random House, 1998; Associated Press article,
Blackmun
Papers Reveal Doubts on Abortion Ruling, March 4, 2004. The people of the various states will
never have confidence in, or acceptance of, the
Roe decisions; and will not have confidence in
the Court that reaffirmed a decision which a majority of its members knew and admitted was
wrongly decided, until the Court corrects its errors of
Roe; and
WHEREAS, for the past ten years, our Legislature has held no less than twenty public
hearings on various abortion related matters and legislation. In 2005, we created, by statute, The
South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, which after many months of study and public
hearings, submitted to our Legislature a seventy-one page report. Virtually every statute we have
passed to protect the interests of pregnant mothers has been attacked in Court by an abortion
clinic and its physicians claiming that
Roe v. Wade prohibits our rational and carefully thought
out legislation. Much of that legislation was designed to protect the pregnant mothers against
the negligence and dereliction of the abortion providers themselves. Despite clear conflict of
interest, the abortion providers claimed in Court to represent the rights of the pregnant mothers,
and based upon
Roe and its progeny, the federal district court permitted the abortion providers
to stand in the place of the very women whose rights they violated. In December, 2012,
litigation over South Dakota's 2005 Informed Consent Law was finally concluded. South Dakota
prevailed on all of the issues, but the case took seven and one half years to litigate and South
Dakota had to prevail in three different decisions of the United States Court of Appeals,
including two separate opinions by two
en banc courts. The defense of the litigation over laws
designed to protect the women of our state was time consuming and lower court injunctions
prevented the laws from becoming effective for a number of years, robbing the children and
their mothers of the Law's protection. The fact that abortion providers know that courts
following
Roe often produce erroneous outcomes to their advantage has operated to encourage
ill advised suits. This kind of experience operates to substantially deter most state legislatures
from protecting the women and children of their states. The People of South Dakota and its
elected officials have stayed true to its mission of protecting its people, but, yet again, find itself
embroiled in litigation over its efforts to protect the rights of its pregnant mothers. Another
challenge, this time to South Dakota's 2011 Anti-Coercion Statute, is now in the courts; and
WHEREAS, we, the duly elected representatives of the People of South Dakota, who serve
the people by discharging the highest duty of government to protect the intrinsic natural rights
of its people, are charged with the sacred obligation to enumerate those great intrinsic rights and
to take all reasonable measures to preserve and protect them. In our continuing effort to succeed
in that sacred endeavor we must now observe and proclaim that:
The right and duty to preserve life cannot co-exist with a right or duty to destroy it. The right
and duty to preserve and protect the cherished relationship between mother and child cannot
co-exist with a right and duty to destroy it. It is the law, as it represents the collective interests
of the individuals for whom it exists, that must choose which set of interests it must protect, and
long ago our law was required to choose life over death; the mother's beautiful interest in her
child's life over its destruction; the protection of innocent children over the misguided
philosophies and trends in social thought which come and go.
If there are any self-evident and universal truths that can act for the human race as a guide
or light in which social and human justice can be grounded, they are these: that life has intrinsic
value; that each individual human being is unique and irreplaceable; that the cherished role of
a mother and her relationship with her child, at every moment of life, has intrinsic worth and
beauty; that the intrinsic beauty of motherhood is inseparable from the beauty of womanhood;
and that this relationship, its unselfish nature and its role in the survival of the race is the
touchstone and core of all civilized society. Its denigration is the denigration of the human race.
This relationship, its beauty, its survival, its benefits to the mother and child, its benefits to
society, all rest in the self-evident truth that a mother is not the owner of her child's life _ she
is the trustee of it; and
WHEREAS, our sacred mission to preserve and protect some of those cherished intrinsic
rights has been diminished and even destroyed by those certain tragic, flawed and destructive
Court decisions and the exercise of power by the United States Supreme Court in
Roe and
Doe,
so that we find it our sacred and solemn obligation to point to the errors of that Court as part of
our duties to protect the rights of our people:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NINETIETH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
SOUTH DAKOTA, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN, THAT OUR
FOLLOWING FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF FACT AND OUR EXPRESSLY
ENUMERATED GRIEVANCES WITH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S
OPINION IN ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), AND ITS PROGENY, AS SET FORTH
HEREIN ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, AND OUR CALL TO
THAT COURT TO RECONSIDER AND OVERTURN ROE, BE DELIVERED TO THE
JUSTICES OF THIS UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT BY DELIVERY OF THIS
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO THE CLERK OF THAT COURT.
Section 1. The damage we perceive that the
Roe decision has caused to the intrinsic rights
of children and their mothers and to their persons is too grave and too vast, and the error of the
Court too plain for us not to act on behalf of those we serve. The injustice to the child, whose
life is terminated by an abortion, has long been easily perceived and readily understood by most.
The injustice to their mothers and the harm to the rights, interests, and health of their mothers
has only more recently become apparent and only now widely appreciated.
The equal right of a human being to live is an inherent, intrinsic, inalienable right of every
human being by virtue of his or her existence and humanity. The insight that the equal
protection of the laws applies to all living, existing human beings was enunciated and embraced
in the United States Supreme Court decision in
Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 70 (1968). This
right to live surely obtains for every human being at every moment of life. It is now established
beyond dispute that the unborn child is a whole, separate, unique, living human being
throughout gestation from fertilization to full gestation.
Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Rounds,
Alpha Center, et al., 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (
en banc);
Rounds, 650 F.Supp. 2d 972
(D.S.D. 2009), affirmed 653 F.3d 662 (8th Cir. 2011). It is now widely accepted that the
physician, who has a pregnant mother as his patient, has two separate patients, the mother and
her unborn child, and the physician owes a professional and legal duty to both patients.
American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology,
Ethics in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 34 (2nd
ed. 2004). The physician who proposes to perform an abortion proposes to terminate the life of
one of his patients. The killing by a physician of one of his patients _ regardless of whose
request inspires it _ is contrary to the basic purpose and ethics of the medical profession and its
promotion and protection denigrates a great and noble profession. In South Dakota, the killing
of an unborn child at any age of gestation is a criminal homicide. The creation of an exception
to that protection of the child, which exception is forced upon the State by
Roe, thus
immunizing the physician who kills the child by abortion, further denigrates that profession. In
the strictest sense, a typical abortion is not a true medical procedure which is intended to
promote the health of a physician's patient. The abortion procedure is so contrary to accepted
principles of medicine and the accepted values of the medical profession and the People of our
State, that the lone abortion clinic in South Dakota is unable, despite its continued efforts, to
convince a single South Dakota doctor to perform abortions at its clinic, requiring the clinic to
recruit physicians from other states.
Roe v. Wade and its progeny have prevented the people of
the states from effectively protecting the lives and rights of these children.
We find that
Roe v. Wade and its progeny promote and protect the deprivation and
destruction of numerous intrinsic rights and interests of the pregnant mothers themselves. The
People of our State have an interest in protecting each of these rights and interests. We
enumerate some of them here because we have found that the court's decision in
Roe v. Wade
precludes our ability to discharge our duties to effectively protect them:
(1) The pregnant mother has a personal intrinsic right to her relationship with her child.
Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248 (1983); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982);
Quillion v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978); Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Rounds,
Alpha Center, et al., 653 F.3d 662 (8th Cir. 2011).
A mother's unique relationship with her child during pregnancy is the most intimate,
the most important, and the one most worthy of protection. Although the mother and
child are two separate persons, their relationship is so intimate that the unique bond
between them, beginning as it does in utero, creates a human relationship which may
be the most rewarding in all of human experience;
(2) Although closely related to the pregnant mother's first interest, the pregnant mother
also has both a protectable interest in her child's life and an interest in defending and
protecting her child's life and rights;
(3) The pregnant mother has an interest in her own health. The experiences with abortion
since Roe v. Wade have revealed impressive evidence of profound risk of physical
and psychological harm to which the mother is subjected when her child's life is
terminated by abortion, including the increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.
Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Rounds, Alpha Center, et al., 686 F.3d 889 (8th Cir.
2012) (en banc). The devastating harm to the mother and her fundamental interests
is too profound and tragic for us to ignore;
(4) The pregnant mother has an interest in preserving her personal dignity in her role as
mother, a role that does not simply ennoble her, or merely enrich her life, but one
which distinguishes her as unique as the mother of the unique person she carries. A
legal policy which denigrates her role in carrying her child is not one which protects
her actual interests. It destroys them. A policy which chooses to protect the
destruction of her relationship with her child instead of a policy which clearly
protects it, is a denigration of women, because a policy which is based upon the
assumption that it is a distressing experience to be a mother is a statement that it is
bad to be a woman;
(5) A woman has an interest in not being exploited. Abortion embodies societal
pressures which destroy her interests as a mother to satisfy the interests of third
parties, including, in various cases, the father of the child, her employer, her parents,
abortion clinics, segments of society and others, who may have personal interests in
conflict with those of mother and child. Abortion exploits women by treating the
mother as if she is not a whole woman. It assumes she can be sexually exploited and,
when that exploitation results in pregnancy, act as though she is not, in fact, a mother.
Abortion demands that she detach herself from her experience and her bond, love,
and sense of duty to herself and her child. It expects a mother to prevent the bonding
process despite the fact that this natural process is both psychological and
physiological. The assumption that the culture and society "relies" upon abortion, is
an assumption that the society at large is free to use the mother as a sexual object
without regard for the harm abortion can cause her. It allocates all of the risk, guilt,
psychological and physical pain to her and further isolates her in her circumstance of
an unplanned pregnancy by placing the responsibility of killing her child entirely
upon her;
(6) A woman has an interest in having the law extend to her dignity and respect by
recognizing that she is capable of living with dignity in the family, and happily
competing in the commercial and professional life of this nation, rather than being
denigrated by specially and artificially crafted "principles of law" which ingrain the
belief that she is inherently inferior because she cannot be happy in life without an
exclusive "right" to terminate the life of her own child.
The mother contemplating an abortion is not
exercising a right, she is contemplating
waiving
or surrendering the most important intrinsic natural right she possesses in all of life other than
her own right to life itself. That fact, although simple to state, has profound implications.
Protection of the integrity of the informed and voluntary nature of that waiver was ignored by
Roe, and abortion as a method of terminating the mother's relationship with her child has been
proven to be unworkable in practice.
The reason the act of a doctor which terminates the life of a human being _ whether or not
it is cast in terms of rights belonging to the mother of the child _ is not protected by Due Process
is not simply because history and tradition has not demonstrated that it is a value which
underlies society. Surely it is not. But the real reason _ one which resonates with the compassion
for the welfare of the women _ is that the mother possesses liberties fundamental in nature,
which the doctor destroys. It is simply impossible for the Constitution to protect the mother's
fundamental right to her relationship with her child, and at the same time protect the act of the
doctor who terminates that relationship by terminating the life of the mother's child.
These interests of the pregnant mothers and their children were largely or completely
ignored by the
Roe Court, and the Court ignored them in
Planned Parenthood of S.E. PA v.
Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). In fact,
Casey reaffirmed
Roe stating that it need not decide this
issue (whether terminating the life of the unborn child is protected by the Constitution as a
liberty) as if it were before the court for the first time. The Court's joint opinion emphasized the
doctrine of
stare decisis which requires consistency in the Court's decisions even if a prior
decision was wrongly decided unless certain conditions are met. In upholding
Roe, what the
Casey Court erroneously observed about
Roe's error was that:
"Nor will courts building upon Roe be likely to hand down erroneous decisions as a
consequence. Even on the assumption that the central holding of Roe was in error,
that error would go only to the strength of the state interest in fetal protection, not to
the recognition afforded by the Constitution to the women's liberty." Planned
Parenthood of S.E. PA v. Casey, 505 U.S. at 858 (1992) (emphasis added).
While we are disturbed by the dismissal of the profound importance of the protection of the
lives of the children, we are even more greatly disturbed by the Court's assertion that the rights
and interests of the mothers themselves are not negatively affected at all by
Roe. Time, and the
evidence it has provided, has proven this statement of
Casey, like each of the underlying factual
assumptions of
Roe, to be in error. We now find it imperative that we discharge our obligations
to the People of our State, by identifying and listing our numerous grievances with the decision
of the United States Supreme Court in
Roe v. Wade and its progeny.
Section 2. Our grievances are not with the Court itself, nor its members, but rather with the
tragic errors made by the Court some forty-two years ago in the Court's decision rendered in
Roe
v. Wade, and the Court's subsequent errors in
Planned Parenthood of S.E. PA v. Casey, which
reaffirmed those errors. We issue this solemn resolution in confidence with the knowledge that
the Court's history of being open to correct its errors will serve the Court and our People well
once more; and that this resolution and the call of the People of South Dakota and their elected
representatives will be well received as one issued in good faith, made with respect for the
Court, and made with humility. It is one made in the highest tradition of our nation's
commitment to full-throated expression and discourse on matters of grave public concern.
With that confidence, we list our specific grievances with those decisions:
(1) It is manifestly obvious that the Court should not have attempted to address the
constitutional issues it addressed in the cases of Roe and Doe, first and foremost,
because they had no factual record, no discovery, and the Court had no evidence of
any kind in the record. The record in Roe consisted of an affidavit from Jane Roe,
Norma McCorvy, which she testified in her Rule 60 Motion papers that she never
read. The record in Doe consisted of an affidavit from Mary Doe, Sandra Cano,
which she testified in her Rule 60 Motion papers she never signed. Sandra Cano
testified that her signature was forged, and that she neither sought nor wanted an
abortion;
(2) Because the Courts were so irrationally anxious to rule on the merits of the academic
questions being urged on the Courts in Roe and Doe, the States of Texas and Georgia
were denied discovery, including the opportunity to depose those two Plaintiffs,
which would have revealed the facts they both publically disclosed years later. We
take issue with the Court deciding so important a constitutional question with a
complete lack of knowledge of the facts, discovery, and record;
(3) The Court took it upon itself to assume facts, given the lack of a factual record. Every
essential "fact" recited by the majority in Roe and Doe were uneducated assumptions
all of which have been proven to be completely or largely false. We include the
following among them:
(a) The Court made the false assertion that it could not be determined when the
life of a human being began. It is indisputable that the unborn child is a whole,
separate, unique, living human being throughout gestation from fertilization
to full gestation. Planned Parenthood, et al. v. Rounds, Alpha Center, et al.,
530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc); Rounds, 650 F.Supp. 2d 972 (D.S.D.
2009), affirmed 653 F.3d 662 (8th Cir. 2011). While we conclude this fact was
known in 1973, advances in science, particularly molecular biology and
genetics, over the past forty years removes any doubt about that fact. To the
extent that the Roe court was primarily concerned with the legal status of those
human beings, it was a grave failure of the Court _ one which cannot be
overlooked _ not to begin such a legal inquiry by observing the very existence
of the human being whose life would be terminated. The Court's failure to
observe that a whole, separate, unique, living human being is killed by an
abortion affects not only the issue of the child's rights, but that failure also
doomed any reasonable analysis pertaining to the mother's rights and interests;
(b) We take issue with the fact that this failure of the Court _ to acknowledge that
the unborn child is a whole, separate, unique, living human being _ has
resulted in the Courts, and others, using that failure to deny the humanity of
those unborn children. To the extent that the Court thought that the state of
science in 1973 did not sufficiently illuminate the factual inquiry for the Court
at that time, no such impediment exists today. The fact that an abortion
terminates the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being is now
resolved. Planned Parenthood et al. v. Rounds, Alpha Center et al., 530 F.3d
724 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc); Rounds, 650 F.Supp. 2d 972 (D.S.D. 2009),
affirmed 653 F.3d 662 (8th Cir. 2011);
(c) The Court assumed that the decision the pregnant mother faced was primarily
a medical question the woman should reach with an abortion doctor; when, in
fact, it was primarily a social question about her personal circumstances. We
have long concluded that the decision a pregnant mother faces of whether or
not to keep her relationship with her child is one of the most important she
will make in all of life, and that the abortion doctor and the personnel at an
abortion clinic are not the proper persons to assist or counsel in that decision,
because, among other reasons, their pecuniary interests and personal
convictions often conflict with the interests of the pregnant mother. The
philosophy and interests of abortion clinics, doctors, and personnel are hostile
to the mother's interest in exercising her right to keep her relationship with her
child, rendering them ill-suited to properly counsel the pregnant mother about
her personal question of whether she should and can maintain her relationship
with her child;
(d) The Court assumed that there would be a normal and healthy physician-patient
relationship. Experience has proven that usually no such relationship exists
and that abortions, as performed in our state, are among the worst form of
itinerant surgery, the kind of surgery which mainstream medicine considers
unethical;
(e) The Court assumed that a woman's consent for an abortion would be informed
and voluntary. The best evidence available indicates that most abortions are
uninformed or not truly voluntary, or both. Evidence now demonstrates that
abortion facilities do not make adequate disclosures of the facts and risks of
the procedure. Evidence now proves that pregnant mothers are subjected to
pressure and coercion to have abortions they do not want. Evidence now
shows that there is violence against pregnant mothers to compel them to have
abortions of their children they prefer to keep. It is now known that the
number one cause of deaths among pregnant mothers is murder, and that most
of those murders are performed by the mother's male partner. There is
impressive evidence that women are the victims of violence and even murder
when pregnant mothers refuse to abort the children they carry;
(f) The Court assumed that motherhood was somehow inherently distressing. The
truth is that motherhood is inherently beneficial to the mother, and
motherhood lost is inherently painful and distressing, and leaves an emptiness
for the mother;
(g) The Court assumed that what the mother carried was mere potential, when, in
fact, she had an existing relationship with her child, a human being already in
existence;
(h) The Court assumed that abortion was a very safe procedure. This assumption
has proven to be false. It possesses many dangers to the health and life of the
mother, including increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide;
(4) One of Roe's greatest errors with which we take issue is Roes failure to recognize and
account for the pregnant mother's fundamental right and liberty interests in her
maintaining her relationship with her child. The Court ignored this right and ignored
the enormous loss to the mother which abortion inflicts. The Court's decision treats
abortion only as a benefit to the woman, and assumes she loses nothing of value to
her. The harmful consequences of this error of the Court are too profound and vast
to overestimate;
(5) One tragic consequence of Roe was that in one impulsive swoop, the Court wiped
away all of the states' carefully created protections for pregnant mothers designed to
insure that a termination of her relationship with her child (in adoption procedures)
would be free from coercion and undue or unwelcome influence of others and so that
no termination could take place unless it was truly informed and voluntary, was
treated as a last option, and was subject to court review;
(6) One of Roe's central errors was its failure to define and characterize the conduct
which was asserted to be protected as a liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment.
This failure was further compounded by the use of sanitizing language which created
the illusion that the conduct was relatively benign. The starting point for any Due
Process analysis is for the Court to describe and define the conduct in question.
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721-23 (1997). The Roe Court violated one
of its own basic principles in failing to sufficiently describe the conduct. The conduct
was that of a physician terminating the life of one of his patients. Since the conduct
has been couched in the abortion providers' terms of the right of a woman, the
Glucksberg Court would have described it as the right of a mother to terminate the
life of her child, which contains within it, the right to have the assistance of a
physician in doing so. See, Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 723. This failure of the Court on
this initial inquiry played a significant role in the court reaching an erroneous result;
(7) We agree with the numerous legal authorities and scholars who criticize Roe as
having made from whole cloth a so-called right or liberty that cannot logically or
reasonably be deduced from the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The
central problem with Roe finding such a made-up right is that it frustrates and
destroys one of the oldest rights and liberty interests of the mother ever recognized
by the Court. Thus, the abortion doctor's conduct in killing one of his patients is not
a liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment for the reason that the mother has
no recognized rights; rather it is not protected precisely because she does have
fundamental rights, rights which are destroyed by the physician's act;
(8) We take issue with Roe's failure to account for the child's interests as a human being
whose life is terminated;
(9) We find that the Court made certain false assumptions in Planned Parenthood v.
Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), in its stare decisis analysis intended to justify the
Court's reaffirmation of Roe. The Court acknowledged that satisfaction of any one
of four different principles would satisfy the requirements of stare decisis to justify
overturning Roe. 505 U.S. at 854-69.
Experience and the facts now available demonstrate that not one, but all four methods of
satisfying
stare decisis can now be met:
(1) Abortion is a completely unworkable method to terminate the mother's
constitutionally protected interest in her relationship with her child, and Roe has
badly compromised the mother's rights in a number of circumstances. Because of
Roe, the mother's long recognized fundamental rights and interests are frustrated and
denied;
(2) It cannot be said that the women of the nation rely upon a right to terminate the lives
of their children, and the inherently unjust nature of an act that would be considered
criminal if it were not for Roe v. Wade, cannot be said to be the kind of act that
anyone has a right to rely upon. Experience has demonstrated that if anyone relies
upon the legal availability of abortion, it is the man who exploits a woman and later
demands that she have an abortion that he thinks it is her duty to him to obtain;
(3) The evolution of how the courts now understand the legitimacy of the state's
protection of the mother's right to her relationship with her child, and protection
against violence, coerced and uninformed consents all demonstrate that Roe was
based on false assumptions and failure to recognize and consider the mother's real
rights, all of which flaws have weakened Roe, if it ever had any real strength of its
own;
(4) Finally, and quite clearly, Roe's assumptions of fact have all proven to be either
totally or largely false and inaccurate.
Section 3. The errors of
Roe are too clear, the harm that decision has caused the women in
our State and throughout the nation too tragic, the deaths of our children too numerous, and the
inherently unjust nature of the conduct too plain for our Supreme Court to fail to act to overturn
that decision.
We, the elected representatives of the People of South Dakota, call upon the Supreme Court
of the United States to scrutinize abortion cases now in the courts and those which will shortly
be so, to select the case that most properly presents the important issues, in order to reassess
Roe
and
Casey, and overturn them. We suggest that it is now time for the Court to restore to the
People of the States and their elected representatives the ability to freely and openly debate what
policies they should adopt to protect the women and children of their states free from unjustified
interference from the Court's errors of
Roe.
Was read the first time and the Speaker waived the committee referral.
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
Rep. Gosch moved that the reports of the Standing Committees on
State Affairs on HB 1029 as found on page 114 of the House Journal; also
Appropriations on HB 1057 as found on page 115 of the House Journal; also
Commerce and Energy on HB 1027 as found on page 116 of the House Journal be adopted.
Which motion prevailed.
FIRST READING OF HOUSE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
HB 1089 Introduced by: Representatives DiSanto, Bolin, Brunner, Deutsch, Gosch,
Greenfield (Lana), Haggar (Don), Haugaard, Heinemann (Leslie), Hickey, Hunt, Klumb, Langer,
Latterell, Marty, May, McCleerey, Novstrup (Al), Rasmussen, Rounds, Russell, Soli, Wiik,
Wollmann, and Zikmund and Senators Haggar (Jenna), Bradford, Brown, Cammack, Greenfield
(Brock), Haverly, Heineman (Phyllis), Holien, Lederman, Novstrup (David), Olson, Peterson
(Jim), Rampelberg, and Rave
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to ban the practice of female genital mutilation in the
state, to provide a penalty therefor, and to declare an emergency.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Health and Human Services.
HB 1090 Introduced by: Representatives Westra, Cronin, Gosch, Heinemann (Leslie),
Mickelson, Rounds, and Wollmann and Senators Brown, Holien, Lederman, Parsley, Peters,
Rave, and Sutton
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit a person from serving as a member of a
consumers power district board of directors in certain cases.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Commerce and Energy.
HB 1091 Introduced by: Representatives Bolin, Campbell, Greenfield (Lana), Haggar
(Don), Hickey, Kaiser, May, Novstrup (Al), Qualm, Rasmussen, Stalzer, Stevens, Werner, and
Zikmund and Senators Van Gerpen, Haggar (Jenna), and Otten (Ernie)
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to require that the minutes of meetings of any state
board or commission include a record of how each individual member voted on certain motions.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Local Government.
HB 1092 Introduced by: Representatives Holmes, Deutsch, Kirschman, Rozum, Wiik,
Willadsen, and Zikmund and Senator Greenfield (Brock)
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to establish the rural school teacher recruitment
assistance program, and to make an appropriation to the education enhancement trust fund to
provide for the annual funding of the program.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
HB 1093 Introduced by: Representatives Bolin, Brunner, Campbell, Kaiser, Marty, May,
Qualm, Stalzer, Verchio, and Wiik and Senators Jensen (Phil), Haggar (Jenna), and Olson
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for the exemption of certain students from
the requirement to take certain academic assessment tests.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.
HB 1094 Introduced by: Representatives Bolin, Brunner, May, Novstrup (Al), and Stalzer
and Senator Lederman
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions regarding the annual
minimum wage adjustment.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Commerce and Energy.
HB 1095 Introduced by: Representatives Stalzer, Beal, Bordeaux, Feickert, Heinemann
(Leslie), Kaiser, Kirschman, McCleerey, Qualm, Ring, Rounds, Schrempp, Verchio, and Wiik
and Senators Jensen (Phil), Buhl O'Donnell, Haggar (Jenna), Olson, Otten (Ernie), Tieszen, and
Vehle
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide access to abandoned cemeteries and private
burying grounds.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
HB 1096 Introduced by: Representatives Stalzer, Beal, Brunner, Deutsch, DiSanto,
Heinemann (Leslie), Kaiser, May, Otten (Herman), Qualm, Rounds, Verchio, Wiik, and
Zikmund and Senators Monroe, Buhl O'Donnell, Ewing, Haggar (Jenna), Jensen (Phil), Olson,
and Otten (Ernie)
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain procedures for issuing a permit to
carry a concealed pistol.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on State Affairs.
HB 1097 Introduced by: Representatives Deutsch, Anderson, Beal, Bolin, Brunner,
Campbell, Craig, Cronin, DiSanto, Duvall, Gibson, Greenfield (Lana), Harrison, Hawks,
Hawley, Heinemann (Leslie), Hickey, Holmes, Hunt, Johns, Kaiser, Klumb, Langer, Latterell,
Marty, May, Mickelson, Munsterman, Novstrup (Al), Otten (Herman), Peterson (Kent), Qualm,
Rasmussen, Ring, Rounds, Rozum, Russell, Schoenbeck, Schoenfish, Sly, Stalzer, Stevens,
Tulson, Verchio, Wiik, Willadsen, Wollmann, and Zikmund and Senators Peterson (Jim),
Brown, Buhl O'Donnell, Greenfield (Brock), Haggar (Jenna), Holien, Monroe, Olson,
Rampelberg, Soholt, Solano, and Tidemann
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for a reduced minimum fall enrollment for
certain school districts.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.
HB 1098 Introduced by: Representatives Marty and Hawks and Senators Tieszen, Heinert,
and Sutton
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to authorize extended terms of lease for airport
facilities.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Commerce and Energy.
HB 1099 Introduced by: Representatives Langer, Gibson, Gosch, Haugaard, Johns, and
Stevens and Senators Rusch and Rave
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions related to transferable
interests in limited liability partnerships.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
HB 1100 Introduced by: Representatives Sly, Brunner, Campbell, Deutsch, Johns, Klumb,
Novstrup (Al), Schoenfish, and Zikmund and Senators Soholt, Monroe, Rampelberg, and Sutton
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to clarify how a vacancy on a school board is filled.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.
HB 1101 Introduced by: Representatives Sly and Partridge and Senators Rampelberg and
Tieszen
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to ensure local control over curriculum and methods
of instruction.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Education.
HB 1102 Introduced by: Representative Sly and Senator Soholt
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions regarding the regulation
of licensing massage therapists.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Health and Human Services.
HB 1103 Introduced by: Representatives Stevens, Bartling, Conzet, Gibson, Gosch, Hunt,
Johns, Kaiser, Kirschman, Langer, Westra, and Wink and Senators Rusch, Bradford, Buhl
O'Donnell, Frerichs, Lederman, Monroe, Rampelberg, Rave, and Solano
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions relating to comparative
negligence.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
HB 1104 Introduced by: Representatives Hunhoff (Jean) and Bartling and Senators Rusch,
Heinert, and Hunhoff (Bernie)
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions regarding the notification
procedure for payment of delinquent special assessments.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Local Government.
HB 1105 Introduced by: Representatives Hawley, Anderson, Kirschman, Otten (Herman),
Rounds, and Willadsen and Senators Brown, Lederman, and Sutton
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for an affidavit creating a rebuttable
presumption that a person is not an employee for purposes of workers' compensation and to
provide a penalty therefor.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Commerce and Energy.
HB 1106 Introduced by: Representatives Hunt, Bartling, Schoenbeck, and Stevens and
Senators Tieszen, Hunhoff (Bernie), and Rusch
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to establish the rights of municipal, county, or
township officers in certain decision-making processes.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Local Government.
FIRST READING OF SENATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
SB 29: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to establish provisions for auxiliary members
to serve on the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
SB 34: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions concerning the
administration of benefits provided to veterans and to declare an emergency.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on State Affairs.
SB 65: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain procedures regarding
campaign finance disclosure statements.
Was read the first time and referred to the Committee on State Affairs.
SECOND READING OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
HB 1061: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to repeal an outdated and obsolete provision
related to transferring cases from inferior courts to circuit courts.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1061 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1062: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions relating to jury
selection.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1062 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1033: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to repeal the South Dakota Energy
Infrastructure Authority.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1033 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1034: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to repeal certain outdated and unnecessary
statutes related to the Wind Energy Competitive Advisory Task Force.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1034 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1038: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions related to the
siting of energy facilities.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1038 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
SECOND READING OF HOUSE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
HB 1018: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise the sales and use tax exemptions
for farm machinery.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1018 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 66, Nays 1, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen (Alex);
Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Nays:
Hickey
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1012: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions regarding child
welfare agencies.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1012 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1013: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions related to social
work licensure.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1013 pass as amended?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 40, Nays 27, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Campbell; Conzet; Deutsch; DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall;
Feickert; Gibson; Haggar (Don); Harrison; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey;
Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen (Alex); Kirschman; McCleerey; Mickelson; Otten
(Herman); Peterson (Kent); Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Schoenfish; Sly; Soli; Solum; Stevens;
Werner; Willadsen; Wollmann; Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Nays:
Bordeaux; Brunner; Craig; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haugaard; Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Klumb;
Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; Novstrup (Al); Partridge; Qualm; Rasmussen; Rozum; Russell;
Schoenbeck; Schrempp; Stalzer; Tulson; Verchio; Westra; Wiik
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1020: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise the mailing fees for noncommercial
vehicle plates and decals.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1020 pass as amended?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 66, Nays 1, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Ring;
Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli; Solum;
Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann; Zikmund;
Speaker Wink
Nays:
Rasmussen
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1051: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise various trust and trust company
provisions.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1051 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1021: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to repeal the authorization for the South
Dakota School of Mines and Technology research center project and to authorize the South
Dakota Building Authority to issue bonds to finance a portion of the maintenance and repair of
the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology chemistry/chemical engineering renovation
project.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1021 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1022: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to authorize the Board of Regents to
purchase improved property in Spearfish and to make an appropriation therefor.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1022 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 64, Nays 3, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; McCleerey; Mickelson;
Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen; Ring;
Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli; Solum; Stalzer;
Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann; Zikmund; Speaker
Wink
Nays:
Marty; May; Russell
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1042: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to authorize the Department of Public Safety
to construct offices in Butte County and Roberts County, to make an appropriation therefor, and
to declare an emergency.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1042 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 64, Nays 3, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Haggar (Don); Harrison; Haugaard; Hawks;
Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen (Alex); Johns;
Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; McCleerey; Mickelson; Novstrup
(Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen; Ring; Romkema;
Rounds; Rozum; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli; Solum; Stalzer; Stevens;
Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann; Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Nays:
Greenfield (Lana); May; Russell
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1049: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to repeal certain provisions regarding
reversions of appropriations for a repealed tax refund program.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1049 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1060: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to make an appropriation to reimburse
certain family physicians, dentists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners who have
complied with the requirements of the recruitment assistance program and to declare an
emergency.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1060 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1063: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise the notice provisions for the name
change of a minor child.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1063 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
HB 1037: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise certain provisions related to the
regulation of public utilities.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall HB 1037 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 54, Nays 13, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Deutsch; DiSanto; Dryden;
Duvall; Feickert; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison; Haugaard; Hawley;
Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen (Alex); Johns; Kirschman;
Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Peterson
(Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen; Rounds; Rozum; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Sly; Solum; Stalzer;
Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann; Zikmund; Speaker
Wink
Nays:
Bordeaux; Craig; Gibson; Hawks; Kaiser; Killer; McCleerey; Partridge; Ring; Romkema;
Russell; Schrempp; Soli
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
SECOND READING OF SENATE BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
SB 28: FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to authorize the Board of Regents to sell certain
extraneous real property to the City of Brookings, to deposit the proceeds in the school and
public lands trust for the benefit of South Dakota State University, and to declare an emergency.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall SB 28 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 67, Nays 0, Excused 3, Absent 0
Yeas:
Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Brunner; Campbell; Conzet; Craig; Deutsch;
DiSanto; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Greenfield (Lana); Haggar (Don); Harrison;
Haugaard; Hawks; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Hickey; Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen
(Alex); Johns; Kaiser; Killer; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; Latterell; Marty; May; McCleerey;
Mickelson; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen;
Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Russell; Schoenbeck; Schoenfish; Schrempp; Sly; Soli;
Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann;
Zikmund; Speaker Wink
Excused:
Cronin; Munsterman; Schaefer
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
Rep. Anderson moved that the House do now adjourn, which motion prevailed and at
3:30 p.m. the House adjourned.
Arlene Kvislen, Chief Clerk