The Senate convened at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, the President presiding.
The prayer was offered by the Chaplain, The Reverend Charles Walker, followed by the
Pledge of Allegiance led by Senate page Tara Creighton.
Roll Call: All members present.
MADAM PRESIDENT:
The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that SB 100, 202, 259, 261,
and 268 were delivered to his Excellency, the Governor, for his approval at 5:00 p.m., March
6, 1997.
Also MADAM PRESIDENT:
The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the House and Senate
have, pursuant to the recommendation of the Governor as to corrections in style and form of SB
127 approved the recommendation and that the Chief of Enrolling and Engrossing has engrossed
the changes and has returned the same to his Excellency, the Governor, at 5:00 p.m., March 6,
1997.
Madam President and Members of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform you that I have approved SB 92, 157, 244, 262, 263, 264, and
269, and the same have been deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.
March 11, 1997
March 17, 1997
March 19, 1997
March 20, 1997
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Madam President and Members of the Senate:
Under current law, SDCL § 27-7-7, a defendant who has one or two prior felony convictions
can have his sentence enhanced by increasing the felony class of his current, third felony by one
felony class. Section 1 of Senate Bill 91 excludes the possibility of such a defendant to receive
a possible death sentence but would still allow an enhancement to a mandatory life sentence.
Under another current law, SDCL § 27-7-8, a defendant who has three or more prior felony
convictions, one of which is a violent offense, shall have his current, fourth felony enhanced to
a Class 1 felony. Section 2 of Senate Bill 91 eliminates the felony class distinction and simply
says that such a defendant may receive a sentence of up to life imprisonment without parole.
While Senate Bill 91 was apparently introduced to change inequities between these two habitual
criminal statutes, the bill as it passed the Legislature does not solve the problem it was intended
to solve and creates a new problem, as well. The result is that Senate Bill 91 rewards criminals
for having more extensive and violent criminal histories by giving them shorter sentences.
Habitual criminals with longer and more violent records will still have less possible prison time.
For example, if a person charged with first degree manslaughter, a Class 1 felony, has two prior
nonviolent felony convictions such as grand theft and forgery, the current crime of manslaughter
is considered a Class B felony. A Class B felony carries a mandatory life sentence. However,
if the same defendant had three prior felony convictions, any or all of which were violent crimes
like rape, aggravated assault, or robbery, the defendant could get a sentence less than life in
prison.
I cannot endorse a public policy that rewards criminals for committing more crimes and being
more violent. This bill may have started out as a good bill with a good solution to a perceived
problem. As passed, it creates new problems and does not solve any old ones.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Madam President and Members of the Senate:
Senate Bill 155 is entitled, An Act to revise the responsibilities of counties providing for
prisoner care and the liability of prisoners for reimbursing the county for costs incurred.
As written, Section 1 of this bill requires county governments, and taxpayers, to provide
additional benefits and services to inmates in county facilities by expanding the range of
services provided to include medical, dental, optometric, nursing and psychiatric services.
Section 2 of the bill eliminates a pair of items, vocational education training and chemical
dependency treatment charges, for which a prisoner is currently liable.
Testimony in committee indicated this bill was "clean-up" language to increase the opportunity
for counties to collect reimbursement for these services and to make the two sections of law
more consistent with each other. Another witness indicated this law would "put some teeth in
the law" for collecting reimbursement from prisoners who have the ability to pay.
While the drafters of this bill may have intended this bill to be "clean-up" and provide greater opportunity for the counties to collect reimbursement for these services, the bill goes much further. It extends rights and privileges which DO NOT exist today to prisoners confined in county facilities. The bill requires counties to provide additional medical, dental,
optometric and psychiatric services which are not currently required in law. It also deletes
liability for a prisoner to pay for vocational education training or chemical dependency
treatment received during incarceration.
THE BILL CREATES A WHOLE NEW SET OF LEGAL RIGHTS FOR PRISONERS
FOR WHICH COUNTIES WILL BE SUED.
Why should a county be required to pay for new glasses for a prisoner serving 30 days in the
county facility when the prisoner had not renewed his optometric prescription for several years?
Why should a county be required to pay for nonemergency dental care for filling cavities which
existed for years prior to the prisoner's incarceration? Why should a county be required to pay
for orthodontic services, bridge work or dentures for a prisoner who has failed to maintain his
teeth for years? Why are psychiatric services differentiated from other medical expenses? Is
there some bottomless pit here? UNDER THIS BILL, THE COUNTY WOULD
ABSOLUTELY BE LIABLE.
This bill creates a whole new bevy of legal rights for prisoners subjecting counties to endless
litigation and costs which will be decided by a totally discretionary court system with no rigid
guidelines from the Legislature or the taxpayers who ultimately will pay the bill.
Prisoners are entitled to the basic necessities of life while incarcerated. Somewhere we lost our
point of focus. Prisoners who have violated other people's rights, privileges or property should
not receive greater rights and privileges in jail than when they were free. Jail was never
intended to be nice, and the county should only be required to provide for the necessities of life.
Laws should not provide for the "comfort" of prisoners.
No person who claims to be concerned about the pressure on property taxpayers and the cost
of county government and no person who says they are for holding down property taxes should
approve the expansion of rights for inmates as described in this bill. No person concerned with
the tax burden placed on taxpayers by the confinement of prisoners could possibly vote for this
bill, which would levy additional property taxes against taxpayers for the benefits and rights
of prisoners.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
Senate Bill 202 is entitled, An Act to regulate certain agricultural contracts.
It was the intent of the people involved with this bill to deal with hog contracts, but it involves
every phase of agriculture, including all livestock producers, cattle producers, poultry producers,
and all people engaged in grain farming, and their contractual relationships.
As written, Senate Bill 202 attempts to create a procedure for resolving disputes and conflicts
between two agriculture contracting parties. The bill is an attempt to deal with contract disputes
between a producer of agricultural commodities and a person or entity which has contracted
with the producer to grow or raise such commodities.
While the provisions of this bill are well intentioned, they create so many legal and
constitutional problems and contradictions that it would be irresponsible of me to sign the bill.
The drafters of this bill attempted to draft legislation similar to the State of Minnesota's. The
Minnesota statutes involved are Chapter 17.90 through 17.98. However, there have been
significant deletions and changes from Minnesota law from the legislation the Legislature
passed and delivered to this office. Minnesota's law is constitutional and legal as enacted.
The bill attempts to tag liability onto a parent corporation if its subsidiary is doing business in
South Dakota. For example, this bill attempts to make every subsidiary of another corporation,
limited liability company, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, partnership or
association, the parent corporation, limited liability company, limited partnership, limited
liability partnership, partnership or association liable for any unpaid claim or contract
performance claim. That violates the law of contracts of corporation in all fifty states in the
Union.
Based on Section 3 of the bill, it is apparent that its drafters want to be able to reach the parent
corporation and attach liability to that corporation. What if 99 percent of the stock in the
company doing business in South Dakota is owned by the parent corporation, but it is not a
subsidiary of the parent corporation? That particular corporation would not be liable under this
bill. Also, a company or corporation has to be doing business in our state to be subject to our
courts. A subsidiary corporation is not the parent in the eyes of the law. They are separate but
equal. The bill has failed to meet its intended goal.
In addition, it attempts to provide for South Dakota regulation over corporations which are
chartered in other states which have never done business in South Dakota. This just plain
cannot be done.
Minnesota law, Chapter 17.93, Parent company responsibility for contracts of subsidiaries, says:
Subdivision 1. Licensing. If a contractor is required to obtain a license to purchase
agricultural commodities, the licensing authority may require the parent company of a
licensee subsidiary to guarantee payment or contract performance as a condition of
licensing.
Subdivision 2. Parent company liability. If an agricultural contractor is the subsidiary
of another corporation, partnership, or association, the parent corporation, partnership
or association is liable to a seller for the amount of any unpaid claim or contract
performance claim if the contractor fails to pay or perform according to the terms of the
contract.
Minnesota law follows the Constitution and the law of corporations properly. Minnesota's law
states that if the contractor is a subsidiary, the state can require the parent to guarantee the
payment and contract performance as a condition of licensing. If a contractor is required to
obtain a license in Minnesota, then, under subdivision 2, if the subsidiary did not pay, the parent
would be responsible under the law of suretyship, indemnity or guaranty.
This bill automatically makes the parent liable for the subsidiary. That is not the law in any
state, and it also violates the federal laws pertaining to corporations which are "persons" under
the law.
Additionally, the bill attempts to compel litigation to take place only in South Dakota. There
is no law or court in America that has successfully held that litigation can be limited to one
state. I cannot even imagine a court in another state which would honor such a statement. That
is why they invented the doctrine of "conflicts of laws." It violates the privileges and
immunities clause of the Constitution, Article III, Section 2, to compel anyone to sue only in
South Dakota.
As an example, if a contractor comes to South Dakota and enters into a contract with a farmer,
which contract later goes sour, the action can be initiated in another state. The contractor has
every right to file suit in his home jurisdiction. Then, if the farmer is served while in that
jurisdiction, the case would go to trial there. Under the conflicts of laws doctrine, South Dakota
contract law would be used, but the case would be in the other jurisdiction. There is no way the
Legislature can require the parties to mediate or litigate in South Dakota.
The doctrine of conflicts of laws says if a dispute is initiated in another state's court, that court
must follow South Dakota law. It does not mean, and was never intended to mean, that you
could only file a lawsuit in South Dakota. A lawsuit may be filed in ANY forum where you
find both parties to a dispute. Then South Dakota contract law would apply in the other state.
This makes the bill unworkable. It makes it illegal; and, more than anything else, it would
create an illusion for South Dakota farmers and agricultural producers that they have protections
they do not have.
I support the intent of this bill and I support the principles which the Legislature is trying to
establish with this bill, but what has been done can only serve someone's political agenda,
because it does not serve any agricultural producer or farmer in the State of South Dakota.
IT WILL GIVE THEM ONLY AN ILLUSIONARY BENEFIT; AN ILLUSIONARY
RIGHT AND NO SUBSTANCE AT ALL.
Many of the provisions incorporated in this bill are duplicative and redundant with existing state
law and are unnecessary. It is already permissible for the two parties of a contract to include
mediation as a means of resolving disputes. The two parties may also stipulate that both parties
must agree to the mediator under existing law. If mediation is part of the contractual agreement,
either party can initiate the process today under existing statutes.
Section 2 of the bill indicates that a contract between a contractor and producer "MAY" contain
language providing for the resolution of contract disputes by mediation. The Minnesota law
says, "MUST," and also includes arbitration. The very next sentence of the South Dakota bill
reads "Mediation of a contract dispute SHALL take place prior to litigation." This language
will cause many problems.
Does this mean every contract is subject to mediation or only those with mediation as a
provision of the contract? What happens when a contract does not have a provision for
mediation? Is the party prohibited from taking the issue to court for resolution? Does the
Legislature believe it can limit a person's RIGHT to file a lawsuit? If South Dakota tried the
case, it would violate the "open courts" provision of the state Constitution.
There is no way that provision of the bill will stand any kind of constitutional challenge. A
statute impairs the obligation of a contract when by its terms it nullifies or materially impairs
existing contract obligations.
Let's go back to mediation for a moment. If the contract does not provide for mediation or a
mediator, does there have to be some method to appoint a mediator by a third party? If so,
which third party would make the appointment? What happens if the two parties cannot agree
to the mediator as required in the bill? There is no provision on how to appoint a mediator.
This is totally unworkable!
The bill also provides for the completion of the mediation process within 45 days. Could both
parties agree to extend that period? What happens if genuine progress is made in the final few
days, but time runs out? Is their only option litigation?
What happens if one party stalls the mediation process and has no intention of conducting
meaningful mediation? What if during the entire time of mediation the contractor continues
to sell off the agricultural commodities for which he contracted? Why should the producer have
to wait 45 days before filing a lawsuit, while everything he has raised is being liquidated by the
contractor? On the other hand, why should the contractor have to wait 45 days while the
producer runs the operation into the ground? This would deprive people of exercising their
legal rights.
A significant amount of the Minnesota law, unfortunately, is omitted from our Legislature's
version. Under the Minnesota law, a contractor cannot terminate or cancel his contract without
notice of at least 180 days unless the producer has been reimbursed for damages incurred by the
investment in building or equipment that was made for the purpose of meeting the minimum
requirements of the contract.
Contracts may only be terminated without notice if there is a voluntary abandonment of the
contract by the producer or a criminal conviction of the producer directly related to the business
being conducted under the contract.
Minnesota has provided for the termination or cancellation of contracts, but this bill does not.
Had our Legislature copied Minnesota's law, we would have this provision and it would be fine.
Had the Legislature copied Minnesota law and left out only the things we did not want to cover,
it still would be fine. By changing or ignoring certain aspects of the Minnesota law and putting
in their mediation but not their procedural aspects for mediation and arbitration, this bill has
been made totally unworkable.
Unlike the Legislature's proposed bill, the Minnesota law does not restrict a person's right to go
to court. Under this bill, if someone violates the terms of the contract, the resolution is
mediation, and the party to the contract is prohibited from taking the matter to court until
mediation has failed. No one wants to have his potential options limited like that, because this
bill will not just apply to hogs. It applies to all agricultural contracts in the state. This bill will
change a multitude of contracts in the state.
Finally, the last section of the bill is flawed. Section 4 of the bill appears to limit court findings
to the court and not a jury. Either party has a right to a jury under an action filed pursuant to
this bill. What if the jury finds there has been a violation of good faith?
This bill is punctuated with inconsistencies, errors and infringements on the constitutional rights
of our citizens. It would be irresponsible for me to sign this bill into law. It would violate my
oath to uphold and defend the Constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.
I am sincere when I say I support the principles espoused in this bill. As a matter of fact, I hired
an independent attorney to review the contracts being proposed by out-of-state individuals and
companies so I could better protect our farmers and producers. I am willing to work with any
members of the Legislature of either party to come up with a bill, this session or next year, that
achieves the goals of this legislation but that is also constitutional, legal and workable.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Madam President and Members of the Senate:
Senate Bill 254 is entitled, An Act to appropriate money for grants to tribal institutions.
As written, this bill would provide $150,000 in funding for five tribal colleges in South Dakota.
Oglala Lakota College in Kyle, Sinte Gleska University in Rosebud, Cheyenne River
Community College in Eagle Butte, Sitting Bull College in Mobridge and Sisseton-Wahpeton
Community College in Sisseton would receive funding based on total enrollment at the colleges.
The $150,000 figure includes funds originally appropriated by the Legislature for fiscal years
1996 and 1997, as well as $50,000 for fiscal year 1998.
The funds for the previous fiscal years could not be distributed because it is discriminatory and
unconstitutional to earmark money for non-Indian students only. While the Legislature
attempted to resolve this discrepancy by repealing Section 3 of Chapter 105 of the 1995 Session
Laws, it created a far greater injustice by funding only this program and refusing to fund
scholarship assistance at the state supported universities in the form of Student Incentive Grants
and scholarship assistance at the private colleges in the form of Tuition Equalization Grants.
There are fundamental philosophical and practical problems with giving money to schools for
school years which are already over. A recent development at one of the tribal schools suggests
gross mishandling of funds at that institution. Is the state to be no more than a bonding agency
to help recover a portion of those funds?
If the Legislature wants to provide financial assistance to the schools this year, that may be
appropriate; but the students for whom money was appropriated in previous years have already
paid the schools for their education. We know that not all the same students attending these
schools over the past two years are still in school today. It would make more sense to identify
and locate those students and send them their money.
It is also fundamentally unfair for the Legislature to fund financial assistance for tribal colleges
but fail to fund financial assistance for students attending our state-supported institutions and
the private colleges in the state. The Legislature's failure to fund Student Incentive Grants and
Tuition Equalization Grants means that students seeking higher education degrees may be
unable to find financial assistance of as little as $100 this year.
As a matter of policy, the Legislature should look at all of these financial assistance programs or none of them. I believe the Legislature should look at these programs as a package. I like helping people go to school, but I like helping EVERYBODY go to school.
Nays were:
Aker; Albers; Benson; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn
(Rebecca); Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hunhoff; Hutmacher; Johnson
(William); Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Morford-Burg; Munson (David); Olson; Paisley;
Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Thompson; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the President declared the bill lost, the veto of the Governor was sustained.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 155 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message as found on page 845 of the Senate Journal as provided in
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall SB 155 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 0, Nays 35, Excused 0, Absent and Not Voting 0
Nays were:
Aker; Albers; Benson; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn
(Rebecca); Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hunhoff; Hutmacher; Johnson
(William); Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Morford-Burg; Munson (David); Olson; Paisley;
Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Thompson; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the President declared the bill lost, the veto of the Governor was sustained.
Sen. Frederick moved that consideration of the executive veto of SB 202 be deferred until
Wednesday, March 26, the 40th legislative day.
Which motion prevailed and the bill was so deferred.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 254 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message as found on page 851 of the Senate Journal as provided in
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
Sen. Olson moved that consideration of the executive veto of SB 254 be deferred until
Wednesday, March 26, the 40th legislative day.
Which motion prevailed and the bill was so deferred.
Sen. Rounds moved that the Senate do now recess until 3:30 p.m., which motion prevailed
and at 11:10 a.m., the Senate recessed.
MADAM PRESIDENT:
The Conference Committee respectfully reports that it has considered HB 1227 and the
amendments thereto made by the House, and the disagreement of the two houses thereon, and
recommends that HB 1227 be amended as follows:
MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has approved HB 1055 as
recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the
State of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form. The recommendation of the Governor
is found on page 938 of the House Journal.
We hereby request your favorable consideration in approving the recommendation of the
Governor as to style and form on HB 1055.
Also MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has approved HB 1163 as recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the
State of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form. The recommendation of the Governor
is found on page 945 of the House Journal.
We hereby request your favorable consideration in approving the recommendation of the
Governor as to style and form on HB 1163.
Also MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has approved HB 1218 as
recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the
State of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form. The recommendation of the Governor
is found on page 948 of the House Journal.
We hereby request your favorable consideration in approving the recommendation of the
Governor as to style and form on HB 1218.
Also MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has approved HB 1246 as
recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the
State of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form. The recommendation of the Governor
is found on page 954 of the House Journal.
We hereby request your favorable consideration in approving the recommendation of the
Governor as to style and form on HB 1246.
Also MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has passed HB 1167 over
the veto of the Governor. We hereby transmit the enrolled copy of the bill. The veto message
of the Governor is found on page 946 of the House Journal.
We hereby request your favorable consideration in passing HB 1167, the veto of the
Governor notwithstanding.
Also MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has passed HB 1253 over
the veto of the Governor. We hereby transmit the enrolled copy of the bill. The veto message
of the Governor is found on page 955 of the House Journal.
We hereby request your favorable consideration in passing HB 1253, the veto of the
Governor notwithstanding.
Sen. Rounds moved that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of allowing for
consideration of the reports of the Conference Committees on HB 1222, 1227, and 1243 on
Wednesday, March 26, the 40th legislative day.
The question being on Sen. Rounds' motion that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose
of allowing for consideration of the reports of the Conference Committees on HB 1222, 1227,
and 1243 on Wednesday, March 26, the 40th legislative day.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 29, Nays 6, Excused 0, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Benson; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca); Everist;
Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hunhoff; Hutmacher; Johnson (William); Kleven;
Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Munson (David); Paisley; Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Symens;
Valandra; Vitter; Whiting
Nays were:
Aker; Albers; Morford-Burg; Olson; Staggers; Thompson
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the President declared the motion carried.
Sen. Rounds moved that a committee of three on the part of the Senate be appointed to
meet with a like committee on the part of the House to fix the time of adjournment sine die for
the Seventy-second Legislative Session.
Which motion prevailed and the President appointed as such committee Sens. Jim Dunn,
Rounds, and Hunhoff.
Sen. Rounds moved that a committee of three on the part of the Senate be appointed to
meet with a like committee on the part of the House to wait upon his Excellency, the Governor,
to inform him that the Legislature has completed its labors, is ready to adjourn sine die, and to
ascertain if he has any further communication to make to the Legislature.
Which motion prevailed and the President appointed as such committee Sens. Jim Dunn,
Rounds, and Hunhoff.
The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to
change of style and form of HB 1055 as found on page 938 of the House Journal, as provided
in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and
form of HB 1055 be approved?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 34, Nays 1, Excused 0, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Aker; Albers; Benson; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn
(Rebecca); Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hunhoff; Hutmacher; Johnson
(William); Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Morford-Burg; Munson (David); Olson; Paisley;
Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Symens; Thompson; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting
Nays were:
Staggers
So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
President declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
approved.
The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to
change of style and form of HB 1163 as found on page 945 of the House Journal, as provided
in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and
form of HB 1163 be approved?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 35, Nays 0, Excused 0, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Aker; Albers; Benson; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn
(Rebecca); Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hunhoff; Hutmacher; Johnson
(William); Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Morford-Burg; Munson (David); Olson; Paisley;
Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Thompson; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting
So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
President declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
approved.
The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to
change of style and form of HB 1246 as found on page 954 of the House Journal, as provided
in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and
form of HB 1246 be approved?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 35, Nays 0, Excused 0, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Aker; Albers; Benson; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn
(Rebecca); Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Hainje; Halverson; Ham; Hunhoff; Hutmacher; Johnson
(William); Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Morford-Burg; Munson (David); Olson; Paisley;
Reedy; Rounds; Shoener; Staggers; Symens; Thompson; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting
So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
President declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
approved.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1253 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto messsage as found on page 955 of the House Journal as provided in
Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
Nays were:
Albers; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Hainje; Ham; Johnson (William); Kleven; Rounds; Vitter
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the President declared the bill passed, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding
Sen. Rounds moved that the report of the Conference Committee on HB 1227 as found on
page 853 of the Senate Journal be adopted.
Sen. Frederick moved the previous question.
Which motion prevailed.
The question being on Sen. Rounds' motion that the report of the Conference Committee
on HB 1227 be adopted.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 32, Nays 3, Excused 0, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Jim); Dunn (Rebecca);
Everist; Flowers; Frederick; Halverson; Ham; Hunhoff; Hutmacher; Johnson (William); Kleven;
Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Morford-Burg; Munson (David); Olson; Paisley; Reedy; Rounds;
Shoener; Symens; Thompson; Valandra; Vitter; Whiting
Nays were:
Aker; Hainje; Staggers
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
President declared the motion carried and the report was adopted.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1167 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto messsage as found on page 946 of the House Journal as provided in
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall HB 1167 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 23, Nays 12, Excused 0, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Rebecca); Flowers; Frederick; Halverson; Hunhoff;
Hutmacher; Johnson (William); Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Morford-Burg; Olson; Reedy;
Shoener; Symens; Thompson; Valandra; Vitter
Nays were:
Aker; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dunn (Jim); Everist; Hainje; Ham; Munson (David); Paisley;
Rounds; Staggers; Whiting
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the President declared the bill lost, the veto of the Governor was sustained.
Sen. Hunhoff announced his intention to reconsider the vote by which HB 1167 lost.
Sen. Hunhoff moved that HB 1167 be immediately reconsidered.
The question being on Sen. Hunhoff's motion that HB 1167 be immediately reconsidered.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 24, Nays 11, Excused 0, Absent and Not Voting 0
Yeas were:
Albers; Benson; Dennert; Drake; Dunn (Rebecca); Flowers; Frederick; Halverson; Hunhoff;
Hutmacher; Johnson (William); Kleven; Kloucek; Lange; Lawler; Morford-Burg; Munson
(David); Olson; Reedy; Shoener; Symens; Thompson; Valandra; Vitter
Nays were:
Aker; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dunn (Jim); Everist; Hainje; Ham; Paisley; Rounds;
Staggers; Whiting
Sen. Hunhoff moved that the reconsideration of HB 1167 be deferred until Wednesday,
March 26, the 40th legislative day.
Which motion prevailed and the bill was so deferred.
MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has appointed Reps. Hagg,
Gabriel, and Haley as a committee of three on the part of the House to meet with a like
committee on the part of the Senate pertaining to fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the
Seventy-second Legislative Session.
Also MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has appointed Reps.
Gabriel, Cutler, and Haley as a committee of three on the part of the House to meet with a like
committee on the part of the Senate to wait upon his Excellency, the Governor, to inform him
that the Legislature has completed its labors, is ready to adjourn sine die, and to ascertain if he
has any further communication to make to the Legislature.
Sen. Rounds moved that when we adjourn today, we adjourn to convene at 10:00 a.m.
on Wednesday, March 26, the 40th legislative day.
Which motion prevailed.
Sen. Vitter moved that the Senate do now adjourn, which motion prevailed, and at 7:25
p.m. the Senate adjourned.