The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the Secretary of the
Senate has had under consideration the Senate Journal of the thirty-ninth day.
All errors, typographical or otherwise, are duly marked in the temporary journal for
correction.
And we hereby move the adoption of the report.
March 6, 2001
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:
I herewith return Senate Bill 175 and VETO the same.
Senate Bill 175 is entitled, "An Act to exempt from sales and use tax certain contract services
provided to agricultural producers by an agent of a parent company through a local contracting
entity."
This bill violates a basic rule that has been followed for decades in South Dakota. That rule is
"No one ever, ever passes legislation in the middle of litigation to resolve the litigation." Senate
Bill 175 is unfair. If an agricultural specialist not employed by a cooperative provided this
service to a cooperative or to a noncooperative, it would be taxable. The State taxes many kinds
of services. We should be blind to what form of service is provided. Service is service no matter
who provides it. We should stop carving out deals for special constituencies.
Secondly, the Department of Revenue estimates this sales tax exemption will cost the taxpayers
of South Dakota between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in taxes.
Thirdly, any other business would consider this tax to be a cost of doing business. Some
proponents of the bill contend no one else has to pay this tax. The proponents' logic is that if an
owner purchases any product from a company he has stock in, that owner should be exempt
from paying sales and use tax. However, if any other business owner contracts with another
business for marketing services, the first business pays the tax. If you use the logic of the
proponents of this bill, a business owner would be exempt from the tax if he owned stock in the
business.
The issue addressed by Senate Bill 175 is currently before the South Dakota Supreme Court. The Court will clarify whether the services of a production specialist are taxable or exempt. If the Court concludes that the transaction is exempt, then Senate Bill 175 would simply be superfluous language and could result in further ambiguity. If the Court concludes that the services provided by production specialists are taxable, then the proponents of Senate Bill 175 certainly have the right to bring a similar bill before a future Legislature.
Because the South Dakota Constitution allows only five days for me to make decisions on more
than 180 bills that were delivered during the last week of session, I may supplement this
message with more information when the Legislature convenes on March 21, 2001.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
March 6, 2001
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-5070
Dear President Hillard and Members of the Senate:
I herewith return Senate Bill 179 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to revise the appeal
procedure concerning the factor used for valuing agricultural and nonagricultural property."
It is important to review the history of Senate Bill 179. Senate Bill 179 began as an amendment
to SDCL 10-13-37.2, the statute which explains how to appeal the factor of SDCL 10-13-37.1.
An attempted appeal of an SDCL 10-13-37.1 factor was taken from the office of hearing
examiners to circuit court, with the appeal filed in Hughes County, NOT the county where the
property was located. The circuit court dismissed the appeal because the attorney failed to
understand the current law correctly. I find it absurd and self-serving as anything could ever be
for an attorney to take a case, then lose the case because the attorney does not know the proper
law on venue, and then seek to change the statute to remedy the failure of the lawyer to know
the venue statutes.
There are two further problems with Senate Bill 179. First, there is a problem with the title. In the case of South Dakota Education Association/NEA v. Barnett 582 NW2d 386, 393 (SD 1998), our Supreme Court decided just two years ago to overturn a legislative action based on a deficient title. The title of Senate Bill 179 is, "An Act to revise the appeal procedure concerning the factor used for valuing agricultural and nonagricultural property." The
amendment contained in Section 1 is the addition of the following sentence: "The secretary of
revenue shall calculate all factors pursuant to this section no later than March first." The
amendment found in Section 1 provides a time limit in which the secretary of revenue is to do
his job of determining a factor pursuant to SDCL 10-13-37.1. The title of Senate Bill 179,
however, fails to instruct you or the public that the bill includes a time deadline for the secretary
of revenue to determine the SDCL 10-13-37.1 factor. Thus, Senate Bill 179 is in violation of
South Dakota Constitution Article III, § 21: "No law shall embrace more than one subject,
which shall be expressed in its title." To again paraphrase the South Dakota Supreme Court, the
act is unconstitutional because the title conspicuously fails to:
(a) Prevent the combining into one bill of several diverse measures which have no
common basis except, perhaps, their separate inability to receive a favorable vote on
their own merits;
(b) Prevent the unintentional and unknowing passage of provisions inserted in a bill of
which the title gives no intimation; and,
(c) Apprise the public of matters which are contained in the various bills and to prevent
fraud or deception of the public as to matters being considered by the Legislature.
South Dakota Education Association/NEA v. Barnett, 582 NW2d 386, 393 (SD 1998). See also
South Dakota Physician's Health Group v. State ex rel. Department of Health, 447 NW2d 511
(SD 1989); Daugaard v. Baltic Cooperative Building Supply Association, 349 NW2d 419 (SD
1984); and McMacken v. State, 320 NW2d 131 (SD 1982).
The second issue is Senate Bill 179 would permit an appeal of the SDCL 10-13-37.1 factor to
the circuit court in the county where the property is located or to the circuit court for Hughes
County. There is no rational basis why a factor appeal for real property located in Perkins
County should be heard in Hughes County. The circuit court for Hughes County is already
burdened with many cases arising out of the operation of state government. Why should the
circuit court in Hughes County hear an appeal regarding a Perkins County factor? We could just
as easily name the circuit court for Union County as the place to hear a Perkins County factor
appeal. Permitting an appeal to the circuit court for Hughes County based upon the convenience
of lawyers who practice in Pierre is not a viable reason for the enactment of this legislation.
Because the South Dakota Constitution allows only five days for me to make decisions on more
than 180 bills that were delivered during the last week of session, I may supplement this
message with more information when the Legislature convenes on March 21, 2001.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:
I herewith return Senate Bill 212 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to revise certain provisions
regarding reduced tuition for certain state employees."
1) State employees already get a break on tuition after three years' continuous employment; this
is unfair to the other students that have to make up the difference through higher tuition;
2) The bill is unfair to state employees who don't live in or near a public university;
3) The bill increases the subsidy that is already being paid by taxpayers for state employees
who live in or near a public university;
4) The bill is unfair to the students and the taxpayers who are paying student tuition bills every
semester because they are paying the full amount of tuition wherever they live;
5) The bill is an unfunded mandate on the higher education system.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action and vote "no" on the motion to override
this veto.
Because the South Dakota Constitution allows only five days for me to make decisions on more
than 180 bills that were delivered during the last week of session, I may supplement this
message with more information when the Legislature convenes on March 21, 2001.
March 15, 2001
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:
1. Senate Bill 212 provides an extra special reward to state employees who have worked
for the state for only one year.
Current law allows state employees a 50 percent reduction in tuition for on-campus, public
university courses after three years of employment. This bill would mandate tuition
reductions after only one year of employment. The reward of 50 percent reduced tuition is
too high for only one year's service.
2. Senate Bill 212 is an insult to all the other students and their families who must pay
the full tuition rate.
Almost all other public university students pay the full tuition rate for courses. Many of
them have depleted their own savings and their family's savings, worked at one or more
jobs, and borrowed money to pay the full tuition amounts. Giving 50 percent tuition
reductions to people who just happen to have worked for the state for one year is an insult
to all of those other students and their families. State government work is no better or no
worse than any other public sector or private sector work. It should not have an extra
special reward attached to it.
3. Senate Bill 212 provides little or no benefit to the state's taxpayers.
Nothing is free. The fact that the state employee pays for only one-half of the tuition cost
means that the cost of that reduction will be paid by someone else. If other students don't
pay for it in higher tuition rates, then it will be paid by the state's taxpayers. Because there
is no requirement that the state employee take courses that are job-related, Senate Bill 212
provides little or no benefit to the state's taxpayers. Why should taxpayers subsidize a state
employee's training when that training won't improve the employee's effectiveness in his
or her state job? The state's taxpayers should get something in return for giving someone
a 50 percent tuition reduction.
4. Senate Bill 212 is unfair to most state employees because they have no opportunity to
receive the extra special reward.
Because the tuition reduction is for only on-campus classes, realistically only state
employees who live in or near a public university campus town can take advantage of this
extra special reward. State employees who live in places like Lemmon, Buffalo, Dupree,
Pierre, Philip, Winner, Gregory, Chamberlain, Gettysburg, Huron, Sisseton, and many other
towns will not be able to take on-campus courses because the commuting is too expensive
and disruptive to their daily lives. Therefore, it is unfair to all of the other state employees
who don't live in or near a campus town. State employees should not be rewarded simply
because they happen to live in or near a public university campus town. Rewards should be
based on achievement, not the luck of location.
5. The bill is an unfunded mandate on the higher education system.
Because costs will be incurred, the Board of Regents will be forced into asking for more
appropriations in future years to pay for these costs.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
March 6, 2001
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:
I returned Senate Bill 228 and VETOED the same. It is, "An Act to provide for DNA testing
for certain inmates for the purposes of determining whether they may have been wrongfully
convicted."
Senate Bill 228 should not become law because:
1. The South Dakota Supreme Court has already established the guidelines whereby
inmates can request post-conviction DNA tests for the purpose of determining whether
they may have been wrongfully convicted. This bill is completely unnecessary.
2. The taxpayers will be forced to pay outrageously high bills for unnecessary testing.
Because many inmates are indigent, and because this bill doesn't stipulate who pays
for DNA testing, the taxpayers will get stuck with bills that will be in the tens of
thousands of dollars.
3. It prolongs the agony of the victims of violent crime. Senate Bill 228 only serves to put
into statute a provision that allows violent offenders to flood the judicial system with
meritless habeas corpus petitions. We must have finality for the victims of crime.
They deserve nothing less.
Current Guidelines Already in Place
Senate Bill 228 is not necessary because South Dakota law already provides mechanisms to
obtain DNA or other scientific testing that might establish one's innocence.
At the pre-trial stage, South Dakota's rules of evidence already provide the structure to obtain
DNA testing prior to conviction.
Every inmate in a South Dakota correctional facility has been found guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt at trial or has voluntarily entered a plea of guilty. Additionally, each inmate at the time
of his or her conviction had the absolute right to appeal the conviction to the South Dakota
Supreme Court. Considerable attention has therefore been given to the guilt or innocence of
every South Dakota inmate_ taking all evidence into consideration. That is why the South
Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that post-conviction DNA testing should be limited. The
South Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that inmates CAN OBTAIN DNA testing following a
conviction if:
4 *
the testing meets the general criteria for reliability and relevance applicable to scientific
evidence,
5 *
the evidence would be admissible in a trial,
6 *
a favorable test result would likely lead to an acquittal in a new trial, or
7 *
testing does not pose an unreasonable burden on the state. Davi v. Class , 609 N.W.2d 107,
112-13 (S.D. 200); Jenner v. Dooley, 590 N.W.2d 463, 472 (S.D. 1999).
If an inmate truly feels he or she was wrongfully imprisoned_and feels there is new DNA
evidence available to exonerate the inmate_the legal structure is already in place to help prove
innocence.
Additionally, in the event an inmate's post-conviction petition for DNA testing is denied at the
state level, appellate options are available under the federal judicial system.
Major Problems with the Bill_Who Qualifies and Who Pays the Bills
A major problem with Senate Bill 228 is that the bill allows ANY inmate convicted of a felony
in the state penitentiary system, or in our county jails, to petition the court for DNA
testing_even if DNA testing isn't remotely applicable to the inmate's crime and conviction.
Although the judge can rule that the inmate isn't entitled to a hearing, the judge must deal with
every request as outlined in the bill. As this bill is written, even those inmates who have
pleaded guilty to their crimes can request DNA testing and the court is required to review their
petitions.
Another major problem with Senate Bill 228 is that it does not establish who is responsible for
picking up the expense of the requested DNA tests. The bill does not make the inmate
responsible for any costs_whether the tests are favorable to them or not. The bill also
stipulates that if an inmate is indigent, the court may appoint legal counsel. Who will end up
paying the bills? The taxpayers will.
Proponents of Senate Bill 228 claim the taxpayers shouldn't be concerned with the testing expenses because the State Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) forensics laboratory is
certified to conduct complex DNA tests and this certification allows for minimal costs_only
$100 per sample according to the proponents.
These claims are false and ludicrous.
First, as of today, our state forensics lab does not meet DNA certification standards established
by the National DNA Advisory Board. This means we cannot offer law enforcement and the
judicial system the results of the accepted standard forensic DNA test known as the "13 Core
DNA STR Loci." If one is testing a forensic DNA sample (to see if it originated from a certain
person) and all 13 Core STR DNA Loci results are obtained, the test results allow one to match
the same 13 Core STR DNA Loci (specific DNA markers) unique to that same individual's
chromosomes. Only identical twins will share the same genetic makeup.
Our state forensics lab has, for some time, been undergoing the process to meet the standards
established by the DNA Advisory Board which would allow them to begin offering forensic
DNA testing "in-house" (like the 13 Core STR DNA Loci). However, we are not there today.
Second, we are clueless as to where the proponents of Senate Bill 228 came to the conclusion
that a 13 Core STR DNA Loci test costs $100.
Because our state forensics lab does not yet meet certification standards to conduct 13 Core STR
DNA Loci tests, the state contracts with private DNA testing laboratories. One contract
laboratory is GENESCREEN, INC., of Dallas, Texas. The charge for one sample test is $595.
This is a discount rate offered because the State of South Dakota contracts with GENESCREEN
to analyze our Convicted Offenders DNA Database (SDCL 23-5-16). The standard charge is
$700 for one sample test. Keep in mind, this is only one test. The cost does not include
personnel costs, instrument costs, and other lab-associated costs.
In the past, the state forensics lab has also utilized the services of CELLMARK
DIAGNOSTICS, Germantown, Maryland, and LabCorp, Triangle Park, North Carolina.
CELLMARK charges $1,095 per sample for a 13 Core STR DNA Loci test. If for some reason
a court of law requires a 10-day turnaround on this test, there's an additional $800 charge.
LabCorp charges $1,000 for the test. It charges an additional $250_$500 for a quick
turnaround. At times, other private DNA testing labs hired by the State have exceeded
$1,500 per forensic sample.
Another pressing question not addressed by Senate Bill 228 is how many DNA tests an inmate
is entitled to. One? Two? Three? Or more? Oftentimes in a crime scene, there are dozens,
if not hundreds, of potential items that could be subject to DNA testing. Blood, body fluids,
skin, hair, and fingerprints can exist on hundreds of items. Is an inmate entitled to have all of
these items tested? Senate Bill 228 doesn't tell us. Can inmates keep requesting tests on
different pieces of evidence until they find a result they like?
When DNA testing is offered into evidence at trial, there are expert witnesses called to argue either the merits or inefficacy of the DNA evidence. These expert witnesses are not cheap. Ed Blake, of Forensics Science Associates of Richmond, California, has worked as an expert DNA witness for defense and prosecuting attorneys in South Dakota. Forensics Science Associates charge a minimum consultation fee of $350 per case. They charge a $500 minimum fee per case
for laboratory work. They charge $175 for laboratory analysis and consultation. They charge
$1,400 a day for field investigation work. And, for providing depositions or testimony in a court
of law, they charge a half day minimum price of $700. Who pays all of these extraordinary
charges if an inmate demands expert witnesses? Senate Bill 228 doesn't tell us.
We know who will get stuck with the thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of charges.
It is you and I, the taxpayer. Senate Bill 228 does nothing but give inmates a free ride to clog
the court system with frivolous petitions while sticking the taxpayer with the bill.
In its wisdom, our South Dakota Supreme Court established a sound structure for inmates to
obtain post conviction DNA tests. We should not muddle into an arena where the system is
working perfectly fine.
We Must Have Finality
Senate Bill 228 accomplishes nothing and simply creates an open invitation for inmates to
request DNA tests that result in burdensome costs to the taxpayers. Our justice system, the
victims of crime, and South Dakota taxpayers deserve finality.
With this in mind, I respectfully request that you concur with my action.
Because the South Dakota Constitution allows only five days for me to make decisions on more
than 180 bills that were delivered during the last week of session, I may supplement this
message with more information when the Legislature convenes on March 21, 2001.
March 6, 2001
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:
I herewith return Senate Bill 239 and VETO the same. It is, "An Act to establish the regents
scholarship program and provide for its funding."
1. South Dakota Constitution, Article VI, Section 3 states:
No money or property of the state shall be given or appropriated for the
benefit of any sectarian or religious society or institution.
2. South Dakota Constitution, Article VIII, Section 16 states:
No appropriation of lands, money or other property or credits to aid any
sectarian school shall ever be made by the state, or any county or municipality
within the state, nor shall the state or any county or municipality within the state
accept any grant, conveyance, gift or bequest of lands, money or other property
to be used for sectarian purposes, and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed
in any school or institution aided or supported by the state.
3. Because the Board of Regents is not currently controlling the annual tuition increases
at private institutions and because private institutions currently use the practice of
"discounting" whereby tuition is much higher than actual costs, a Regents Scholar
attending a private institution will not receive the full monetary benefit of a Regents
Scholarship.
4. Public tax dollars should be used to support public educational institutions. The
taxpayers of South Dakota maintain six public universities and four technical institutes.
Until they are fully funded to meet the needs of their students, we should give them all
of the money available for post-secondary education or none at all, which would close
them down.
5. Private institutions claim they want to be separate and private from public institutions,
but as soon as they receive these public funds, they will be constitutionally and legally
under the control of the South Dakota Board of Regents.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action and vote "no" on the motion to override
this veto.
Because the South Dakota Constitution allows only five days for me to make decisions on more
than 180 bills that were delivered during the last week of session, I may supplement this
message with more information when the Legislature convenes on March 21, 2001.
The Honorable Carole Hillard
President of the Senate
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Madame President and Members of the Senate:
Senate Bill 239 should not become law because:
1. It is unconstitutional.
2. Public tax dollars should be used to support public institutions first.
3. It doesn't guarantee that students attending a private institution would receive
the benefit of the scholarship.
1. The Proposed New Law Is Unconstitutional
Article VI, Section 3 of the South Dakota Constitution states:
No money or property of the state shall be given or appropriated for the benefit of
any sectarian or religious society or institution.
Article VIII, Section 16 states:
No appropriation of lands, money or other property or credits to aid any sectarian
school shall ever be made by the state, or any county or municipality within the state,
nor shall the state or any county or municipality within the state accept any grant,
conveyance, gift or bequest of lands, money or other property to be used for sectarian
purposes, and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed in any school or institution
aided or supported by the state.
Both of the constitutional mandates clearly state that tax dollars, state-owned property, and
credits should not be "given or appropriated" to any sectarian or religious institution. This
language is so strong that when Legislators merely wanted to loan textbooks to private schools,
a constitutional amendment was required in 1986 to allow it. The special exemption for
textbooks is in Article VIII, Section 20 and it reads:
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3, Article VI and section 16, Article VIII,
the Legislature may authorize the loaning of nonsectarian textbooks to all children
of school age.
Clearly, if a constitutional amendment had to be done to create an exception for the mere
loaning of textbooks, then it is clear that the state constitution does not allow this type of benefit
for schools.
In addition, on file in the Secretary of State's office are the original oaths that we all signed
when we became elected public servants. Those oaths begin with the words, "I do solemnly
swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State
of South Dakota.."
2. Public Tax Dollars Should Be Used To Support Public Institutions First
The lobbying by the private colleges to get public tax dollars has been enormous. The private
colleges know that every public tax dollar they can obtain from the public treasury is a dollar
they will not need to extract from their supporters, their alumni, or their affiliated churches.
Every public tax dollar that goes to a private institution also strengthens that private school and
weakens the public universities in South Dakota that should have received the public funding.
The fastest way to destroy South Dakota's public universities is to override my veto of Senate
Bill 239 and create this new "voucher" system for private colleges. They will never admit it,
but there is no doubt that some people want to weaken and even destroy our public post-
secondary efforts so more and more students are channeled into private schools.
We are already in fierce competition for our own students against Minnesota and Nebraska
subsidy programs. Minnesota has a special tuition reduction program to attract South Dakota
students. In Nebraska, one person has donated several hundred million dollars to fund
scholarships for out-of-state students to attend the University of Nebraska. We cannot match
the huge spending binges in Minnesota or Nebraska's $500 million, but we certainly should not
make our South Dakota public universities any weaker by giving public post-secondary tax
dollars to private institutions.
3. The Proposed New Law Doesn't Guarantee That Students Attending A Private
Institution Would Receive The Benefit of the Scholarship
Because the Board of Regents is not currently controlling the annual tuition increases at private
institutions, and because private institutions currently use the practice of "discounting" whereby
tuition is much higher than actual costs, a Regents Scholar attending a private institution will
not receive the full monetary benefit of a Regents Scholarship.
At South Dakota's public universities, tuition plus appropriations from the Legislature cover the
cost of instruction and university operations, and nothing more. However, many of South
Dakota's private universities charge very high tuition to some and "discount" the tuition of other
students.
For example, even if the real cost per student is $8,000, a private university's published tuition
might be $16,000. For every student that pays the full $16,000, the private university can offer
two other students a $12,000 tuition reduction or scholarship for each of them. The school
covers its costs for three students ($24,000) by collecting $16,000 from one student and $4,000
from each of the other two students.
If we add public funding into this "discounting" scheme, the private universities will have even
more money to use to attract South Dakota's best and brightest students to their campuses. State
universities aren't allowed to use discounting as a recruiting tool. Tuition is uniform and state
schools are not allowed to overcharge some students in order to use that excess money to enroll
other students.
I respectfully request that you concur with my action and vote "no" on the motion to override
this veto.
Sen. Everist 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-sixth Legislative Session.
Which motion prevailed and the President appointed Sens. Everist, Brown, and Hutmacher.
March 5, 2001
Madam President and Members of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform you that I have approved Senate Bills 44, 56, 57, 64, 87, 92,
114, 150, 160, 166, 173, 185, 218, 231, 234, and 254, and the same have been deposited in the
office of the Secretary of State.
March 6, 2001
Madam President and Members of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform you that I have approved Senate Bill 107, and the same has been
deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.
March 8, 2001
Madam President and Members of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform you that I have approved Senate Bills 14, 27, 52, 53, 58, 60, 98,
125, 144, 149, 165, 186, 204, 209, 223, 225, and 253, and the same have been deposited in the
office of the Secretary of State.
March 9, 2001
Madam President and Members of the Senate:
I have the honor to inform you that I have approved Senate Bills 153, 226, 229, and 245,
and the same have been deposited in the office of the Secretary of State.
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has appointed Reps.
Eccarius, Napoli, and Burg 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 communications to make to the Legislature.
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has appointed Reps.
Eccarius, Bill Peterson, and Olson 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-sixth Legislative Session.
Also MADAM PRESIDENT:
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 175 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message found on page 828 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 175 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 19, Nays 16, Excused 0, Absent 0
Yeas:
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the President declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 179 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message found on page 829 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 179 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 22, Nays 13, Excused 0, Absent 0
Yeas:
Nays:
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the President declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.
Apa; de Hueck; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Duxbury; Greenfield; Hagen;
Hutmacher; Koetzle; Koskan; McIntyre; Moore; Putnam; Reedy; Staggers; Sutton (Dan);
Symens; Volesky
Nays:
Albers; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Drake; Everist; Hainje; Ham; Kleven;
Madden; McCracken; Munson; Olson (Ed); Vitter; Whiting
Albers; Apa; Daugaard; de Hueck; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Duxbury; Hagen; Hutmacher;
Kleven; Koetzle; Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Olson (Ed); Reedy; Staggers; Sutton
(Dan); Symens; Volesky; Whiting
Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Everist; Greenfield; Hainje; Ham;
Koskan; Munson; Putnam; Vitter
MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has approved HB 1279 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 884 of the House Journal.
We hereby request your favorable consideration in approving the recommendation of the
Governor as to style and form on HB 1279.
The Senate proceeded to the reconsideration of SB 239 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message found on page 836 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 239 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 22, Nays 13, Excused 0, Absent 0
Yeas:
Nays:
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the President declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.
Albers; Daugaard; de Hueck; Dennert; Duxbury; Greenfield; Hagen; Ham; Hutmacher; Koetzle;
Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Munson; Olson (Ed); Reedy; Staggers; Sutton (Dan);
Symens; Volesky; Whiting
Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer); Drake; Everist;
Hainje; Kleven; Koskan; Putnam; Vitter
I have the honor to transmit herewith HB 1298 which has passed the House and your
favorable consideration is respectfully requested.
Sen. Drake spoke as an opponent to HB 1298.
Sen. Symens moved that HB 1298 be delivered to the Senate with a do pass
recommendation.
The question being on Sen. Symens' motion that HB 1298 be delivered to the Senate with
a do pass recommendation.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 30, Nays 4, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Apa; Bogue; Brosz; Brown (Arnold); Daugaard; Dennert; Diedrich (Larry); Diedtrich (Elmer);
Duxbury; Everist; Greenfield; Hagen; Hainje; Ham; Hutmacher; Kleven; Koetzle; Koskan;
Madden; McCracken; McIntyre; Moore; Olson (Ed); Putnam; Reedy; Sutton (Dan); Symens;
Vitter; Volesky; Whiting
Nays:
Albers; de Hueck; Drake; Staggers
Excused:
Munson
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present,
the Chair declared the motion carried.
Sen. Diedrich declared the Committee of the Whole dissolved.
President Hillard now presiding.
MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has adopted the report of
the Joint-Select Committee for the purpose of informing his Excellency, the Governor, that the
Legislature has completed its labors, is ready to adjourn sine die, and to ascertain if he has any
further communications to make to the Legislature.
Also MADAM PRESIDENT:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the House has adopted the report of
the Joint-Select Committee for the purpose of fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the
Seventy-sixth Legislative Session.
Was read the first time and the President waived the referral to committee.
MADAM PRESIDENT:
Your Joint-Select Committee appointed to wait upon his Excellency, the Governor, to
inform him that the Legislature has completed its labors and is ready to adjourn sine die and to
ascertain if he has any further communications to make to the Legislature, respectfully reports
that it has performed the duty assigned to it and has been informed by his Excellency, the
Governor, that he will not appear for the closing of the Seventy-sixth Legislative Session.
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
Which motion prevailed.
Scott Eccarius Barbara Everist
William Napoli Arnold Brown
Quinten Burg Jim Hutmacher
House Committee Senate Committee
Sen. Everist moved that the report of the Joint-Select Committee relative to informing the
Governor that the Legislature has completed its labors and is ready to adjourn sine die be
adopted.
The following closing prayer was offered by Pastor Jeff Porter:
Almighty God, Lord of the Universe and Lord of our lives, we praise You for Your
goodness in giving us what we need for faithful living and for giving these Senators the wisdom
and courage needed to help make this state a better and more just place to live. Thank You for
what has been accomplished, for the efforts of the support staff, the pages, and others who
helped to make the process work.
Where issues are unresolved, we ask for direction and a sense of timing; where there is
unresolved conflict between people, we pray for reconciliation. Between now and when these
legislators gather again, help them to listen to You and to the people they serve.
We pray for the State of South Dakota and that we may grow in mercy, wisdom, and acts
of kindness. In Your holy and precious name we aks these things. Amen.