#ernie otten

2 bills defeated on the SD Senate floor during week 5, 0 in the House

South Dakota legislative week five is done. During this week there were only two bills defeated on the SD Senate floor. And over on the House side there weren’t any bills that were defeated on the floor. (I checked the journals multiple times to ensure that was true!) The first bill, SB 95, might end up being included in a petition reform initiated measure a group is considering for the 2018…

On Tuesday, February 24th, at 10:00 AM the SD House Local Government committee will take on 2 bills.

*** This meeting is important. All House bills have to be moved on the floor for Crossover day on Wednesday. Both of these bills are House bills, so they must have action taken during this meeting.

HB 1197 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Accommodate legislation for community improvement districts.

Rep…

Glock 17. Photo by Ken Santema 01/29/15.

On Tuesday, February 24th, at 8:00 AM the SD Senate Judiciary committee will take on 2 bills.

HB 1096 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Revise certain procedures for issuing a permit to carry a concealed pistol.

Rep Jim Stalzer (R, Dist 11) and Sen Jeff Monroe (R, Dist 24) are the prime sponsors. It passed House State Affairs 10-2 and the House floor 52-15. This bill…

A divided Senate committee defeated a proposal to let church officials refuse to perform marriages they they object to Thursday morning.

After an hour of very personal testimony and debate, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 4-3 to kill Senate Bill 66.

Opponents concluded that clergy already have the rights contained in the bill, and that it was unnecessary.

"I really don't see the need for this," said Sen. Mike Vehle, R-Mitchell. "I think it's covered under current constitution and law."

Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Tea, had brought the bill, citing examples in other states and countries where he said ministers had been prevented from opposing same-sex marriage.

"This matter of conscience must be protected from those who are intolerant of someone else's deeply held religious views," Otten said.

Rep. Steve Hickey, R-Sioux Falls and a pastor, said he only performs opposite-sex marriages and believes the law should explicitly protect that choice.

"It is not because I hate anyone. It is not because there's bigotry," Hickey said. "In fact, it's because I deeply care about people, and because I'm deeply convinced for religious and science reason that traditional marriage is best for society."

Several socially conservative groups also backed the bill.

Dale Bartscher, executive director of the Family Heritage Alliance, said the spread of same-sex marriage will make the belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman "increasingly... characterized as an irrational prejudice that ought to be driven to the margins of culture."

And all the opponents said they believe same-sex marriage is eventually coming to South Dakota.

"In other states we see it," Hickey said. "It's just a matter of days. It's very close to our state."

Another pastor, Methodist Karl Kroger of Piedmont, was the lone person to testify against the bill.

"I'm here primarily to give you the message that was predominantly given to people by the angels, and that was, do not be afraid," Kroger said. "We're not being persecuted."

Kroger said ministers already have the freedom to refuse to perform marriages, even for reasons of racial prejudice.

"We have freedom of religion, and sometimes it allows us to do some things that people might question," Kroger said.

A majority of the committee agreed.

"Under these (constitutional) rights, no one is forced to do a marriage for any individual," said Sen. Jean Hunhoff, R-Yankton. "I see this as a political statement."

Supporters agreed, but said it was a necessary statement.

"I certainly do agree that it is a (political) statement... to defend that traditional marriage between a man and a woman," said Sen. Mark Kirkeby, R-Rapid City.

Afterwards, Otten said he didn't see the vote as a "defeat."

"I think that we opened a dialogue, and I think that is good for the state," Otten said. "I respect the senators greatly on the different viewpoints, and we'll just see what tomorrow will bring. I don't think this issue will go away."

But Otten said he's not going to bring the issue back this year.

Sen. Ernie Otten has withdrawn his proposed legislation giving individuals a right to refuse to provide services to weddings they held a sincere belief against.

That legislation, Senate Bill 67, was intended to protect people such as bakers or wedding photographers from being forced to participate in same-sex weddings if they believed those marriages to be wrong.

Several people in states with same-sex marriage have been sued for just that. But those individuals were sued under those states' anti-discrimination laws, which barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. South Dakota law does not protect sexual orientation as a class.

Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Tea, said it was that legal advice that led him to withdraw the bill.

"I've been checking with lawyers... to make sure it was in good standing," Otten said. "I found out we already had protections in for the folks."

He withdrew the bill, a new ability this year for South Dakota lawmakers. The Legislative Procedure committee voted to allow lawmakers to withdraw legislation just last week. Previously, the only option for an unwanted bill was for the sponsor to ask a committee to kill it.

But Otten didn't withdraw a second, related bill. Senate Bill 66 provides protection specifically to religious leaders from officiating over ceremonies they have a sincere objection to.

SB66 is up for a hearing Thursday at 8 a.m. before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Clergy, wedding photographers, bakers, florists and others could get the right to refuse to help with weddings they have a "sincerely held" belief against in South Dakota.

A pair of bills before the South Dakota Legislature would establish that right. They're aimed primarily at same-sex marriage but are intentionally written to apply more broadly.

"What we are seeing nationally is, gay rights are trumping religious freedoms," said Rep. Steve Hickey, R-Sioux Falls and a pastor. "If a person wants a different kind of marriage than we're offering, go where they do that. Don't sue me for not providing that service."

One bill, SB66, would allow clergy like Hickey to refuse to officiate over marriages to which they're opposed. The other, SB67, would give the same protection to any person or personal business providing services to a wedding.

Same-sex marriage is currently against the law in South Dakota, after the voters added a ban to the state's constitution in 2006. But given recent votes and judicial decisions that have legalized same-sex marriage in other states, opponents of gay marriage like Hickey and Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Tea, thought it was important to be "proactive."

In states like Oregon and Colorado, individuals have been successfully sued for refusing to sell things like wedding cakes to same-sex couples.

But Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who specializes in the First Amendment, said there's a difference between those states and South Dakota other than legal same-sex marriage there.

What forces individuals to not discriminate against same-sex couples is not legal same-sex marriage, but laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, he said.

States like Oregon and Colorado, where people have been successfully sued for refusing service to same-sex couples, have those protections. South Dakota doesn't.

In South Dakota, it's unlawful for someone like a store owner to discriminate based on "race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability or national origin."

"People (in South Dakota) are already free to discriminate, even much more broadly, based on sexual orientation," Volokh said. "I'm not sure the statute is necessary (to address same-sex weddings)."

Hickey said the bill is necessary, because of the potential for sudden court rulings.

"It's possible for the Supreme Court to declare a protected class of people instantly," Hickey said. "So it's not too soon to start putting in these kind of bills."

If passed, the bills would carve out an added exception to South Dakota's anti-discrimination laws. It would become legal to discriminate, even over protected areas like race or religion, as long as the subject was related to a wedding and was motivated by deep religious or philosophical beliefs.

"This isn't limited to same-sex marriage ceremonies," Volokh said.

Otten and Hickey said they agree individuals should have the freedom to discriminate with wedding services — even if they's discriminating against Christianity or something else the two support.

"That's a matter of conscience," Otten said. "In my mind it is just total freedom in protecting people."

Hickey said people could freely choose not to patronize businesses whose choices they disagreed with.

"Let the market bear it out," Hickey said. "If there's some racist group, they can boycott it."

Supporters of gay rights in South Dakota, such as Sen. Angie Buhl O'Donnell, D-Sioux Falls, don't like the bills — but particularly dislike SB67, the one providing protection to a broad range of wedding services.

"The clergy one is one that's been done in lots of other states, and really spells out protection that clergy already have," Buhl O'Donnell said, calling it "unnecessary."

Buhl O'Donnell said the second proposal, allowing ordinary people to discriminate in wedding services, seemed "mean-spirited."

"In South Dakota, we're a lot of small towns, and we're really built on being neighborly and having a sense of community," she said. "This bill really seems antithetical to that."

Otten said it's not about being mean, it's about being tolerant of some people's deeply held beliefs.

"I personally do not care how people live. I think that is their freedom, and one needs to respect that," Otten said. "On the same token, because of what has gone on in other states, this intolerance of conscience keeps on popping up. I just wanted to protect those folks."

Volokh noted another potential side effect of the second bill, which gives protection to "people" with deeply held beliefs.

"'Person' doesn't only mean private person. It also means a person acting in a governmental capacity," Volokh said. "I wonder if, for example, the statute would allow clerks in a courthouse to refuse to hand out marriage licenses, if they find that some marriage doesn't comport with their religious principles."

There is one thing both sides agree on: same-sex marriage is likely become legal in South Dakota, sooner or later. Otten said he was spurred to produce these bills after some pro-same-sex marriage advocates talked about a ballot initiative to legalize it, and Buhl O'Donnell said she sees it being legalized soon, too.

A legislative committee shot down a proposal to allow guns on South Dakota’s college campuses Tuesday.

Supporters of Senate Bill 177 said it would uphold the Second Amendment rights of college students and provide protection against a mass shooter.

“These folks are adults,” said Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Sioux Falls. “These are the same folks who have the right to vote, who sign up to protect us in the military.”

He and Rep. Lance Russell pointed to other states, such as Oregon and Colorado, that they said have similar laws.

SB 177 would have forbidden universities and technical schools from “abridging the ability of any person to carry or possess a firearm in accordance with state law.”

But a parade of opponents testified against the measure, saying it was unneeded, unwanted and dangerous.

The director of the Board of Regents warned that the bill was poorly written and could have unintended consequences. It could stop universities from banning guns in laboratories where metal is forbidden, said Jack Warner. It could also make South Dakota universities ineligible to host NCAA tournaments, which require gun bans in arenas.

Representatives of the student bodies of the state’s major universities also testified against the bill. The student governments of Northern State University, South Dakota State University and the University of South Dakota all voted to oppose SB 177.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed.

Sen. Jean Hunhoff said she was persuaded to oppose the bill by the opposition of the students, the people who would be affected.

“We have students here who are representing their institutes of higher learning,” Hunhoff said. “They are the ones telling us we do not want guns on campus.”

Members of the South Dakota Legislature's transportation committees praised members of a task force that studied teen driving, but stopped short of endorsing their four proposed bills Thursday morning.

The task force, which included legislators, state officials and members of the public, studied South Dakota's high teen driving crash rate and recommended four laws: banning young teens from using cell phones while driving, limiting the passengers they can carry, requiring more instruction before they can drive on their own and creating a statewide driver education coordinator.

Read an introduction to the proposed changes here.

Lawmakers were enthusiastic about the task force's work, praising the research they gathered and the uncompensated time they spent gathering it.

But the description of the bills by Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City, didn't win any immediate converts.

Most lawmakers on the committee said simply that they'd keep an open mind about the legislation until they see the specific language.

The bill that would ban teen drivers on instruction or restricted permits from using electronic devices while driving drew particular skepticism.

Sen. David Omdahl, R-Sioux Falls, said he has doubts about the enforcability of bans on mobile phone use.

Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Tea, agreed. But Otten said that while he's opposed to blanket bans on texting while driving, he's open to such a measure for teen drivers as a special case.