#larry lucas

The two feuding sides on a domestic violence reform bill reached a compromise Wednesday — but a new objection coming out of left field sunk the effort and the bill.

A coalition including law enforcement, domestic violence shelters and a conservative activist organization had come up with a proposal to get rid of outdated language in domestic violence laws. Under the current language, fighting roommates could potentially draw domestic violence charges, while a dating couple who didn’t live together might not qualify.

The proposed version, making violence between couples in a “dating relationship” count as domestic violence, passed the Senate but met difficulty in the House, which preferred language referring to “persons living in the same household.” Rep. Dan Kaiser, R-Aberdeen, then successfully put on language restrict that to “persons of the opposite sex” living together.

When a conference committee of the House and Senate met to hash out the differences Wednesday morning, however, the two opposing sides had come to an agreement.

“We wanted to narrow that scope of household to an actual relationship,” said Kaiser. “Quite frankly homosexual relationships wouldn’t be covered, and I feel they’re domestic relationships, when they get assaulted and beat up, they deserve the protections everybody does.”

The compromise, which was also endorsed by law enforcement and the South Dakota Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault, would have defined domestic violence as including people “who are or have been involved in a significant romantic or sexual relationship.”

“Whether we like to admit it or not, domestic violence occurs when you have a relationship,” said Dianna Miller, lobbyist for the Network Against Family Violence and Sexual Assault. “It does not always have to be a married relationship. It does occur in a dating relationship, and we can’t ignore that.”

Kaiser agreed.

“I believe that language really hones down the scope for law enforcement and really puts the appropriate take on what a relationship is,” he said.

But two members of the conference committee weren’t on board.

Rep. Troy Heinert, D-Mission, argued that people accused of domestic violence are “guilty until proven innocent.” He proposed abandoning the proposed definition change and instead removing the language that requires law enforcement to arrest someone charged with domestic violence.

Giving law enforcement discretion about whether to arrest people charged with that crime would solve the problems related to the definition of the crime, Heinert and Rep. Mike Stevens, R-Yankton said.

“The ramifications of getting tagged with a domestic violence is more than just a protection order,” said Stevens, a family law attorney. “We don’t have this problem at all... if we give our law enforcement the discretion to do the right thing.”

Other legislators disagreed.

Sen. Craig Tieszen, R-Rapid City and a retired police officer, said before domestic violence charges required arrests, “no one got arrested.”

“We went in the same house six times a night and told them to break it up and get on with their lives, and they continued to beat the crap out of each other,” Tieszen said.

Rep. David Lust, R-Rapid City, urged the committee to pass the compromise, and then consider the mandatory arrest issue next year, if Stevens and Heinert wanted.

But Stevens and Heinert weren’t swayed. They voted against the compromise amendment, which got three yes votes and two no votes but lost because amendments need support from a majority of each house.

Afterwards, Sen. Larry Lucas, D-Mission, gave up and moved to kill the domestic violence bill.

He and Miller said they were disappointed and upset with the bill’s failure.

“We have left them now with a law that now we’ve done nothing with and is confusing and will cause more problems than if we had narrowed the definition,” Miller said. “I think there are issues out there people aren’t being honest about and bringing up.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sen. Larry Lucas' second attempt to pass a bill punishing adults who provide space for underage drinking fared no better than his first, but he said he was upbeat over an "olive branch" offered by an opponent to the bill.

Lucas' Senate Bill 225 made it a misdemeanor for adults who keep or maintain a place for underage alcohol consumption. Dubbed the "social host" bill, it had the support of Attorney General Marty Jackley but ran into a wall on the Senate State Affairs Committee.

Such a bill, Lucas said, is necessary to deter underage drinking, which he argued is a major problem in South Dakota. Many parents provide spaces for their children to hold parties with alcohol, he said. SB 225 would deter that, and, by extension, underage drinking, Lucas argued.

But members of the committee disagreed. They worried the bill was poorly worded and would expose property owners where underage drinking occurred without their knowledge.

"We have a clearly identified problem in South Dakota that needs to provide a solution," said Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center. "I don't believe this is a solution."

Six of the nine members of the committee voted to kill SB 225 Monday. But before the vote, Rhoden offered another route for Lucas — a legislative study this summer examining the broader issue of underage drinking.

After his bill criminalizing people who provide spaces for underage drinking died in committee, Sen. Larry Lucas said he was going to try again, possibly through a smokeout.

Today he says he's going a different route: reintroducing the proposal, possibly with some minor changes, before Monday's deadline for bill introduction.

Yesterday Rep. Steve Hickey said he was considering smoking out his speeding ticket points bill.

Today two more bills got defeated in committee that I hear might have smokeout attempts:

The "social hosting" bill backed by Sen. Larry Lucas and Attorney General Marty Jackley

The open government bill making mug shots public records

If school sentinels gets voted down Friday, or the open carry bill tomorrow, both of those issues are very likely to face smokeout attempts.

A bill criminalizing adults who provide a space for underage drinking died in committee Wednesday morning, but the issue may not be gone.

By a single vote, the Senate State Affairs committee rejected Senate Bill 94, the so-called “social hosting bill.”

That would have made it a misdemeanor for adults to provide a space for a party where they knew there would be underage drinking.

Supporters include Joyce Glynn of White River, whose son died in a car crash after she let him go to a graduation party with alcohol. 

Glynn said this bill would help prevent underage drinking and prevent future alcohol-related teen fatalities.

“This social host bill will give law enforcement officers another tool they can use to keep our kids safe,” Glynn said.

But committee members worried the bill was poorly phrased and wouldn’t actually help many people.

“My concern is that all too often, as we run across cases, we want to rely on legislation to be the sole answer to keep our children safe,” said Sen. Corey Brown, R-Gettysburg. “Ultimately, when I look at Senate Bill 94, I don’t see that particular proposal having much of a deterrent effect.”

Despite SB 94’s defeat, sponsor Sen. Larry Lucas, D-Mission, said he’s considering using a parliamentary maneuver to revive the bill on the Senate floor, or to reintroduce a new bill on the subject before Monday’s bill-submission deadline.