Weekly Legislative Update

This was the final legislative week, and most of our focus has been fixed on Senate Bill 176–the Governor’s Public Safety Zone bill–that arrived on the legislative scene late in the session as a hoghouse of a vehicle bill “to enhance the public safety.”

The hoghoused Senate version of the bill was incredibly concerning, almost certainly unconstitutional, and a direct affront to farmers, ranchers, and tribal members concerned about pipeline construction across the state. It allowed the governor virtually unlimited powers to create “public safety zones” anywhere, of any size in the state, and to control movement of people within a mile surrounding the zones–including those who live and/or own land in those zones. Additionally, the bill contained an emergency clause, allowing it to take effect immediately, and with no recourse for voters to refer the measure to the ballot.

 

Representative Shawn Bordeaux (D-Mission) testifies about the lack of tribal consultation and the likelihood of leaks on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline route.

 

Tribal leaders, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Dakota Rural Action (DRA) all showed up to testify against the bill in Senate State Affairs Committee. Representatives from Governor Daugaard’s office testified that the bill was a direct response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests in North Dakota, crafted in anticipation of protests against the Keystone XL Pipeline in South Dakota, and that NO tribes or landowners affected by the proposed KXL Pipeline had been consulted in the crafting of the bill. Despite the admission of a complete lack of communication or consultation, the bill passed Senate State Affairs 6-3 with Senators Heinert, Maher, and Sutton voting no.

On the Senate floor (and thanks to citizen outcry), the measure was unable to garner the ⅔ majority vote required of a bill with an emergency clause attached. But, the bill did have support from a simple majority, which allowed immediate reconsideration. Assistant Majority Leader Ryan Maher (who voted against the bill in committee), moved to amend (remove) the emergency clause, and the bill then passed.  Click here for vote roster.

 

Representative Dan Kaiser (R-Aberdeen), a sergeant in the Aberdeen Police Dept., testifies that South Dakota already has statutes to deal with violent or destructive protesters, and that SB 176 is redundant and unnecessary.

 

The early Monday morning House State Affairs Committee hearing on the bill brought many of the same opponents to testify, some of whom traveled from more than an hour away. Therefore, it was a surprise that the governor’s office immediately introduced substantial amendments to the bill without having informed those affected and concerned. Because of the radical nature of the amendments, opponents were testifying nearly blind to what the bill now contained (or didn’t contain). One thing we did seize on right away was that an emergency clause had been added back onto the bill, so DRA’s testimony focused specifically on that issue. Again, the bill passed through committee, this time on a party-line vote (Representatives Bartling and Hawley voting nay).

By the time the bill emerged on the House floor the next afternoon, landowners and tribal members had had a chance to digest the contents of the new bill and were substantially less concerned, though there were still questions about the process by which this bill came to the legislature (that is, with zero consultation with affected parties) and the need for an emergency clause. A lively debate ensued, and the bill again failed to pass with the ⅔ majority needed to retain the emergency clause. On reconsideration without the clause, the bill passed with a simple majority (click here for the roster).

 

Representative Karen Soli (D-Sioux Falls) objected to the continual vilifying of “outsiders” in proponent testimony on SB 176, noting that representatives of her ancestral people traveled from Norway to attend the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests in North Dakota.

 

Because of the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, and because the Senate did not concur with the House version, the bill was sent to conference committee. We were watching for the results of that committee (and what the bill would look like coming out of it) through Thursday evening. What emerged is the House (MUCH less concerning) version, but with the emergency clause tacked on yet again. Click here to see those amendments.

After being considered twice, the House passed the conference committee version of the bill, and that same version passed the Senate earlier today. We’re not ecstatic about the final version of this bill, but we are very happy with the intense pressure from citizens that took the teeth out of an initially horrifying and chilling piece of legislation.

Watch for our Legislative Wrap Up for an overview of the entire legislative session–including an analysis of the IM-22 replacement bills, hoghouse vehicles, and ag-related legislation.

Many thanks for supporting our work in Pierre this session, through your calls, e-mails, testimony, and donations! We couldn’t do it without you!

Oil and gas bills off to a good start – and DRA Lobby Days!

It is noticeably busier here in Pierre! More people around, more legislators on the floor this morning. The session definitely feels more in swing now – and it is GREAT.

Two of the oil and gas bills we’re watching came up in committee today. The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard HB 1001 abd HB 1006, and passed both out unanimously with very little discussion. This is good news – particularly on HB 1001, which requires companies to notify landowners before entering their land even for activities which don’t disturb the surface. Meaning, for things like road building and excavation. HB 1006 aligns South Dakota law with North Dakota law when it comes to claiming mineral rights. HB 1003, the new mediation program, got put off until Thursday. Tim Brown and David Niemi, who came out from Buffalo to testify on the bills, were each given time to talk about the mediation bill, though, and the committee will consider their testimony when SB 1006 comes up.

On the note of testifying on bills…we’re hosting a lobby day (now do you get the picture above – grassroots lobbying?? Its great)! Actually, we’re hosting two:

DRA Lobby DaysCitizen Lobby Trainings: Monday, January 28, 6:00pm and Tuesday, January 29, 6:00pm
Lobby Days: Tuesday, January 29 and Wednesday, January 30

In the past, DRA has hosted one lobby day, usually around our board meeting (which this year is that Tuesday). This year, we decided to expand to two days to allow more people the opportunity to come out and speak with their legislators.

We will tailor our lobbying to the committees that are meeting and to the bills that are up those days. And, we will be working with members to do some general lobbying around the issues DRA is working on, both legislatively and in general. There are a lot of new legislators, and it will be for them to hear about DRAs work in areas we may not be hitting with bills this year.

Please let me know if you are interested in coming out to lobby, and we will help get you set up with carpool, gas assistance, and a place to stay.

Of course, as bills come up we need testimony on that don’t fall on those days, we’ll let our members know and will ask members to come out to Pierre. As usual – we’ll keep you posted!