TEN COMMANDMENTS MANDATE DEFEATED IN THE STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PIERRE, S.D. (SDBA) – House lawmakers narrowly rejected Senate Bill 51 on Monday, putting a halt to a measure that would have required South Dakota public schools to prominently display the Ten Commandments in classrooms. The bill had already cleared the state Senate.
“The Ten Commandments were influential for the creation of our country and foundation of our legal system,” said Rep. Heather Baxter, who co-sponsored the measure with Sen. John Carley.
The two Black Hills Republicans and other supporters of SB 51 characterized the legislation as an educational directive to public school districts, arguing that the Christian doctrine should be enshrined similarly to the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Magna Carta, which are found in other public spaces. In support of the legislation, Baxter also remarked on the House floor during a hearing on SB 51 that the Ten Commandments are depicted on government buildings throughout the country, including inside and outside the Supreme Court of the United States.
But the measure brought fierce opposition from progressives and public education groups, who criticized it as both a government endorsement of a singular theological faith and a loss of local control. Self-described faith-led conservative Republicans also voiced concerns that mandating the Ten Commandments be displayed in schools would devalue their worth.
“It is pure, it is special, and to me, taking a sheet of paper, laminated, and throwing it up on every classroom wall in the school, to me, it’s blasphemous and cheap,” Rep. Lana Greenfield said.
The Carley-Baxter bill also included a provision seeking to require K-12 students in South Dakota’s public schools receive instruction about the Ten Commandments’ influence on Judeo-Christian society, prompting speculation that the state could find itself defending the law in court if passed.
Some supporters of the Carley-Baxter bill also questioned what would be accomplished by displaying the Ten Commandments in schools.
“We have no control over the curriculum in South Dakota,” Rep. Liz May said, referring to teaching instruction requirements tied to federal education funding and the South Dakota Department of Education’s responsibility to determine what public school students learn and at what grade level. “You want the Ten Commandments in there? You better get involved in the South Dakota Department of Education and the curriculum they are putting forward.”
Even a late change to the bill — brought via an amendment by May — that instead would have required districts to place one display of the Ten Commandments in each school wasn’t enough to garner support from a majority of representatives.
The state House voted 37-31 to kill SB 51.
HOUSE BILL 1177A, WHICH WOULD HAVE PROTECTED SCHOOL STAFF AND STUDENTS FROM DISCIPLINE FOR USING IMPROPER PRONOUNS DEFEATED IN COMMITTEE
PIERRE, S.D. (SDBA) – A South Dakota House committee voted 9-5 Monday to defeat legislation that would have protected school employees and students from disciplinary action for declining to use preferred pronouns or names.
House Bill 1177A would have prohibited schools from taking “adverse employment action” against employees who decline to use names or pronouns inconsistent with an individual’s sex as defined at birth. The bill also would have allowed employees and students to bring civil actions, including seeking monetary damages and attorney’s fees, if they faced discipline for such refusals.
“It’s a difficult situation,” said Rep. Mike Stevens, R-Yankton, before moving to kill the bill. “I think our local school boards, quite frankly, have been handling this for decades.”
The ACLU of South Dakota opposed the measure, warning it could jeopardize federal Title IX funding.
“We are creating a different set of ways that schools are responding to situations of harassment and bullying if a student is trans, if a student is non-binary,” testified Samantha Chapman, ACLU lobbyist (3:44).
Bill sponsor Rep. Kathy Rice, R-Black Hawk, defended the legislation as protecting religious freedom while maintaining existing anti-bullying policies. “I want to protect all kids,” Rice stated. “If somebody uses the he or she or they when it wasn’t meant to be intentional harm to that child…that’s what I’m talking about.”
However, Kate, a parent of a transgender child, described how her son Alexander developed PTSD from bullying after coming out.
“These threats followed not just through school, but they followed through the community,” she testified. “Alexander, a child who used to count the days of summer until school would start again, now dreads school.”
Several committee members expressed concern about removing local control. Rep. Heerman, R-Brookings, drawing on school board experience, emphasized that such situations “are so personal that it is better served at the local level with the teachers that know the students, the counselors, the administrators, and the families involved”.
The bill’s defeat came after representatives questioned Rice’s lack of supporting data for claims about teacher departures and her assertion that approximately 1,000 South Dakota students identify as transgender.
The legislation was moved to the “41st day” — a procedural move that effectively kills legislation in South Dakota’s 40-day legislative session.
TWO SEPARATE IMMUNITY BILLS FOR OFF DUTY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CHURCH SECURITY TEAMS DEFEATED IN COMMITTEE
PIERRE, S.D. (SDBA) – Legislators defeated two immunity bills Monday after officials and lawyers warned that the measures posed risks.
The House Judiciary Committee voted 12-1 to kill House Bill 1148, which would have protected off-duty officers from lawsuits when making arrests.
The committee also rejected House Bill 1214, which was designed to give church security teams immunity, including in cases involving deadly force.
Law enforcement groups opposed HB 1148. Rep. Dylan Jordan, R-Clear Lake, argued it would protect officers responding while off-duty.
“We feel we already are covered under statute, and this bill is simply not necessary,” Stacey Ackerman of the South Dakota Sheriffs Association told lawmakers.
The church security bill, HB 1214, drew debate over safety and liability. Jordan cited “terrible and tragic events” at churches nationwide.
But South Dakota Trial Lawyers lobbyist Steve Siegel warned, “What would happen if a volunteer was poorly trained or not trained at all and kills an innocent bystander as a result of mere negligence? He or she would be immune.”
Rep. Phil Jensen, R-Rapid City, backed the church security measure, saying his congregation requested it.
However, opponents argued both bills created problems.
The opposition from law enforcement to HB 1148 appeared to catch Jordan off guard. He had argued police “put their life on the line every day.”
The committee voted 13 to 0 against HB 1214.
Both bills were killed through procedural ‘41st-day’ motions, a legislative tactic used to postpone consideration indefinitely in South Dakota’s 38-day session.
SOUTH DAKOTA SENATE APPROVES CHANGES TO PRESUMPTIVE PROBATION
PIERRE, S.D. (SDBA) – The South Dakota Senate approved changes to the state’s presumptive probation law Monday on a 31 to 3 vote, giving judges more discretion in sentencing certain felony cases.
Senate Bill 57, brought at the request of the Attorney General, revises when courts must sentence Class 5 and Class 6 felony offenders to probation. The bill removes language requiring courts to impose fully suspended sentences when offenders are under Department of Corrections supervision.
The measure adds several crimes to the list of felonies exempt from presumptive probation, including specific property crimes involving firearms and violations of protection orders.
Under current law, judges must place lower-level felony offenders on probation unless they find “aggravating circumstances” that pose a significant public risk. The new bill maintains this requirement, but eliminates mandatory suspended sentences for those under corrections supervision.
The bill also clarifies that offenders on felony probation or parole are not eligible for presumptive probation when committing a new offense.
The measure now heads to the House for consideration.
