From my email:
DISSENT AND PROTEST IN HOUSE PASSAGE OF SENATE BILL 235
Pursuant to Joint Rule 1-10, we, the undersigned Representatives, do hereby respectfully dissent from, and protest against, the ruling of the Speaker of the House, Representative Gosch, in response to Representative Nelson’s request for a division of the question on SB 235 pursuant to Joint Rule 5-9. Article III, Section 21 of the South Dakota Constitution states: “No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” Joint Rule 5-9 requires the presiding officer to divide the question “… if it contains questions so distinct that, one being taken away, the rest may stand as a separate proposition.” Speaker Gosch ruled that SB 235 does not embrace more than one subject even though the bill contains such disparate elements as teaching English as a second language and reinvestment payments to stimulate economic development and investment. In addition, Speaker Gosch ruled that Representative Nelson’s motion for division of the question was a debatable motion in violation of Section 316 (5) of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, which specifies that such a motion is not subject to debate. We therefore believe that the passage of Senate Bill 235 is in contravention of the Constitution, is null and void, promotes a practice that undermines the very foundation of our State Constitution, and thus weakens the rule of law. We thus dissent from, and protest against, this erroneous ruling, and we respectfully request that this dissent and protest be printed in the House Journal as required by Joint Rule 1-10.
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
Stace Nelson Elizabeth May
Dan Kaiser Jim Stalzer
Brock Greenfield Blaine Campbell
Betty Olson Don Kopp
UPDATE: Political Smokeout is reporting the Daugaard administration is on board (looks like Pat Powers needs to eat crow):
In a proposed amendment to the “Building South Dakota” economic development package, funding for the program would be dependent on the state also giving normal yearly increases to K-12 education, Medicaid providers and state employees.
If those programs were funded regularly, then millions of dollars every year would be deposited in the Building South Dakota fund to pay for career education, affordable housing and infrastructure projects around the state.
If the state didn’t pay those increases, or cut those programs, then the money set aside from the state’s contractor’s excise tax and Unclaimed Property fund would instead go to the state’s general fund.
This “trigger” helped bring Gov. Dennis Daugaard on board with the economic development plan, assembled by a group of bipartisan legislators.
“The main issue or concern from the governor’s office was protecting the general fund, to be able to ensure that we can adequately provide for education, Medicaid, state salary policy, and those things,” said Pat Costello, Daugaard’s economic development director, who endorsed the Building South Dakota program Wednesday. “When we got comfortable with that, the governor could support the bill.”