We start the Legislative week with twelve important bills to watch—important because, right now, they are meaningless:
- SB 104: “to protect certain easement holders and rural customers from shutoffs by certain energy companies”;
- SB 106: “to enhance South Dakota”; passed Senate State Affairs and full Senate
- SB 108: “to accommodate legislation relating to education in South Dakota”; awaiting Senate Education
- SB 119: “to accommodate legislation to improve culverts in the state”; in Senate Transportation today!
- SB 133: “to accommodate legislation regarding the Missouri River”; awaiting Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources
- SB 153: “to accommodate legislation on tax increment districts”; Senate Taxation today!
- SB 176: “to accommodate legislation relating to the protection of public safety”; Passed by Senate State Affairs but referred back today!
- HB 1114: “to accommodate legislation on medical services”; awaiting House State Affairs
- HB 1115: “to enhance South Dakota”; awaiting House State Affairs
- HB 1137: “to accommodate legislation relating to education in South Dakota”; awaiting House State Affairs
- HB 1175: “to revise the method of establishing certain interest rates”; in House Commerce and Energy today!
- HB 1177: “to accommodate legislation regarding certain big game depredation”
- HB 1188: “accommodate legislation to promote agricultural development”; awaiting House Appropriations
- HB 1190: “to accommodate legislation relating to the protection of public safety”; awaiting House State Affairs
Along with SB 107, SB 165, and HB 1058, which were killed in committee last week, these bills are this Session’s carcass bills, bills written as blanks into which legislators may stuff last-minute ideas past the usual deadlines for submitting bills or passing them out of their originating chambers. Some at least suggest their topics (education, public safety, tax increment districts), but SB 106 and HB 1115 tell us nothing but their cryptic intent to “enhance South Dakota.”
I’ve posted my umbrage over carcass bills before, primarily over the fact that carcasses deny the public the chance to present testimony in committee and organize lobbying efforts against (or, conceivably, for) such bills. Such public testimony, along with proper timely notice of the real contents of bills, is essential to informed deliberation. Yet SB 106, a completely empty carcass, has passed Senate State Affairs and the full Senate without any public discussion of its real purpose.
We could enhance South Dakota by banning carcass bills and making legislators stick to their own rules, including a calendar that says all bills had to be submitted by February 3. If legislators have an idea for a bill to address an evolving situation for which not all facts are known yet, they should still file a bill with a clear outline of the policy they seek. If an unexpected situation arises suddenly, they should muster a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules. In either situation, if they can’t address a problem according to the regular Session calendar, they should call themselves into a special session to deal with the problem after they’ve had a chance to alert the public to the problem and explain the solution.
Senator Stace Nelson is not happy with the carcass process. Following the Senate’s approval last Tuesday of SB 106, he and troublemaking colleague Senator Lance Russell filed a formal Dissent and Protest:
The body of SB 106 simply states: “The Legislature shall pursue opportunities to enhance the state.” The bill as it passed the Senate has no substantive effect except that it circumvents Chapter 17 of the Joint Rules relating to the deadline for the introduction of bills and Senate Rule 5-1 and Joint Rule 11-1 relating to the suspension of rules, which would have allowed the introduction of a bill after the deadline. Consideration and passage of the bill in this form relinquishes the legislative power and authority of the Senate and cedes such power and authority to the House of Representatives and deprives the people an opportunity to address the actual intent of the bill in a Senate committee hearing.
SB 106 is duly in contravention of South Dakotans’ rights under South Dakota Constitutional Article III Section 15 providing for an open legislative process for the people of South Dakota. By hiding the intent of these empty “vehicle bills” and passing them to the House, it denies South Dakotans the open government they are entitled to as a right in South Dakota.
In addition, 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.” Since the intended effect of SB 106 is not clearly stated and is unknown, the title does not accurately express the purpose or effect of the bill [Sen. Stace Nelson and Sen. Lance Russell, Dissent and Protest: Passage of SB 106, Senate Journal, 2017.02.07].
These dissents and protests are fine, but I’d like to see Nelson organize a coalition to vote SB 106 down when it comes back from the House or follow his leadership’s example and sue to stop SB 106 from becoming law.
But who needs that trouble? Carcass sponsors, put up your real ideas. Let the people know what you’re trying to do. Who knows—instead of stitching your creatures together in your locked dungeon, you could invite the public to bring your carcasses some brains and lightning.
Update 08:06 CST: My original headline cited eight carcass bills; Kathy Tyler and others helped me identify four more active carcasses.
Update 2017.02.15 06:00 CST: Another eager reader finds three more, bringing our total to fourteen active as of the original posting, three withdrawn/killed.
HB1188 is missing from your list. I agree with you and Senator Nelson. I hated these bills and voted against them. Senator Maher’s excuse that we have such a short session and need to be prepared for the unexpected is hardly an excuse. Do your homework, be prepared, and don’t try to pull crap like they did with HB1189.
Oops, need to clarifiy–THEY need to do their homework, not you!!
Here’s my echo to Kathy’s comment on HB1188–“accommodate legislation to promote agricultural development.”
I’ve been calling these vehicles “shell bills,” but “carcass” may be more apt!
Thanks, Kathy and Rebecca! Reviewing the list, I find four more active carcasses. That’s twelve total, plus two that were shelved last week.
In the old days hoghouse carcasses were even more evilly done. Probably they still do it, but this new way to generate “carcasses” seems to be gaining favor as it generates less enmity.
The old way is this: the leadership would decide ahead of time which bills with titles in certain areas, eg. education, were not going to pass. They would pass them anyway through one house, but with no intention that they would ever become law. Once they got over to the second house, the bill would be tabled in committee. Those tabled bills were called “carcass bills” and would sit in committee for weeks. Near the end of session they would then bring the bill off the table, and hoghouse it by amending it and changing the title. That tactic created lots hostility, so it’s understandable that they are going to this new way.
Thank you to Cory, Stace Nelson, Kathy Tyler and others for shining a spotlight on this corruptive process. Absent a true emergency, expediency should never be a reason to undermine the democratic process and deprive the public of a direct voice in the legislative process. As has been pointed out, the correct procedural maneuver for a last minute bill is through a suspension of the rules which requires a 2/3 vote and rightfully so.
I have a broader critique of the legislature. They seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on bills ancillary to the main missions of our state government and they end up leaving little time to discuss the larger issues effecting our state. It seems to be the case every year, so I can only conclude that it is purposeful.
At least this year, anti-corruption and ethics in government have been given a prominent platform. Of course, this was only the case because of IM22 and not because the legislature actually had a mind to make good government their priority. They still haven’t passed anything to replace IM22.
And with the old hoghouse process the sponsors name were never changed so your bill might be gutted and replaced with language you opposed and never approved of, all in a bill with your name on top.
The legislature meets every year for 2 1/2 months. There should be darn few “emergencies” that require such abuse of the rules. If a true emergency arises get the necessary 2/3 vote to suspend the rules and introduce the necessary legislation.
I think one improvement the legislator could do is delay the start of session by 1 month. This would do a couple things.
1. Allow the newly elected or re-elected legislators time to properly draft bills during the month of January. Bills should have to be reviewed by the LRC prior to being dropped in the hopper. Legislators could also do more work by finding co-sponsors for their bills. I’d even propose the concept that if you can not get some co-sponsors then your bill would be just dead.
2. Sales tax revenue for the entire calendar year would be available about the time session starts and not in the middle of the session. Appropriations is the most important part of session and you needed to have the best revenue estimates possible. Sales tax revenue the last 2 months of the year are very volatile especially in an agricultural economy.
Later start? I’d be o.k. with that, especially for the purpose of these revenue estimates. We could start on the second Tuesday of February and still bang out a budget by April 1, leaving three full months before July 1 implementation.
Joint Rule 6A-5 already requires LRC review all bills before submission:
http://sdlegislature.gov/docs/legsession/2017/JointRules.pdf