Press "Enter" to skip to content

Venhuizen: Governor’s Protest War Zones Meant to Protect Protestors

…like how the telescreens and Room 101 are for your own good, Winston Smith.

Greg Belfrage and I capped our interview this morning with a quick back-and-forth on Senate Bill 176, the Governor’s war-powers-for-protests act. Responding to the lively protests and arrests at the now closed Dakota Access pipeline protest camp on the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota, the Governor’s chief policy advisor, Tony Venhuizen, said on Belfrage’s program yesterday that this measure is aimed mostly at protecting peaceful, law-abiding protestors.

Poppycock. There are no protestors running to Pierre or Bismarck and begging the governors for more protection. Cheyenne River Sioux Chairman Harold Frazier, Crow Creek Sioux Tribal Chairman Brandon Sazue, and others who supported the Dakota Access protest came to Pierre to testify against SB 176 Tuesday, only to be rebuffed by the Governor who purports to be acting in their best interest.

IM22 voters, this paternalism should sound familiar.

If the Governor is concerned about lawbreaking protestors, then by definition there must already be laws under which those breakers can be busted. SB 176 is thus unnecessary.

To tackle hardcore protestors who get arrested but believe so firmly in their cause that they’ll return to the protest to resume their stand against whatever corporate beast has provoked their rages, the Governor would create a whole new crime, “aggravated trespassing,” which would dish out stiffer penalties for such repeat protestors. I can see the argument that if some bad dude trespasses on my property once, gets hauled off by cops, then gets out of jail and comes back to tromple my lawn again, maybe that bad dude needs a stiffer second penalty to get the message across that he should stop trespassing.

But Governor Daugaard isn’t creating a new second-trespass penalty to protect regular citizens from return trespassers on their private property. The Governor would impose this second-trespass penalty only in his emergency-power “public safety zones.” SB 176 isn’t about everyday public safety; SB 176 is about making protest a crime.

SB 176 is actually an attack on our property rights. Suppose TransCanada comes barreling through West River with Keystone XL a few months from now. Suppose John Harter, whose land TransCanada gets to build through thanks to eminent domain, invites protestors to come camp on his West River ranch and hurl invective at the pipeline builders as they commit their atrocity. The land along the route is entirely Harter’s; with Harter’s permission, the protestors have every right to occupy his land and shout over the easement fence at the pipeliners. Yet SB 176 allows Governor Daugaard to seize (without due process!) all of Harter’s land within a mile of the pipeline route, kick everyone off, including Harter himself, and arrest Harter and his guests if they try to return to Harter’s land.

Senators have softened SB 176 a touch, removing the referendum-resistant emergency clause and adding a July 1, 2020, sunset clause. But it’s still a bad bill.

If you have private property or if you have something to say, you shouldn’t feel protected by Senate Bill 176. You should feel your First and Fifth Amendment rights under attack. The Senate passed it 21–14, so now it’s time to call your Representatives and read them the Bill of Rights.

15 Comments

  1. Kristi 2017-02-24 14:05

    Between this bill and others around the U.S. (Arizona springs to mind), I’m wondering how much of a chance these bills would have in terms of the Supreme Court? Not a lawyer here and, of course, we’d be dealing with a fairly constructionist court but it seems like a fairly clear violation. After all, when you look at the history of protests… a lot of the violence has happened in response to authoritarian crackdowns on what started as peaceful protests.

  2. Roger Cornelius 2017-02-24 15:58

    Will Daugaard have Jackley arrest those anti-abortion protesters that gather every Friday afternoon at the federal courthouse in Rapid City?
    Anti-abortion protesters do have a history of violence.
    I assume this law applies to both white and Indian protesters.

  3. grudznick 2017-02-24 16:06

    Let us hope that the police come and do a real job on the protesters in Rapid, and set an example of what will happen to the non-Indian professional eco-terrorists that are no doubt already targeting South Dakota. Bonk them in the heads and haul them to jail for a goodly time.

  4. Darin Larson 2017-02-24 16:38

    Most of the Republicans in Pierre have a fond reverence for the 2nd Amendment. Why is the 1st Amendment not equally deserving of respect and adoration? This heavy handed governmental attack on our rights does not reflect the values of a so-called small government party. What it does reflect is a willingness of the Republican majority to limit constitutional rights when seeking to silence those with whom they disagree. This is a very troubling development.

  5. grudznick 2017-02-24 17:11

    Mr. Larson, why do you and some like you keep equating felonious mischief, destruction of private property, and eco-terrorism to expressing one’s first amendment rights?

    Please listen: These people are criminals who are destroying private property and shatting in your water. Those are crimes, and they need to be bonked on the head and shipped back to whatever state they came from.

    I submit, before Mr. C gets all upset in his one-track minded way, that we could all stipulate that any South Dakota tribal member would be exempt from this new law if they are carrying proper ID on them.

  6. Francis Schaffer 2017-02-24 18:46

    Yes it is first a property rights issue. Taking without due process or compensation. It seems there should a compensation portion in the bill to spell out how much needs to be budgeted for such a decision by the Governor.

  7. Laurisa 2017-02-24 19:03

    I attended the senate committee hearing on this bill on Wednesday morning and was appalled at the barely-concealed disdain in full display by the republican members towards the native Americans who testified against the bill. Many gave very powerful testimony, which was summarily dismissed by the committee. I was sitting right up front, so it was very obvious.

    The two Dems on the committee, Bernie Hunhoff and Billie Sutton, did their very best to steer the committee to at least some sanity in seeing the absurdity of this bill and that it was nothing more than a legislative attempt to silence and threaten those who wish to express disagreement with government and stand up for their rights. To no avail, of course.

    I was really ashamed at the obvious attitudes toward the Indian speakers. Not surprised, unfortunately, but ashamed. These types of bills must be stopped. And I have the feeling that it would very much be selectively applied. Anti-abortion demonstrators and gun rights demonstrators would likely be treated far more deferentially, even if they got violent.

    The violence was AGAINST the No DAPL protestors, that is very well-documented, no matter the lies of Morton County and other federal and state law enforcement.

  8. grudznick 2017-02-24 20:42

    Ms. Laurisa, I don’t doubt you but am somewhat confused. Mr. Bernie Hunhoff was on a committee in the legislatures on 22 Feb 2017? That just seems insaner than most. I doubt the rest of your comment as a result.

  9. jerry 2017-02-24 21:13

    It is good that those brave souls put their words to the committee and those words were written and recorded. When the time comes, some time down the road to revisit this travesty to democracy they all supported, with the exception of two, it should be up to the rest of us to remind them of their treason to this place that so many put their lives on the line for and for those who did not make it back home to bear witness to their treachery. Make no mistake, these are not lawmakers, they are lawbreakers at best and traitors at worse.

  10. leslie 2017-02-24 21:23

    Grudz’ 2 toxic trolling posts in an afternoon. ‘member when ft.collins was a nice ‘lil town the size of RC, then doubled in 5 yrs? RC bought water rts, storage space & drilled deep wells 29 yrs ago for its 30 yr. water supply.

    Guess where we front range black hills folks will be drinking from after aquifers are depleted. MNI WICONI. Hope that high pressure ND crude In Chinese Steel , bound for export, doesn’t Leak into the vast Missouri, eh?

    Eco-terrorists my ass. You have grandkids right?

  11. grudznick 2017-02-24 21:37

    You are right about us having good clean water, Ms. leslie. We will be set, as long as the eco-terrorists don’t start pooping the lake Pactola. The Minnelusa aquifer has us set for generations.

  12. Mark Winegar 2017-02-24 23:49

    Cory, this is also an attack on the First Amendment right of Free Speech.

    Let the Women’s March be a model for all future protests. Be kind and considerate of others as you protest. Don’t block anyone’s path but smile and open the way for them to pass. Practice non-violent civil disobedience. Remember we need each and every one of you to vote in the upcoming election.

  13. John 2017-02-25 08:32

    Start by rounding up and making felony arrests on the Tea Party and Right to Birth protestors.

  14. Roger Elgersma 2017-02-25 12:06

    Keeping the protesters safe from the cops by keeping protesters home.

Comments are closed.