Press "Enter" to skip to content

South Dakota Legislative Candidates Praise Veto of Transgender Bathroom Bill

The Anti-Ridiculousness Caucus grows… and has cause to cheer!

For Immediate Release:
South Dakota Legislative Candidates Praise Veto of Transgender Bathroom Bill
Wednesday, March 2, 2016

As candidates for South Dakota Legislature, we applaud Governor Dennis Daugaard’s veto Tuesday of one of the Legislature’s biggest mistakes of this session, House Bill 1008, the transgender student bathroom bill.

Legislators supporting HB 1008 misportrayed transgender students as “twisted” troublemakers who had to be segregated into separate school bathrooms and locker rooms. The Governor’s veto rejects that discriminatory thinking and allows school districts to continue accommodating the rights of transgender students, who just want to be able to go to the bathroom and change in the locker room that fits who they are.

The Governor’s veto of HB 1008 spares transgender students from more bullying from Pierre. The Governor’s veto also spares South Dakota from more national ridicule, a possible boycott, and the potential loss of over $200 million in federal education funds for Title IX violations.

South Dakota would not have faced this ridicule and risk in the first place if our Legislature had not passed this foolish bill. South Dakota needs legislators who solve problems, not create new problems with bad bills.

The Governor has wisely vetoed House Bill 1008. South Dakota now needs to veto the legislators who supported House Bill 1008.



  1. Happy Camper 2016-03-02

    Yes thank you Governor Daugaard. He was also on the front page of the Huffington Post but for having done the right thing.

  2. mike from iowa 2016-03-02

    The Governor’s veto rejects that discriminatory thinking

    Not sure the guv rejected any thinking. Personally,I feel he went out of his way to avoid making a firm commitment for or against transgenders.

  3. Happy Camper 2016-03-02

    Pop over to Dakota War College. They’re hatin on him right now. It’s politics, he voted no, that’s what matters.

  4. Mark Winegar 2016-03-02

    I stand against any special interest group looking to use South Dakota as a sandbox for advancing ridiculous social issues. The Legislature exists to serve the people of South Dakota and that is what I intend to do.

  5. Steve Sibson 2016-03-02

    Thanks Cory for proving Daugaard is on the far-left.

  6. mike from iowa 2016-03-02

    Sibby,you are chasing your tail so fast you don’t know left from right. Going in tight little circles sure enough makes you a big wheel,donit?

  7. Jeff Barth 2016-03-02

    This “release” seems crafted in a way to appear as if it came from the South Dakota Democratic Party. It conveniently omits District 15 Senate candidate Pat Kirschman who in his capacity as a current State Representative actually voted against the Bill in the State House! Meanwhile my friend Reynold Nesiba also a District 15 candidate is featured prominently. Is this a Party endorsement before the primary?

    Or did it actually originate from the Ted Cruz campaign? It seems like one of his tactics.

  8. MC 2016-03-02

    Of course it was, Jeff.

    Even as a conservative, I found this bill out of place.

    You’d think he would include a few people from the other side.

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-02

    Jeff, I wrote this release collaboratively with the other candidates listed, just like the last one we did on February 17. Michael Hanson pinged me and asked if we should issue such a release. We contacted other candidates and agreed to issue the text you see here. That is the complete story.

    To explicitly answer your questions: the people named at the bottom of the release are the only actors involved in initiating, crafting, and publishing this release.

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-02

    MC, If you’d like to endorse this press release, I’ll add you and the office you’re seeking to the list. We welcome anyone who wants to unseat supporters of HB 1008 and block such problematic, distracting bills in the future. Say the word, and you’re part of the show!

  11. mike from iowa 2016-03-02

    So,when can we expect doctored videos of transgendered kids rioting in school bathrooms and smoking in the boys room?

  12. crossgrain 2016-03-02

    mike from iowa – having lost this latest round in the game of What’s That in Your Pants?, I don’t know that we’ll see doctored videos. Instead, I’m thinking they’re going to have to find another pant-centric scapegoat on which to pin their fear of impending apocalypse. My money’s on furries and bronies.

  13. MC 2016-03-02

    Cory, I said this before:

    Girls should shower with the girls and boys should shower with the boys. Anybody in between, unsure, confused or otherwise should work with their parents, school’s administration and coaching staff and work out some kind of local, reasonable and respectful accommodation. I don’t know about you, but, to me this makes more common sense. There is no need for some heavy handed government mandate to declare who should shower where.

    I fully understand the intent of the bill; to protect our sons and daughters from being exposed to someone who is of the opposite sex, when they are most vulnerable at school. It is an honorable goal. With just a little understanding and some common sense most of the issues can be dealt with with just a minimum of fuss.

    We have elected school boards and hired superintendents who can handle these situations in professional manner. We should let them. They might look to the state for guidance, and that is okay. The SDHSAA can provide a framework to allow administrators to work through these issues. Last time I checked that was kind of what they are suppose to do.

    The veto on this bill is not support for transgendered students, or a slam on straight students. The veto does give guys the right to walk into girls locker rooms and take showers, or girls to start using the boys bathroom. To me this veto means that some issues are best handled at the local level, by local administrators. The Governor supports them, we should too, after all we elected them.
    Michael Clark
    Candidate, District 9 South Dakota House of Representatives

  14. grudznick 2016-03-02

    Simple solution: ban all showers.

    Nobody cares if these kids stink. The teachers are getting raises to compensate them for it. The kids all go home and shower anyway, Mr. H has even said so. As far as the peeing goes, who among you gawks around when you stand at the urinals? And if you are a guy in a dress who wants to pee in the girls room, there are no urinals so you’ll be squating in a stall anyway.

    Don’t take a bite out of the dinner mint in the urinal.

  15. Kim Conlin 2016-03-02

    HB 1112 another transgender bill comes up in Senate Education tomorrow @7:45 AM. Van Gerpen is the prime sponsor in the Senate. Is anyone else tired of the 2016 Legislature’s obsession with discriminatory legislation??

  16. Les 2016-03-02

    Welcome, Michael. A voice I can work with.

  17. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-03

    Michael, your position revolves around the central oversimplification that HB 1008’s supporters (e.g., Brock Greenfield, Al Novstrup) use to negate the complexity of gender identity:

    “Girls should shower with the girls and boys should shower with the boys.”

    First, you’re assuming anybody should be showering with anybody. Why should my young daughter have to shower with those menacing shot put girls? While I hate giving Grudz’s wise-guy-ery and credence, his position of banning all school showers is perhaps a safer, more sensible move than requiring any child to be naked in front of anyone else.

    Second, transgender people and allies would actually agree with your statement. They would say with all sincerity, “And if a student identifies as a girl, she’s a girl and should shower with the girls.”

    Third, your statement tries to classify transgenderism as nothing but an error, a product of uncertainty and confusion that needs to be straightened out to conform to our traditional binary conception of gender. The Kinks tried to tell us this 45 years ago: “girls will be boys and girls will be girls, it’s a mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world….” Life just isn’t as simple as your statement.

    Reinforcing the fallacy of that statement is your claim that the intent of the bill was to protect our sons and daughters. The bill and the language used to support suggest the sponsors had no interest in protecting our transgender kids. Rather, as Senator Hunhoff pointed out on the Senate floor, HB 1008 supporters misportrayed transgender kids as threats from whom our “innocent” sons and daughters needed protection. The frequent use of the word “innocent” suggests that someone else is guilty, and that’s false.

    The veto gives no one any new rights. It does not create carte blanche for a boy to walk into a girls’ bathroom or locker room. Schools and the SDHSAA were not and are not doing that. This debate isn’t about wise-guy larks or lechery. It’s about kids who just need to pee and dress for basketball and schools’ need to fulfill their responsibility to accommodate those students’ needs and their sincere gender identity, and identity that HB 1008 and the statement “boys shower with boys and girls shower with girls” attempts to marginalize and invalidate.

    All that said, I’m glad we agree that the veto should stand.

  18. Jeff Barth 2016-03-03

    Kim: moi aussi!

  19. mike from iowa 2016-03-03

    needs and their sincere gender identity, Lookee here. Here is that word “sincere” again. Remember “SINCEREly held religious beliefs”?

  20. Kim Conlin 2016-03-03

    Update: HB 1112 dies in Senate Education Committee. Moved to 41st day: 5 YES 2 NAY

  21. Les 2016-03-03

    Good comment, Cory.

    The Caitlyn Jenner sensationalism probably does little to help this visit to the bathroom.

  22. MC 2016-03-03

    I knew you disagree with my opinion that boys should shower with boys and girls with girls, I’m okay with that. This is my very own opinion, and it should not be forced upon schools by state law.

    If a school district wants to have communal showers and restrooms for everyone, and the parents, school board, administrators and students are okay with it, the state shouldn’t step in with their own ideals.

    If a school district wants to have private restrooms and showers, like at truck stops and the school district can afford the increase cost, and everyone concerned is okay with it. Then the state should leave well enough alone.

    This is a local issue that should be addressed by local administrators, hired by local school boards, elected by local people.

  23. Stumcfar 2016-03-03

    I am assuming the candidates that praise this are all Democrats and will never get further than being candidates???

  24. Roger Cornelius 2016-03-03

    That is quite an assumption, Stump.
    But you know what assumption means, right?

  25. Stumcfar 2016-03-03

    My assumption was they were all Democrats. I was correct. My second part of that will mostly be true also. I do know what they say about assumptions, that 99% of the time they are correct!

  26. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-03

    Stu, you assume wrong, in a weak effort to take another cheap shot. I’ll see you in Pierre next year, and I will stop bad bills like HB 1008.

  27. Stumcfar 2016-03-03

    Sorry, which candidate listed at the end of the article was not a Democrat. I thought they were all Democrats, but maybe I was wrong. Which one isn’t?

  28. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-03

    You wrongly assume we will not win.

  29. MC 2016-03-03

    Cory, that is a pretty bold statement, even for you. I will vote against bad bills, I will speak out against bad bills, however even I will not promise to stop any bills bad or otherwise.

  30. mike from iowa 2016-03-03

    his is a local issue that should be addressed by local administrators, hired by local school boards, elected by local people.

    and yet,somehow,you small gubmint wingnuts just can’t keep your nose out from under the tent.

    The communal showers comment was a bit of a stretch,wasn’t it?

  31. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-03

    MC, you temper my language well. I should perhaps qualify: “I will try to stop bad bills like HB 1008.” But you know what Yoda says: “Do or do not. There is no try.” Yoda and I, bold we are.

    Communal showers a stretch? Heck, it’s what we had in my elementary school, junior high, high school, and Hansen Hall at SDSU. But the idea that they are a stretch shows how quickly sensitivities about nakedness have changed in thirty years.

  32. grudznick 2016-03-03

    Mr. H, I suspect that if you are in the legislatures you will discover that neither you nor any others make much difference. You will become disgusted and then disgruntled. More disgruntled. You and others who have trod your path before you will commiserate over beers and fancy wines paid for by Democrat doners at some fancy Pierre establishment that caters and cowtows to disgruntled types. This, sir, is my prediction. If you win a chair.

  33. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-03

    Grudz, I too can foresee disgust and disgruntlement (wait—I’m already there!). I’ll be particularly disgruntled if my Democratic donors are buying me fancy wine instead of putting that money into campaign committees where it can do some good. You should help forestall that disgruntlement and contribute to my campaign:

    $12.34 would be nice. $123.40 would be nicer. $1,234 would be literarily perfect but illegal.

  34. grudznick 2016-03-03

    Mr. C and I will come and help you drink your wines, and he will angrily commiserate with you while I explain the pragmatic realities. If my friend Bill or good friend Bob give me a ride to your watering hole in Pierre and they let me in.

    I think Mr. Stan knows how to create ways around the hundred dollar limit. He could create the Mr. H PAC. Then he and Lar and our good friend Bill could put in thousands, and Bob could dump some of the profits of his demon weed into your campaign.

  35. MC 2016-03-04

    Didn’t Yoda have his hat handed to him in the Senate Chamber?
    He barely escaped before being exiled. Do you really want to replay that?

  36. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-05

    MC, I have no desire to replay Episodes 1, 2, or 3. Life is too short for bad cinema.

Comments are closed.