Rep. Sue Peterson (R-13/Sioux Falls) removed one First Amendment problem from her silly state seal bill, but she exposed another First Amendment problem in her motivation for pushing this bill.
Rep. Peterson brought an amendment for her House Bill 1102 to House State Affairs this morning. Her initial text would have dished out as much as a year in jail and a $2,000 fine for creating any replica of the Great Seal of South Dakota that did not include every detail specified by state law, including the state motto, “Under God the People Rule.” Artists and civil libertarians immediately and justly raised free-speech concerns. Rep. Peterson’s amendment limits punishment to renditions of the seal that are “greater than one-half inch in diameter and used for an official purpose or a for-profit commercial use.” She also added a clause stating that HB 1102 does not apply to “or limit any artistic or satirical use of the seal.”
That was enough to get the ACLU off Peterson’s back. ACLU’s Libby Skarin testified before House State Affairs that Rep. Peterson had listened to ACLU’s concerns and that her amendment was sufficient to win ACLU’s backing for HB 1102.
But consider that half-inch standard. Rep. Tona Rozum (R-20/Mitchell) asked about lapel pins and how anyone could fully represent the state seal on an item that size. Rep. Peterson said the half-inch exclusion should take care of that concern, but check out these lapel pins I found online:
15/16ths of an inch—definitely subject to and clearly not meeting the requirements of HB 1102. Compare the sparse sketch on each pin to the full, rich detail of the state seal as presented on the Secretary of State’s website (and this use is for educational purposes, so back off),
But you know, now that I look at it, I’m not sure that even the Secretary of State’s usage complies with HB 1102. Zoom in on that 200×200-pixel image:
Secretary of State Shantel Krebs, keeper of the Great Seal herself, isn’t showing the motto on her official state seal page. She just has a few dozen brownish pixels that no one without contextual knowledge could recognize as five English words mingling democracy and religion.
And therein lies HB 1102’s lingering problem. When Rep. Arch Beal (R-12/Sioux Falls) held up a lapel pin of some sort and asked if it would pass muster under HB 1102, Rep. Peterson said, “Yes, yours is legal, because has the motto on it. I checked.” Rep. Beal said, “Yeah, but you can hardly read it. You need to see it with a magnifying glass.” Rep. Peterson maintained, “In our thought process… it might be reproduced in a way when it’s really really small that it’s not completely readable, but the fact that there’s a representation of the motto on there is important.”
Rep. Peterson’s response here confuses me: HB 1102 says the renditions of the seal bigger than a half-inch “shall be a representation of the full and complete seal and shall include the state motto ‘Under God The People Rule.'” It doesn’t say “representation of” or “hint of” the motto; it says, “the state motto….” Rep. Beal’s lapel pin, like the image on the Secretary’s website, probably doesn’t actually have the state motto; it just has some tiny splashes of color onto which Rep. Beal and other viewers project their prior knowledge.
Rep. Peterson isn’t seeing what’s really written on Rep. Beal’s pin; she’s just seeing what she wants to see. It’s just like her bill: she’s not seeing what it actually says, let alone trying to enforce it. HB 1102 demands that every official and commercial replica of the state seal include the motto and every detail, full and complete. But Rep. Peterson’s response to Rep. Beal’s question reveals she’s not worried about the farmer’s manly beard and wide-brimmed hat, the brown horses, the rust-colored cattle, the yellow-brown corn, the steamboat, the smelter, or the smoke. All she’s doing is using state law to soothe a harmless minor snub of her particular religious preference.
HB 1102 started all because special legislator shirts made by female inmates didn’t say “GOD”. Real conservative legislators wouldn’t solve this non-problem by passing a whole new law; they’d just pass the hat and buy a finer embroidery machine to donate to our captive stitchers. Better yet, they’d stitch their own darn mottoes on their fancy shirts.
Rep. Peterson insists her intent was not to infringe on free speech. Her amendment to HB 1102 removes that unintended infringement. But her fixation on the state motto as the specific criterion that makes the seal legal shows the contradictory Christian-majoritarian hypersensitivity that motivates this bill and still gives it the smell of something less than respectful of the churchy part of the First Amendment.
The legislatures should have to pay $5 for every item they get a stitching on. And those lapel pins? I dare say they should have to pay $10 for every time they take one from the jar in the caucus rooms.
Is that motto actually legal under the First Amendment?
HB 1102 is a law that is not needed for anything. It really seems like Representative Peterson is just playing “legislator” through this.
Maybe it’s good practice of the process, and that experience will come in handy through later bills.
Timoteo, you are right. This reminds me of a bill that a junior high civics teacher might have the class address in the mock legislature she sets up to teach the 12-13 year olds how the legislature works.
I have revised the Great Seal to more accurately reflect the intent of the sponsor…
https://www.facebook.com/bob.newland?hc_ref=ARRvfu5rOIynCS3k8pYFA2wSYEhdnw01udPxBzsHEBae0deK4epiCvweul_6mnJVbOM&fref=nf
I see that, among others, Brock and Lana Greenfield, Neal Tapio, and Jim Bolin are on this piece of dogpoop.
I also see that Troy Heinert and Billie Sutton are sponsors. Just goes to show you that…, uh…. What DOES that show you?
Donald, I’m hoping the statements revealing legislative intent on HB 1102 will help establish the argument that the motto itself is an unconstitutional effort to favor religion.
Bob, it shows me that too many Democrats are willing to go along with unconstitutional Christian majoritarian bullying. See also Democrats Ahlers, Bartling, Bordeaux, Hawley, McCleery, Ring, Smith, Wismer, Killer, and Nesiba. Yes, yes, pick your battles… but that’s all the more reason we need to elect more Democrats so we have the strength to pick more battles and do the right thing in more cases.
I received answers from Kaiser and Sutton, saying they don’t necessarily agree, but thought the issue needed exposure.
Cory, follow that debate. They could be digging themselves a hole that will get the motto squelched. It happened in Ohio, I believe. If they say the wrong things, they could be putting the motto in a precarious position. The testimony in committee could be very wingnutty, and provide just the evidence needed to kill the motto for good. They would be wise to shut up and kill the bill before the wingnuts kill God in the motto.
Bob, I’m sick of that answer from legislators. This issue didn’t need any exposure; it needed miffed legislators to call the women’s prison, find out why the prison was unable to create such detailed work, and then, as Donald might suggest, use their own money to buy patches from private vendors who can satisfy their theocratic whims.
Legislators should take a hard line: sponsoring means supporting. If you don’t think a bill has merit, don’t put your name on it.
Donald, yes, I will follow the debates.