On Tuesday, February 16, at 8:00 am the SD Senate Judiciary committee will take on 7 bills. This is compiled using the agenda at the time of composing this post. Agendas can and do change!
One way to listen to these meetings live is via the audio links on the Schedule page of the LRC website. While there you can also view the status board for the meetings as they are going on.
One of these bills, SB 140, has had a prior hearing.
SB 96 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Increase the pay for members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Sen Craig Tieszen (R, Dist 34) and Rep Mathew Wollmann (R, Dist 8) are the prime sponsors.
Below is the entire bill. The underlined section is what is being added to the law.
Section 1. That § 24-13-5 be amended to read:
24-13-5. Each member of the Board of Pardons and Paroles shall receive compensation and expense reimbursement set pursuant to § 4-7-10.4 for attending meetings or performing duties of the board. However, each member shall receive no less than two hundred dollars per diem for each day of hearings.
I do wonder why the $200 per day per diem minimum is being added specifically for this board? That seems odd to create such a specific minimum just for one board. Testimony will need to be listened to.
SB 97 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Provide for the automatic removal of all Class 2 misdemeanor convictions from background check records after ten years under certain conditions.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Sen Craig Tieszen (R, Dist 34) and Rep Mathew Wollmann (R, Dist 8) are the prime sponsors.
Here is the entire bill:
Section 1. That chapter 23A-3 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:Any conviction for a Class 2 misdemeanor shall be automatically removed from a defendant’s public record after ten years. However, the conviction record will remain available to law enforcement agency searches.
I love this change. Actually I thought this was already true. Does that mean my underage consumption from way too many years ago is still on my record?
SJR 3 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Proposing and submitting to the electors at the next general election amendments to Article III of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, revising the procedure for filling a vacancy in either house of the Legislature.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Sen Bernie Hunhoff (D, Dist 18) and Rep Spencer Hawley (D, Dist 7) are the prime sponsors.
This would place another question on the ballot for the 2016 election. Specifically it would make the following modification to the SD Constitution:
§ 10. The Governor shall make appointments to fill such vacancies as Legislature shall provide procedures for conducting an election to fill any vacancy that may occur in either house of the Legislature.
A few years ago I would have said this was a silly change… But over the last few years there have been a record number of executive appointments to the legislature due to vacated seats. I’m going to listen to testimony on this one, it might be a good idea.
SB 142 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Authorize certain disclosures of mental health information to law enforcement.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Sen Deb Soholt (R, Dist 14) and Rep Mark Mickelson (R, Dist 13) are the prime sponsors.
This is one I’ll have to listen to testimony on.
HB 1183 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Revise certain provisions regarding the jurisdiction of magistrate courts to issue protection orders.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Not Opposed
Prime Sponsors: Rep Timothy Johns (R, Dist 31) and Sen Arthur Rusch (R, Dist 17) are the prime sponsors.
This bill made it through the House without a No vote.
This bill deals with domestic protection actions and stalking matters. Currently only circuit court judges can hear those, this bill would allow law trained magistrates the jurisdiction to hear those cases. It was amended in House Judiciary limits the bill to stalking matters and domestic protection actions. I think that amendment help to alleviate the concerns that magistrates were confined to certain cases. If a child was concerned it would not go to the magistrate, that would still go to circuit court.
HB 1105 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Give the court discretion to grant a continuance of a protection order in certain situations.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Not Opposed
Prime Sponsors: Rep Timothy Johns (R, Dist 31) and Sen Arthur Rusch (R, Dist 17) are the prime sponsors.
This bill made it through the House without a No vote.
The statutes being amended currently say no continuance may exceed thirty days.
This exception would be added:
unless the court finds good cause for the additional continuance and:
(1) The parties stipulate to an additional continuance; or
(2) The court finds that law enforcement is unable to locate the respondent for purposes of service of the ex parte protection order.
BILLS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION WHICH HAVE HAD PRIOR HEARING.
SB 140 (SoDakLiberty Posts) – Eliminate life sentences without parole for defendants under the age of eighteen at the time of the crime.
SoDakLiberty Stance: Undecided
Prime Sponsors: Sen Craig Tieszen (R, Dist 34) and Rep Timothy Johns (R, Dist 31) are the prime sponsors.
This bill basically eliminates life sentences for juveniles. Apparently in South Dakota an inmate is not eligible for parole if no terms of years is sentenced. This bill forces a term of years to be set when sentenced. It doesn’t set an actual number that must be followed, just that a term of years is set. With a number of years set it is then possible at some later date to go before a parole board.
Miller v. Alabama was seen before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Here is a summary of the conclusion from that case via Oyez:
Yes. Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Elena Kagan reversed the Arkansas and Alabama Supreme Courts’ decisions and remanded. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbids the mandatory sentencing of life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. Children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes. While a mandatory life sentence for adults does not violate the Eighth Amendment, such a sentence would be an unconstitutionally disproportionate punishment for children.
I think this was a good decision. The mind of a child or adolescent is very different from that of an adult.
This change in law would not necessarily mean such a person won’t spend their whole life in prison. It just recognizes the fact that someone who did something horrible as a teenager can possibly change much later in their life.
The post Senate Judiciary has 7 bills on Tues Feb 16, possible ballot question and ending juvenile life sentences appeared first on SoDakLiberty.
