MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the Chief Clerk of the
House has had under consideration the House Journal of the thirty-ninth day and finds that the
following corrections should be made:
On page 825, line 23 of the House Journal, delete "$181,000" and insert "$240,000".
On page 825, line 25, delete "$181,000" and insert "$240,000".
On page 825, line 25, delete "1.5" and insert "2.0".
On page 831, line 16, delete "8" and insert "9".
All additional errors, typographical or otherwise, are duly marked in the temporary journal
for correction.
Members of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribal Council: James "J.C." Crawford, Tribal
Chairman; Scott German, Vice-Chairman; Michael Peters, Secretary; Kevin Roberts, Edwin
Crawford, Barb Jens, Karen White, Gerald German, Ron DuMarce, and Myron Williams,
council members; and Davonte His Law.
March 22, 2003
The Honorable Matthew J. W. Michels
Dear Speaker Michels and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1279 with the following recommendations as to STYLE and
FORM.
House Bill 1279 is entitled “An Act to define biodiesel blend fuels.”
This legislation refers to an industry standard outside the purview of South Dakota state
government. Therefore, to avoid an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, a date
certain needs to be inserted into the bill.
This problem can be solved by making the following style and form corrections to the House
Taxation Committee engrossed version of the bill as follows:
On page 1, line 9, after “Fuels” insert “as in effect on December 31, 2002”.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Michael Rounds
cc: The Honorable Chris Nelson
March 22, 2003
The Honorable Matthew J. W. Michels
Dear Speaker Michels and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1282 with the following recommendations as to STYLE and
FORM.
House Bill 1282 is entitled “An Act to revise certain provisions regarding the official records
and the notification requirements relating to a pardon.”
In the second and third paragraphs of Section 1, the bill reads like SDCL 32-23 is a habitual
offender statute. It is actually the driving under the influence chapter.
Section 2 adds significantly to the notice requirements for all offenders seeking clemency under
chapter 24-14. Under this bill, a person who has been given notice of a clemency hearing with
the Board of Pardons and Paroles now has to publish up to nine notices (three consecutive
weeks of notices in all official newspapers of the county - which can be up to three
newspapers). Current notice requirements are for one published notice in some newspaper in
general circulation in the county. This section also requires that the last notice be at least
twenty days before the hearing. On one hand, these enhanced requirements will minimize
frivolous clemency applications and ensure proper community/victim notice. However, they
do make it significantly more burdensome and expensive for individuals (both inmates and
citizens) who are seeking clemency. Many pardon requests are for misdemeanor offenses and
the person was never actually incarcerated. I believe in the notice requirement but it is an undue
burden and poor public policy to require applicants to make up to nine legal notices of a
hearing. This requirement would unintentionally promote the practice of seeking clemency
directly from the Governor.
There is another style and form problem in the third sentence of section 2. The original
language of 24-14-4 provided that notice of clemency could be posted in the courthouse if the
county didn't have a newspaper. This is old language and needs to be removed. An affidavit
of publishing a notice of hearing is now required to accompany any clemency application.
Page 2, line 7, delete “or 32-23” and insert “or whether the defendant has prior driving under
the influence convictions pursuant to SDCL 32-23”
On page 2, line 12, change “an” to “a”.
Page 2, line 13, delete “or 32-23” and insert “or the determination of whether the defendant has
prior driving under the influence convictions pursuant to SDCL 32-23”
Page 2, Line 17, delete “all” and insert “one of the“.
Page 2, line 23, delete “or the person posting the notice”.
Page 2, line 24, delete “or posted”.
Finally, the title is misleading. House Bill 1282 does deal with pardons but it also deals with
all other forms of clemency in South Dakota.
Therefore, I would recommend the following change to the title. On page 1, line 2 of the
Conference Committee engrossed bill, delete “a pardon” and insert “pardons, paroles and
commutations”.
I respectfully request you concur with my recommendations as to style and form.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Michael Rounds
cc: The Honorable Dennis Daugaard
March 22, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1110 and VETO the same.
House Bill 1110 is entitled, “An Act to revise certain provisions regarding the expenditure of
proceeds from the county wheel tax.”
Essentially, the bill proposes to allow a county with a population of more than 50,000 to use up
to 30% of its county wheel tax for the purpose of “supervising” the public highways, roads, and
bridges within the county. By its terms, the bill would allow such use of funds only for a period
of two years.
Use of the wheel tax proceeds for law enforcement purposes might be good public policy if
there is a surplus of money in the eligible county's road and bridge fund beyond what is needed
for the construction and maintenance of the county's roads and bridges, but this is not a
criterion under the bill. Under this bill, even if there are unmet transportation infrastructure
needs, proceeds from the wheel tax could be spent on law enforcement instead of being used
for needed construction and maintenance projects.
Proper construction and maintenance of highways and bridges helps ensure the safety of the
traveling public. Reducing the amount available for construction and maintenance projects by
redirecting funds to law enforcement activities will result in a decrease in the condition of the
county's highways and bridges to the detriment of the travelling public.
During the 2003 session residents from Hartford came before the Legislature with HB 1169
asking to put onto the state trunk system a segment of county highway running from I-90 north
through Hartford, in order to get the road upgraded for local economic development purposes.
The City Administrator for the City of Hartford testified that they first went to Minnehaha
County asking for the needed improvements and were denied because money was a concern.
They were told the county could not do anything more than an overlay on the road as it
currently exists. With these existing problems, how can we allow 30% of Minnehaha County's
wheel tax revenue to be spent on purposes other than highways and bridges?
Finally, due to the sunset portion of the bill repealing its provisions effective July 1, 2005, the
bill appears to be an attempt to allow counties to solve short term budget problems by raiding
the county road and bridge fund to finance law enforcement activity. Again, this is not good
public policy and is detrimental to the travelling public.
Due to the negative impacts on the condition of the highways and bridges that may result from
using these funds for law enforcement purposes, I respectfully request that you concur with my
action.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Michael Rounds
cc: The Honorable Dennis Daugaard
The Honorable Matthew J. W. Michels
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Speaker Michels and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1283 and pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the South Dakota
Constitution, I exercise the LINE ITEM VETO on the same.
House Bill 1283 is, “An Act to appropriate money for the ordinary expenses of the legislative,
judicial, and executive departments of the state, the expenses of state institutions, interest on
the public debt, and for common schools."
Section 31. That § 49-1A-7 be amended to read as follows:
Finally, the legislature passed House Bill 1231 earlier in the 2003 session to address these same
PUC reserves. I have already signed House Bill 1231 into law. House Bill 1231 will cap the
PUC reserves and, if the PUC has excess reserves, permit the PUC to lower the gross receipts
tax charged to ratepayers. We should allow the PUC to implement House Bill 1231 as intended.
DECA REVERSIONS
§ 4-7-32. Transfer of unobligated cash to budget reserve fund - Legislative action
required for reserve fund expenditures. On July first of each fiscal year or at such
time that the prior fiscal year general fund ending unobligated cash balance is
determined, the commissioner of the Bureau of Finance and Management shall transfer
all prior year unobligated cash up to an amount equal to ten percent of the general fund
appropriations from the general appropriation act for the prior fiscal year into the
budget reserve fund. In no event shall the cash balance in the budget reserve fund be
greater than ten percent of the general fund appropriations from the general
appropriation act for the prior fiscal year. (emphasis added)
[w]hile the Legislature is free to impose conditions and restrictions on appropriated
funds within the body of a general appropriations bill, it may not substantively legislate
in that bill in a manner that changes, amends or repeals existing law.
I respectfully request your concurrence with my action.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Michael Rounds
cc: The Honorable Dennis Daugaard
March 22, 2003
The Honorable Matthew Michels
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
Dear Speaker Michels and Members of the House:
I herewith return House Bill 1104 and pursuant to Article IV, Section 4 of the South Dakota
Constitution, I exercise the LINE ITEM VETO of the same.
House Bill 1104 is entitled, “An Act to impose an excise tax on the gross receipts of personal
communications system, wireless, and cellular telecommunications companies."
The South Dakota Supreme Court has been called upon to make a determination in cases such
as this in previous years.
An appropriation is legislative sanction for the disbursement of the public
revenues. The test of whether an act is an appropriation is whether the money may
be paid or drawn from the state treasury on authority of the act. State ex. rel. Mills
v. Wilder, 73 S.D. 330, 42 N.W. 2d 891, 1950 SD Lexis 27 (1950); SEE also, Duxbury,
McKellips, Symens v. Harding 490 N. W. 2d 740, 745; 1992 Lexis 132 (1992); State
ex. rel. Parker v. Youngquist, 69 S.D. 423, 426; 11 N.W.2d 84, 86; 1943 SD LEXIS 54
(1943). (emphasis added)
There is also a problem with the title to House Bill 1104. Errors in the title are no small matter
under the South Dakota Constitution. Article III, § 21 requires:
In the case of South Dakota Education Association/NEA v. Barnett 582 NW2d 386, 393 (SD
1998), our Supreme Court decided to overturn a legislative action based on a deficient title. The
title of House Bill 1104 fails to instruct you or the public that the bill includes a special
appropriation. Thus, House Bill 1104 is in violation of South Dakota Constitution Article III,
§ 21. To paraphrase the South Dakota Supreme Court, an act is unconstitutional when the title
conspicuously fails to:
1989); Daugaard v. Baltic Cooperative Building Supply Association, 349 NW2d 419 (SD
1984); and McMacken v. State, 320 NW2d 131 (SD 1982).
Describing the importance of the title requirement, of Article III, § 21, our Supreme Court has
said:
Ours is a constitutional government, the people, in their sovereign capacity, have placed
the above restriction upon the methods of legislation, have prescribed the above rule
which their legislative servants must conform to, and, if they neglect to conform to this
rule and keep within this restriction [citation omitted] their labor, no matter how
meritorious otherwise, will be of no effect, as this section of the Constitution is
mandatory. State ex. rel. Johnson v. Kelley, 274 NW 319, 322, 69 SD 345, 1937 S.D.
Lexis 54 (1937).
Section 5. The secretary shall deposit
M. Michael Rounds
cc: The Honorable Dennis Daugaard
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
I respectfully request your concurrence with my recommendations as to style and form.
The Honorable Dennis Daugaard
Speaker of the House
State Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501-5070
To correct these problems, I recommend the following changes to the Conference Committee
engrossed version of HB 1282:
The Honorable Chris Nelson
It is questionable public policy to allow the use of highway and bridge funds for law
enforcement purposes at the county level. The purpose for the county road and bridge fund,
which includes proceeds from the wheel tax, is to fund the construction and maintenance of
highways and bridges in the county. At a time when counties struggle to fund necessary
highway and bridge construction and maintenance projects, it would not be prudent to use a
portion of those limited funds for law enforcement purposes.
The Honorable Chris Nelson
March 22, 2003
Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Section 31
I hereby exercise the line item veto and delete Section 31 on pages 38 and 39 of the of the
House Appropriations Committee Engrossed version of House Bill 1283.
Section 31 of House Bill 1283 reads as follows:
49-1A-7. All amounts deposited in the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission gross
receipts tax fund are appropriated to the use of the Public Utilities Commission for its
expenses in regulating public utilities as defined in chapter 49-34A and
telecommunications companies as defined in subdivision 49-31-1(26) and for
commissioners' compensation and benefits . Such expenses may be paid out of the fund
on warrants drawn by the state auditor upon duly itemized vouchers. The funds necessary
for such expenses are hereby authorized to be expended.
The Appropriations Committee added amendment 1283mp to House Bill 1283. The amendment
was brought to allow the Public Utilities Commissioners' (PUC) salaries to be funded out of
the gross receipts tax fund. The amendment is not an appropriation or transfer of funds. It is a
change to existing, substantive law that is outside the scope of the general appropriations bill.
The South Dakota Constitution, Article XII, § 2 only allows the General Appropriations Bill
to “embrace nothing but appropriations.”.
Article 12, § 2. Contents of general appropriation bill - Separate appropriation bills.
The general appropriation bill shall embrace nothing but appropriations for ordinary
expenses of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the state, the current
expenses of state institutions, interest on the public debt, and for common schools. All
other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one object, and
shall require a two-thirds vote of all the members of each branch of the Legislature.
Recent Supreme Court cases have interpreted this section of our Constitution to prohibit
amending the appropriations bill in this manner. The decision of South Dakota Ed. Ass'n v.
Barnett held:
[w]hile the Legislature is free to impose conditions and restrictions on appropriated
funds within the body of a general appropriations bill, it may not substantively legislate
in that bill in a manner that changes, amends or repeals existing law.
South Dakota Ed. Ass'n v. Barnett, 1998 SD 84, paragraph 19, 582 N.W.2d 386, 392 (1998);
See, also, Duxbury, McKellips and Symens v. Harding, 490 N. W. 2d 740, 1992 SD Lexis 132
(1992); and SEE, generally, for a discussion of valid and invalid appropriation actions, Apa v.
Butler, 2001 SD 147, 638 N.W.2d 57(2001).
Section 31 goes beyond allocating funds and clearly amends existing law. A substantive change
to the law on how PUC Commissioners are compensated must be subjected to the scrutiny of
the regular legislative process. For example, the change proposed by Section 31 creates a
potential conflict of interest. Under this section, the Commissioners' salaries and benefits
would come from the PUC gross receipts tax fund. South Dakota ratepayers pay this tax, and
the Commissioners set some of the rates charged by the companies. Although another agency
determines the Commissioners' salaries and benefits, the amendment to House Bill 1283 will
create grounds for a legal challenge to a Commission decision. While the section was proposed
with the laudable goal, it would have unanticipated negative consequences. For this reason,
there is merit to the current practice of paying the Commissioners through general funds.
I hereby exercise the line item veto at page 22, by deleting lines 2 and line 3, of the House
Appropriations Committee Engrossed version of House Bill 1283.Lines 2 and 3 on page 22 read
as follows:
All unexpended funds appropriated for the program State Aid to General Education, and
not distributed through the formula established in § 13-13-73, shall revert to the
property tax reduction fund.
In the same manner that the PUC amendment attempts to change substantive law that is outside
the scope of the General Appropriation Bill, amendment 1283zo attempts to change the
substantive law for the reversion of unspent State Aid to General Education dollars. This
amendment directly conflicts with current statute directing the reversion of unexpended funds.
SDCL 4-7-32 provides as follows:
Expenditures out of the budget reserve fund shall only be by special appropriation of the
Legislature and shall only redress such unforeseen expenditure obligations or such unforeseen
revenue shortfalls as may constitute an emergency pursuant to the South Dakota Constitution,
Article III, § 1 and is clearly in violation of the South Dakota Constitution, Article XII, § 2 and
the Supreme Courts decisions. The Supreme Court has interpreted this section of our
Constitution to prohibit amending the appropriations bill in this manner. The decision of South
Dakota Ed. Ass'n v. Barnett held:
South Dakota Ed. Ass'n v. Barnett, 1998 SD 84, paragraph 19, 582 N.W.2d 386, 392 (1998);
Duxbury, McKellips and Symens v. Harding, 490 N. W. 2d 740, 1992 SD Lexis 132 (1992);
and SEE, generally for a discussion of valid and invalid appropriation actions, Apa v. Butler,
2001 SD 147, 638 N.W.2d 57(2001).
Based on the foregoing grounds, I respectfully LINE ITEM VETO House Bill 1283.
The Honorable Chris Nelson
The South Dakota Constitution, Article IV, § 4, paragraph 3 provides, in part:
“The Governor may strike any items of any bill passed by the Legislature making
appropriations. .”
As originally proposed, this bill was intended to impose a four percent sales tax on cellular
telephones. As originally proposed the revenue from this tax would go to the General Fund and
would be appropriated by the legislature through the General Appropriations Bill. An
amendment was added in the Senate to separate out forty percent of the revenue, create a new
fund, place the revenue into that fund, set up a system of distribution and to continuously
appropriate the money in the new fund.
Though the words “appropriate” or “appropriation” are not used in this bill, there can be no
question that Section 5 of House Bill 1104 creates a fund in the state treasury. There can also
be no question that Section 6 spends or distributes or disburses or appropriates the money out
of that fund. As shown above, the South Dakota Supreme Court has long recognized that a
spending bill does not require using the word appropriation”. Section 6 of House Bill 1104,
though using the word “distribution”, obviously makes an appropriation and so House Bill 1104
is subject to the Governor's line item veto.
No law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.
Prevent the combining into one bill of several diverse measures which have no common basis
except, perhaps, their separate inability to receive a favorable vote on their own merits;
Prevent the unintentional and unknowing passage of provisions inserted in a bill of which the
title gives no intimation; and,
Apprise the public of matters which are contained in the various bills and to prevent fraud or
deception of the public as to matters being considered by the Legislature. South Dakota
Education Association/NEA v. Barnett, 582 NW2d 386, 393 (SD 1998).
See also Apa v. Butler, 2001 SD 147, 683 N. W, 2d 57, 2001 S.D. Lexis 173 (2001), South
Dakota Physician's Health Group v. State ex rel. Department of Health, 447 NW2d 511 (SD
Through the exercise of the line item veto, I can eliminate the provisions that create this
constitutional problem. Therefore, I exercise the line item veto on House Bill 1104 as follows.
On pages 2 and 3 of the Senate Engrossed version (adobe acrobat) of the Bill:
sixty percent of the revenue collected from the tax
imposed by this Act into the property tax reduction fund and forty percent of the
revenue collected from the tax imposed by this Act into the county telecommunications
gross receipts fund. There is hereby created in the state treasury the county
telecommunications gross receipts fund.
Section 6. The secretary shall distribute to each county an amount equal to the money
deposited in county telecommunications gross receipts fund times the ratio of
population of the county to the total population of all counties. The secretary shall base
the allocation of money on the most recent decennial census of the United States
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. The secretary shall make distributions
from the county telecommunications gross receipts fund each March, June, September,
and December. The secretary shall approve vouchers and the state auditor shall draw
warrants to pay each county its share of the distribution.
Based on the foregoing, I exercise the LINE ITEM VETO on House Bill 1104 and I respectfully
request your concurrence with my action.
Respectfully submitted,
The Honorable Chris Nelson
Rep. Bill Peterson moved that a committee of three on the part of the House be
appointed to meet with a like committee on the part of the Senate pertaining to fixing the time
of adjournment sine die for the Seventy-eighth Legislative Session.
Which motion prevailed and the Speaker appointed as such committee Reps. Michels,
Bill Peterson, and Mel Olson.
Rep. Bill Peterson moved that a committee of three on the part of the House be
appointed to meet with a like committee on the part of the Senate to wait upon his Excellency,
the Governor, to inform him that the Legislature has completed its labors and is ready to
adjourn sine die and to ascertain if he has any further communications to make to the
Legislature.
Which motion prevailed and the Speaker appointed as such committee Reps. Michels,
Rhoden, and Burg.
The House proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to
change of style and form of HB 1279 as found on page 835 of the House Journal, as provided
in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and
form of HB 1279 be approved?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 69, Nays 0, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Excused:
So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect,
the Speaker declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
approved.
The House proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to
change of style and form of HB 1282 as found on pages 836 and 837 of the House Journal, as
provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and
form of HB 1282 be approved?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 66, Nays 3, Excused 1, Absent 0
Nays:
Excused:
So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect,
the Speaker declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
approved.
There being no objection, the House reverted to Order of Business No. 8.
Adelstein; Bartling; Begalka; Bradford; Buckingham; Burg; Christensen; Cradduck; Cutler;
Davis; Deadrick (Thomas); Dykstra; Elliott; Engels; Frost; Fryslie; Garnos; Gassman; Gillespie;
Glenski; Hackl; Hanson; Hargens; Haverly; Heineman; Hennies; Hundstad; Hunhoff; Juhnke;
Klaudt; Koistinen; Konold; Kraus; Kroger; Lange; LaRue; Lintz; Madsen; McCaulley; McCoy;
McLaughlin; Miles; Murschel; Nesselhuf; Novstrup; Olson (Mel); Olson (Ryan); Pederson
(Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Peterson (Jim); Putnam; Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Schafer; Sebert;
Sigdestad; Smidt; Solum; Teupel; Thompson; Valandra; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Van Norman;
Weems; Wick; Williamson; Speaker Michels
O'Brien
Yeas:
Adelstein; Bartling; Begalka; Bradford; Buckingham; Burg; Christensen; Cradduck; Cutler;
Davis; Deadrick (Thomas); Dykstra; Elliott; Frost; Fryslie; Garnos; Gassman; Gillespie;
Glenski; Hackl; Hanson; Hargens; Haverly; Heineman; Hennies; Hundstad; Hunhoff; Klaudt;
Koistinen; Konold; Kraus; Kroger; Lange; LaRue; Lintz; Madsen; McCaulley; McCoy;
McLaughlin; Miles; Murschel; Nesselhuf; Novstrup; Olson (Mel); Olson (Ryan); Pederson
(Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Peterson (Jim); Putnam; Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Schafer; Sebert;
Sigdestad; Smidt; Solum; Teupel; Thompson; Valandra; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Weems;
Wick; Williamson; Speaker Michels
Engels; Juhnke; Van Norman
O'Brien
President Daugaard now presiding.
Attorney General Larry Long and Assistant Attorney General Charles McGuigan
addressed the Joint Committee of the Whole. Following the addresses, both gentlemen
answered questions from the members of the committee.
Rep. Bill Peterson announced that the House would reconvene at 2:00 p.m.
The House reconvened at 2:00 p.m., Speaker Michels now presiding.
There being no objection, the House reverted to Order of Business No. 7.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has approved HB 1282 as
recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the
State of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has approved HB 1279 as
recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the
State of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has approved SB 156 as
recommended by the Governor, pursuant to Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the
State of South Dakota, for changes as to style and form.
We hereby request your favorable consideration in approving the recommendation of the
Governor as to style and form on SB 156.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has appointed Sens. Bogue,
Brown, and Moore as a committee of three on the part of the Senate to meet with a like
committee on the part of the House to wait upon his Excellency, the Governor, to inform him
that the Legislature has completed its labors, is ready to adjourn sine die, and to ascertain if he
has any further communications to make to the Legislature.
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has appointed Sens. Bogue,
Brown, and Moore as a committee of three on the part of the Senate to meet with a like
committee on the part of the House pertaining to fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the
Seventy-eighth Legislative Session.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
The House proceeded to the consideration of the recommendation of the Governor as to
change of style and form of SB 156 as found on page 801 of the Senate Journal, as provided in
Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and
form of SB 156 be approved?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 69, Nays 0, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Excused:
So the question having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect,
the Speaker declared the recommendation of the Governor as to change of style and form
approved.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1283 pursuant to the line item veto of
the Governor and the veto message as found on pages 838 to 841 of the House Journal as
provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 26, Nays 43, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Nays:
Excused:
So the question not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the
members-elect, the Speaker declared the question lost, thus sustaining the Governor's line item
veto.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1283 pursuant to the line item veto of
the Governor and the veto message as found on pages 838 to 841 of the House Journal as
provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall lines 2 and 3 on page 22 of the House Appropriations
Committee engrossed bill 1283 pass, the line item veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 26, Nays 43, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Excused:
So the question not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the
members-elect, the Speaker declared the question lost, thus sustaining the Governor's line item
veto.
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1104 pursuant to the line item veto of
the Governor and the veto message found on pages 841 to 843 of the House Journal as provided
in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
The question being "Shall HB 1104 pass, the line item veto of the Governor
notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 57, Nays 12, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Nays:
Excused:
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the Speaker declared the bill passed, the line item veto of the Governor notwithstanding.
The question being "Shall HB 1110 pass, the veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 40, Nays 29, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Nays:
Excused:
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the
members-elect, the Speaker declared the bill lost, sustaining the Governor's veto.
There being no objection, the House reverted to Order of Business No. 7.
Adelstein; Bartling; Begalka; Bradford; Buckingham; Burg; Christensen; Cradduck; Cutler;
Davis; Deadrick (Thomas); Dykstra; Elliott; Engels; Frost; Fryslie; Garnos; Gassman; Gillespie;
Glenski; Hackl; Hanson; Hargens; Haverly; Heineman; Hennies; Hundstad; Hunhoff; Juhnke;
Klaudt; Koistinen; Konold; Kraus; Kroger; Lange; LaRue; Lintz; Madsen; McCaulley; McCoy;
McLaughlin; Miles; Murschel; Nesselhuf; Novstrup; Olson (Mel); Olson (Ryan); Pederson
(Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Peterson (Jim); Putnam; Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Schafer; Sebert;
Sigdestad; Smidt; Solum; Teupel; Thompson; Valandra; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Van Norman;
Weems; Wick; Williamson; Speaker Michels
O'Brien
The question being "Shall section 31 on pages 38 and 39 of the House Appropriations
Committee engrossed bill 1283 pass, the line item veto of the Governor notwithstanding?"
Begalka; Cradduck; Cutler; Davis; Dykstra; Frost; Hackl; Haverly; Heineman; Hennies;
Hundstad; Hunhoff; Klaudt; Konold; LaRue; Lintz; McLaughlin; Murschel; Putnam; Schafer;
Sebert; Smidt; Teupel; Valandra; Wick; Williamson
Adelstein; Bartling; Bradford; Buckingham; Burg; Christensen; Deadrick (Thomas); Elliott;
Engels; Fryslie; Garnos; Gassman; Gillespie; Glenski; Hanson; Hargens; Juhnke; Koistinen;
Kraus; Kroger; Lange; Madsen; McCaulley; McCoy; Miles; Nesselhuf; Novstrup; Olson (Mel);
Olson (Ryan); Pederson (Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Peterson (Jim); Rave; Rhoden; Rounds;
Sigdestad; Solum; Thompson; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Van Norman; Weems; Speaker Michels
O'Brien
Adelstein; Begalka; Cradduck; Cutler; Davis; Deadrick (Thomas); Dykstra; Frost; Glenski;
Hackl; Haverly; Heineman; Hennies; Hunhoff; Klaudt; Konold; Lintz; McLaughlin; Murschel;
Putnam; Schafer; Sebert; Smidt; Teupel; Valandra; Williamson
Nays:
Bartling; Bradford; Buckingham; Burg; Christensen; Elliott; Engels; Fryslie; Garnos; Gassman;
Gillespie; Hanson; Hargens; Hundstad; Juhnke; Koistinen; Kraus; Kroger; Lange; LaRue;
Madsen; McCaulley; McCoy; Miles; Nesselhuf; Novstrup; Olson (Mel); Olson (Ryan);
Pederson (Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Peterson (Jim); Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Sigdestad; Solum;
Thompson; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Van Norman; Weems; Wick; Speaker Michels
O'Brien
Adelstein; Begalka; Bradford; Buckingham; Christensen; Cradduck; Cutler; Davis; Deadrick
(Thomas); Dykstra; Elliott; Engels; Frost; Fryslie; Garnos; Gassman; Gillespie; Glenski; Hackl;
Hanson; Haverly; Heineman; Hennies; Hundstad; Hunhoff; Klaudt; Koistinen; Konold; Kroger;
Lange; LaRue; Lintz; Madsen; McCoy; McLaughlin; Miles; Murschel; Nesselhuf; Novstrup;
Olson (Ryan); Peterson (Bill); Peterson (Jim); Putnam; Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Schafer;
Sigdestad; Smidt; Teupel; Thompson; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Van Norman; Weems; Wick;
Williamson
Bartling; Burg; Hargens; Juhnke; Kraus; McCaulley; Olson (Mel); Pederson (Gordon); Sebert;
Solum; Valandra; Speaker Michels
O'Brien
The House proceeded to the reconsideration of HB 1110 pursuant to the veto of the
Governor and the veto message as found on pages 837 and 838 of the House Journal as
provided in Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.
Adelstein; Bradford; Christensen; Cradduck; Cutler; Elliott; Engels; Garnos; Gassman; Glenski;
Haverly; Heineman; Hennies; Hundstad; Konold; Kraus; Kroger; Lange; LaRue; Lintz;
McCaulley; McCoy; McLaughlin; Miles; Murschel; Nesselhuf; Novstrup; Olson (Ryan);
Peterson (Bill); Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Schafer; Sigdestad; Smidt; Thompson; Van Etten; Van
Norman; Weems; Williamson
Bartling; Begalka; Buckingham; Burg; Davis; Deadrick (Thomas); Dykstra; Frost; Fryslie;
Gillespie; Hackl; Hanson; Hargens; Hunhoff; Juhnke; Klaudt; Koistinen; Madsen; Olson (Mel);
Pederson (Gordon); Peterson (Jim); Putnam; Sebert; Solum; Teupel; Valandra; Van Gerpen;
Wick; Speaker Michels
O'Brien
SB 225:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to
limit the amount of time in which a
recovery claim for certain paid taxes may be made and to declare an emergency.
Was read the first time and the referral was waived, pursuant to the rules suspension.
Was read the first time and the referral was waived, pursuant to the rules suspension.
SB 226:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to
revise certain provisions regarding tax
collection agreements between the state and Indian tribes and to declare an emergency.
SB 225:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to
limit the amount of time in which a
recovery claim for certain paid taxes may be made and to declare an emergency.
Was read the second time.
The question being "Shall SB 225 pass?"
And the roll being called:
Yeas 65, Nays 4, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Nays:
Excused:
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-
elect, the Speaker declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
SB 226:
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to
revise certain provisions regarding tax
collection agreements between the state and Indian tribes and to declare an emergency.
Was read the second time.
Adelstein; Bartling; Begalka; Buckingham; Burg; Christensen; Cradduck; Cutler; Davis;
Deadrick (Thomas); Dykstra; Elliott; Engels; Frost; Fryslie; Garnos; Gassman; Gillespie;
Glenski; Hackl; Hanson; Hargens; Haverly; Heineman; Hennies; Hundstad; Hunhoff; Juhnke;
Klaudt; Koistinen; Konold; Kraus; Lange; LaRue; Lintz; Madsen; McCaulley; McCoy;
McLaughlin; Miles; Murschel; Nesselhuf; Novstrup; Olson (Mel); Olson (Ryan); Pederson
(Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Peterson (Jim); Putnam; Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Schafer; Sebert;
Sigdestad; Smidt; Solum; Teupel; Thompson; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Weems; Wick;
Williamson; Speaker Michels
Bradford; Kroger; Valandra; Van Norman
O'Brien
MR. SPEAKER:
Your Joint-Select Committee appointed to wait upon his Excellency, the Governor, to
inform him that the Legislature has completed its labors and is ready to adjourn sine die and to
ascertain if he has any further communications to make to the Legislature, respectfully reports
that it has performed the duty assigned to it and has been informed by his Excellency, the
Governor, that he will not appear for the closing of the Seventy-eighth Legislative Session.
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
Matthew Michels Eric Bogue
Bill Peterson Arnold Brown
Mel Olson Garry Moore
House Committee Senate Committee
Rep. Bill Peterson moved that the report of the Joint-Select Committee relative to
informing the Governor that the Legislature has completed its labors and is ready to ascertain
if he has any further communications to make to the Legislature be adopted.
Which motion prevailed and the Joint-Select Committee Report was adopted.
Your Joint-Select Committee appointed to consider the matter of adjournment sine die
of the Seventy-eighth Legislative Session respectfully reports that the Senate and House of
Representatives adjourn sine die at the hour of 6:14 p.m., March 24, 2003.
Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
Matthew Michels Eric Bogue
Larry Rhoden Arnold Brown
Quinten Burg Garry Moore
House Committee Senate Committee
Rep. Bill Peterson moved that the report of the Joint-Select Committee relative to fixing
the time to adjourn sine die be adopted.
Which motion prevailed and the Joint-Select Committee Report was adopted.
MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has adopted the report of
the Joint-Select Committee relative to fixing the time of adjournment sine die for the Seventy-
eighth Legislative Session.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has adopted the report of
the Joint-Select Committee for the purpose of waiting upon his Excellency, the Governor, to
inform him that the Legislature has completed its labors, is ready to adjourn sine die, and to
ascertain if he has any communication to make to the Legislature.
Also MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to transmit herewith SCR 11 which has been adopted by the Senate and
your concurrence is respectfully requested.
Rep. Bill Peterson moved that the rules be suspended for the sole purpose of giving first
reading, waiving the committee referral and giving final consideration to SCR 11.
The question being on Rep. Bill Peterson's motion that the rules be suspended for the sole
purpose of giving first reading, waiving the committee referral and giving final consideration
to SCR 11.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 68, Nays 1, Excused 1, Absent 0
Yeas:
Nays:
Excused:
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the
members-elect, the Speaker declared the motion carried.
SCR 11:
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION,
Supporting and honoring the men and
women of the Armed Forces of the United States as they engage in combat with the Iraqi
regime of Saddam Hussein.
Was read the first time and the referral was waived, pursuant to the rules suspension.
Rep. Madsen moved that SCR 11 as found on page 812 of the Senate Journal be concurred
in.
The question being on Rep. Madsen's motion that SCR 11 be concurred in.
And the roll being called:
Yeas:
Nays:
Excused:
So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the
Speaker declared the motion carried and SCR 11 was concurred in.
There being no objection, the House reverted to Order of Business No. 7.
Adelstein; Bartling; Begalka; Bradford; Buckingham; Burg; Christensen; Cradduck; Cutler;
Davis; Deadrick (Thomas); Dykstra; Elliott; Engels; Frost; Fryslie; Garnos; Gassman; Gillespie;
Glenski; Hackl; Hanson; Hargens; Haverly; Heineman; Hennies; Hundstad; Hunhoff; Juhnke;
Klaudt; Koistinen; Konold; Kraus; Kroger; Lange; LaRue; Lintz; Madsen; McCaulley; McCoy;
McLaughlin; Miles; Murschel; Nesselhuf; Novstrup; Olson (Mel); Olson (Ryan); Pederson
(Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Peterson (Jim); Putnam; Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Schafer; Sebert;
Sigdestad; Smidt; Solum; Teupel; Thompson; Valandra; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Weems;
Wick; Williamson; Speaker Michels
Van Norman
O'Brien
Yeas 68, Nays 1, Excused 1, Absent 0
Adelstein; Bartling; Begalka; Bradford; Buckingham; Burg; Christensen; Cradduck; Cutler;
Davis; Deadrick (Thomas); Dykstra; Elliott; Engels; Frost; Fryslie; Garnos; Gassman; Gillespie;
Glenski; Hackl; Hanson; Hargens; Haverly; Heineman; Hennies; Hundstad; Hunhoff; Juhnke;
Klaudt; Koistinen; Konold; Kraus; Kroger; Lange; LaRue; Lintz; Madsen; McCaulley; McCoy;
McLaughlin; Miles; Murschel; Nesselhuf; Novstrup; Olson (Mel); Olson (Ryan); Pederson
(Gordon); Peterson (Bill); Peterson (Jim); Putnam; Rave; Rhoden; Rounds; Schafer; Sebert;
Sigdestad; Smidt; Solum; Teupel; Thompson; Valandra; Van Etten; Van Gerpen; Weems;
Wick; Williamson; Speaker Michels
Van Norman
O'Brien
MR. SPEAKER:
I have the honor to inform your honorable body that the Senate has passed HB 1104, the
Governor's line item veto notwithstanding.
MR. SPEAKER:
The Committee on Legislative Procedure respectfully reports that the House and Senate
have, pursuant to the recommendation of the Governor as to corrections in style and form of
HB 1279 and 1282 approved the recommendation and that the Office of Enrolling and
Engrossing has engrossed the changes and has returned the same to his Excellency, the
Governor, at 5:32 p.m., March 24, 2003.
Speaker Michels offered the following prayer:
God, we ask for Your intercession these days and the coming days, especially watching
over not only the people who are combatants but those who are in harm's way in this world, and
we ask for the peace that passes understanding and that it may keep our hearts and minds in
Your love. Amen.