[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6322488,"mediaKeyId","2347464-297d71f1705478940ad089066a2c8703","parentId",2347464,"title","Votes at a glance: key actions from the South Dakota House on Feb. 18, 2025","audioSeconds",4687,"startMs",2881000,"endMs",7568000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347464-297d71f1705478940ad089066a2c8703&start=2881&end=7568","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347464-297d71f1705478940ad089066a2c8703/thumbnail_2881000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6322488/South-Dakota/Votes-at-a-glance-key-actions-from-the-South-Dakota-House-on-Feb-18-2025","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322488-ab90cf35be3dfadb01422299ff6bc162/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169548&Signature=DT0nexbeJPQTXEQX9T0SxmCQzA9uzucAD56q41Z3jOW7wFg3oTeGXGtP1K2ntWhectZHY-c2ASR4LLYCl~RdDmvMl1B47S4ZPbe9yFreE1NQS5EJhGxZD4Lr9SeL~Ecb7gellLbZKVOUiZyjZsuYntzNEN3brXzz7BMartLmQKpUavoXlpogn7fpkg1It~7F2ElFCZzM4E3PeH1~dgzNapwfvhiF~KHr4JPdMdQBL~hVPtq0CVk370zzmKSA~-C35l9tibJL6tojeGkU53VsQw6d3LZzSAvEffwu2KPj3-uGmF4f2EpXkuzgkju2TU5749ZrVdQpFiHfhJPJNN6fZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State of South Dakota","date","2025-02-19T00:00:00Z","article","PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota House of Representatives completed a full floor agenda on Feb. 18, taking final action on numerous bills and resolutions. Below are final outcomes, vote tallies as recorded on the House floor, and brief context where debate occurred.

• House Bill 11‑57 (county drainage permit fee amendment): Passed, final vote ayes 64, nays 6. Sponsor said the bill raises the statutory maximum application fee from $100 to $500 and affects counties with drainage ordinances; a title amendment was adopted to reflect the change.

• House Bill 11‑52 (intergovernmental directives): Failed, ayes 32, nays 37, excused 1. (See separate article for extended debate.)

• House Bill 12‑22 (carrying a concealed pistol on school grounds in a vehicle if permit held): Passed, ayes 64, nays 5, excused 1. Sponsor said the measure allows a licensed concealed‑carry permit holder to keep a pistol in a vehicle on school grounds, modeled after Minnesota law; it does not allow carrying inside school buildings.

• House Bill 11‑93 (prohibiting Board of Regents from requiring on‑campus residency or meal plans): Failed, ayes 28, nays 42. Extended floor debate centered on student choice, bond obligations and retention benefits of on‑campus living.

• Senate Concurrent Resolution 604 (support expansion of transportation services for veterans seeking medical care): Adopted. Clerk reported ayes 70 (unanimous or near‑unanimous on recorded roll call indicated in transcript); the resolution urges the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to expand transportation availability and eligibility for reimbursement.

• House Bill 10‑42 (appropriation to complete historic exhibits at the Cultural Heritage Center): Passed (2/3 required), ayes 68, nays 2. Amendment made to make the appropriation effective in the current fiscal year; sponsors said the transfer would align reopening with the nation’s 250th anniversary celebrations.

• House Bill 11‑80 (require disclosure of candidate party affiliation on school district candidate declaration): Failed, ayes 31, nays 39.

• House Joint Resolution 5006 (require intervening election before a similar initiated constitutional amendment or measure can be resubmitted to voters): Passed, ayes 62, nays 8. The resolution would place a pause before substantially similar ballot measures return to voters; the Supreme Court would resolve disputes over similarity per the measure’s text.

• House Bill 11‑94 (authorize counties to cooperate in operating a county director of equalization): Passed, ayes 57, nays 13. Sponsor said the bill implements a unanimous summer‑study recommendation to allow voluntary county cooperation to improve assessment accuracy and efficiency.

• House Bill 10‑24 (amend certain Secretary of State fees to fund business platform upgrades and maintenance): Reconsidered and then passed (2/3 required), ayes 63, nays 7. Sponsor reported the bill funds ongoing maintenance and a $2.2 million modernization initially paid from an IT modernization fund; nonprofit fees were not increased.

• House Bill 11‑65 (agricultural producer right to reject crop assessments — amended version): Reconsidered and passed, ayes 40, nays 30. The sponsor presented an amendment to streamline the refund process and address administrative concerns raised by cooperatives.

• Senate Bill 33 (appropriations for water and environmental purposes; emergency clause): Passed (2/3 required), ayes 62, nays 8. Bill contains dedicated funds and federal expenditure authority to address drinking water, wastewater, and emerging contaminants projects.

Consent calendar and multiple committee reports were adopted during the session; several bills were delivered to or signed by the governor after the prior calendar (recorded in communications and messages). For full debate excerpts, consult the House Journal and audio/video record of the Feb. 18 session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","South Dakota House of Representatives - Day 22","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of final actions taken on multiple bills, resolutions and motions during the Feb. 18 House floor session, with vote tallies and short notes on debate where applicable.","taxTitle","2025 Legislative SD, South Dakota","taxId",77845,"location","South Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322493,"House rejects bill to end mandatory freshman/sophomore residency and meal plans at state universities",2020,3733000,5753000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347464-297d71f1705478940ad089066a2c8703&start=3733&end=5753","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347464-297d71f1705478940ad089066a2c8703/thumbnail_3733000.jpg","/articles/6322493/South-Dakota/House-rejects-bill-to-end-mandatory-freshmansophomore-residency-and-meal-plans-at-state-universities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322493-c6c616286f166ea53033676263721893/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169548&Signature=Uv0UhqYIaWX7DgWXnAlgwSiwJKDD10j7ZDjqS6cY-TPL~C4nRsu3k57pnOnsW795pI3KpUpqxUSABWl0NsNaNtESG1VRZbM7X6CdSHo2~AriySL1FXzo4AU5zqIs~TjuUtoXjGRnF9tIDU1zyoj~EJgLA5P4xnK6iJ1vYdxTjS1LLpKv6LfRolqN5sXqtnWg77i7h4LJe5g15HGa3snTO5FE6nAwU74dwP4PdXL7WNlbqm4NY2MomcV1pov85uJUayYdVZwwdlReQGwZC7fWr2~nHelKEGQB9DumJYof3VDPp7yZaNByyLrDMigFum361tYpVfspyZrixNIS7p95WA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota House of Representatives on Feb. 18 voted down House Bill 11‑93, which sought to prohibit the Board of Regents and institutions under its control from requiring students to live in on‑campus housing or purchase meal plans. The final vote was 28 in favor, 42 opposed.

Representative Jensen, the bill’s sponsor, described HB11‑93 as a “freedom” measure that would allow students to choose where to live. “11‑93 would give freedom to students to choose where they want to live,” Jensen said, arguing that mandatory residency and meal‑plan requirements restrict personal choice and add to student indebtedness.

Supporters said the change would help students who want to live off campus and could reduce some students’ housing costs. Representative Jorgensen and Representative Vendera urged colleagues to consider the students’ perspective and parental choice, and Representative Soy said the measure would treat students as adults.

Opponents warned of broader financial consequences. Representative Stevens said the state’s bonding commitments for campus housing — which he and others described during debate as tens of millions of dollars in outstanding debt — could be jeopardized if a large exodus from residence halls reduced the revenue base that services bonds. “This has significant impact all across the state,” Stevens said, warning of bond‑rating and budgetary consequences. Representative May and others pressed for detailed enrollment and bond‑servicing data, saying the Board of Regents has approximately $236 million in outstanding bonds.

Other opponents argued mandatory on‑campus living supports student retention and community building. Representative Kolbeck recounted his own experience and urged members to preserve campus living as a route to networks and retention. Representative Garcia said students who organized in committee had taken appropriate steps to present their case, but that the pandemic’s effects on youth mental health complicated housing policy.

During committee testimony and the floor debate members discussed several facts and estimates: speakers referenced that around 90–97 percent of exemption requests to live off campus have been granted in practice, that campus food quality and mold complaints had been raised in committee testimony, and that the Board of Regents reported roughly $236 million in outstanding bonds. The sponsor and some supporters characterized the financial‑impact arguments as overstated unless a “mass exodus” of students occurred.

After nearly two hours of debate and numerous floor questions, the clerk reported the vote as ayes 28, nays 42. The bill failed to receive a majority and is therefore lost in this session.","House Bill 11‑93, which would have barred the Board of Regents and institutions from requiring students to live on campus or purchase meal plans, failed in the House Feb. 18 by a 28‑42 vote after extended debate over student freedom, bond financing and campus retention.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322498,"House rejects bill that would bar enforcement of intergovernmental health directives",698,3002000,3700000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2347464-297d71f1705478940ad089066a2c8703&start=3002&end=3700","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2347464-297d71f1705478940ad089066a2c8703/thumbnail_3002000.jpg","/articles/6322498/South-Dakota/House-rejects-bill-that-would-bar-enforcement-of-intergovernmental-health-directives","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322498-859b0b6306709a8e69b8eba85782cd28/orig.mp4?Expires=1771169548&Signature=bMk7e-s7iFv0AFfkFQBA7YN~tgS5y88Zz29uftQZFV38RqRAlCcFYu55h~FkxwulAT06AZTU9JfNVSlGl~EAhbsEqrjcexd9JfKWTOwJINQ0Wk~htYQtreUB3k5a3~SygZCW-SUW4KgldThh8KLYKU2ZcI8fdWl5PuFcSxwUcqnnsEhnYPrhDjJjh0fV4wIkGKous~iTHh2cGql1MYkrB~RwKqNRtBahcSuGfW~HEbLQeHCzbqazIrd-lc8ykajLDYrQ8aorgkpqaBPm2f8x5ywDbriFjdCN6FqZzC9a7iqfqQtr~KAerVuAgShWkNGHM9s9IQwtrxBAQJF2CxSIeQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota House of Representatives on Feb. 18 rejected House Bill 11‑52, an act that would have prohibited state and local officials from enforcing or implementing directives issued by intergovernmental organizations, in a 32‑37 vote.

Representative Veil Word, the bill’s sponsor, told the House the measure was intended as a proactive safeguard against future public‑health orders from international organizations similar to actions taken during the COVID‑19 pandemic. “The goal of this bill is to help protect South Dakota from another chain of events that would be similar to what we had with the various government reactions to COVID,” Veil Word said on the floor.

Supporters described the bill as a defense of state sovereignty and invoked the anti‑commandeering doctrine in constitutional law. Veil Word cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s Murphy v. NCAA decision and quoted Justice Samuel Alito that “a more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine” to explain the legal basis for resisting federal or international imposition on state policy.

Opponents argued the bill would be overly broad and could create practical problems for the state. One lawmaker raised concerns that the language — which would bar a “political subdivision of the state, including any employee” from implementing regulations from an intergovernmental organization — could interfere with the work of the Sanford Underground Research Facility and other collaborations that depend on international scientific partners. That representative warned the measure could hinder long‑standing research partnerships commissioned by federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Energy.

Representative Mike Mortensen asked the sponsor whether any specific, currently applicable regulation existed that the bill would block; Veil Word responded that she could not identify a present regulation but referenced proposed World Health Organization (WHO) amendments and said the bill was designed as a preventive step. Representative Morrison acknowledged the sponsor’s revisions and said those changes addressed some anti‑commandeering concerns but said the bill still lacked a specific problem it would solve.

After debate, the House voted; the clerk reported 32 ayes, 37 nays, and one member excused, and the bill was declared lost.

The bill’s text, as discussed on the floor, had been narrowed during committee deliberations: earlier versions reportedly included references to the Centers for Disease Control and a penalty provision. The sponsor said those elements were removed before the House debate.

With the vote, HB11‑52 will not move forward from this session unless reintroduced in a different form or at a later time.","The South Dakota House voted 32-37 on Feb. 18 to reject House Bill 11‑52, which would have barred enforcement or implementation of directives from intergovernmental organizations; sponsor said the measure aimed to protect state sovereignty, while opponents warned it could interfere with international research partnerships.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: key actions from the South Dakota House on Feb. 18, 2025

House rejects bill to end mandatory freshman/sophomore residency and meal plans at state universities

House rejects bill that would bar enforcement of intergovernmental health directives