Gov. Daugaard Vetoes HB 1008

daugaardheader DaugaardGov. Daugaard Vetoes HB 1008

PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Dennis Daugaard has vetoed the following bill:

HB 1008 – An Act to restrict access to certain restrooms and locker rooms in public schools.

For more information about this bill and other bills, visit


Note: A copy of the Governor’s veto message follows:

March 1, 2016

The Honorable Dean Wink
Speaker of the House of Representatives
500 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre, SD 57501

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives,

I respectfully return to you House Bill 1008, with my VETO.

House Bill 1008 does not address any pressing issue concerning the school districts of South Dakota. As policymakers in South Dakota, we often recite that the best government is the government closest to the people. Local school districts can, and have, made necessary restroom and locker room accommodations that serve the best interests of all students, regardless of biological sex or gender identity.

This bill seeks to impose statewide standards on “every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school.” It removes the ability of local school districts to determine the most appropriate accommodations for their individual students and replaces that flexibility with a state mandate.

If and when these rare situations arise, I believe local school officials are best positioned to address them. Instead of encouraging local solutions, this bill broadly regulates in a manner that invites conflict and litigation, diverting energy and resources from the education of the children of this state.

Preserving local control is particularly important because this bill would place every school district in the difficult position of following state law while knowing it openly invites federal litigation. Although there have been promises by an outside entity to provide legal defense to a school district, this provision is not memorialized in the bill. Nor would such defense eliminate the need for school or state legal counsel, nor avoid expenses relating to expert witnesses, depositions and travel, or other defense costs. Nor does the commitment extend to coverage over settlement or damage expenses. This law will create a certain liability for school districts and the state in an area where no such liability exists today.

For these reasons, I oppose this bill and ask that you sustain my veto.

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Daugaard


36 Replies to “Gov. Daugaard Vetoes HB 1008”

  1. crossgrain

    Also sprach Dennisustra.

    God is dead, culture warriors. Back to mundane sales tax and medicaid.

      1. Anonymous

        I can only imagine you wonder about a great many things. Including how to find your way out of that wet paper bag.

        1. Springer

          Actually, I do wonder about a great many things. That is how one learns and grows. I challenge you to that wet paper bag thingie though; ready to take me on??!

          1. Anonymous

            OMG, that’s too funny! You, challenging someone. Learning and growing. That’s good stuff! Good stuff! LOL

            But seriously, when you find you’re way out be sure and let me know. I’ll be waiting right here on edge of my seat.

  2. Anonymous

    This will only embolden the intolerant zealots who wish to impose their religious and anti-science beliefs on the rest of us.

    Sorry guv, you’re wrong…VERY wrong…HATE has no place in SD.

    OVERRIDE the veto.

    1. wow

      Nope. We will not work to override the veto. Let the Governor explain this one to his grandchildren and church people. He listened to Caitlyn Jenner and not to either chamber. He has lost the respect of many.

    1. Anonymous

      Nice hissy fit. Now stomp your feet, then roll round on the floor like an insolent child.

    2. crossgrain

      Huh. And here I thought it was misogynistic uneducated bigots that were backing Trump. You must be the exception.

  3. Anonymous

    Governor Jackley is gonna be a welcome change.

    All of this makes me wonder….where the hell am I living? Minnesota?

  4. Anonymous

    I volunteered for Daugaard’s campaign nearly every evening for months, and how did he repay me and all of the conservatives who supported him? He did so by supporting the largest tax increase in history last year, proposing an even larger one this year, and vetoing a common sense bill that would have protected the privacy of SD children. He is either a spineless, unprincipled person who cave to the vocal minority or a liberal who lied to get elected. Either way, he should be ashamed of himself and I feel stupid for ever having supported him.

    1. Anonymous

      I was so angry that I forgot to include the fact that he wants to expand Medicaid. Disgusting!

  5. James McClain

    Interesting how the issue only cuts one direction. The governor argues for local control; fine. But when the SDHSAA created the policy opening the door for transgender participation in schools, it was, according to Mr. Krogstrand, the desire of local school administrations to have the activities association develop a universal policy, presumably to cover their backsides. So does the governor expect these same people to do anything but bow to the pressure to allow transgendered students into opposite sex restrooms? Now that’s a stretch.

    1. Anonymous

      That was my thought as well.

      It was the SDHSAA (and similar groups in other states) who started this discussion of a SDHSSA policy that would apply STATEWIDE! This outraged many, and rightfully so–so the legislature gets involved.

      Then we have this peculiar veto reasoning that claims it should be about “local control”!

      That’s not what the SDHSSA enacted.

    2. Mark N.

      The two situations are different. When local school districts join the SDHSAA, they give up a part of their local control so that the schools can have uniform rules regarding eligibility and how the sports are played. If everyone had different rules, then schools wouldn’t be able to fairly play other districts. So it makes sense to have one policy that all schools follow regarding transgender eligibility.

      We don’t need uniform rules on the use of bathroom in order to have interscholastic games, so that can remain a local control issue.

      1. Anonymous

        –We don’t need uniform rules on the use of bathroom in order to have interscholastic games, so that can remain a local control issue.

        That’s absurd.

        So SF Gorman can refuse to “accommodate” a transgendered athlete or a transgendered parent from Brookings when Brooking plays a game at O’Gorman?

        Do you think the LGBTAWQAA zealots are going to allow that, especially at a Christian school?


        1. Mark N.

          First, HB 1008 wouldn’t have had any effect on the situation you describe because it only applied to public buildings. O’Gorman could do what it wants and still can.

          Second, if you think HB 1008 would have somehow protected O’Gorman, or any other school from the “zealots,” then you’re wrong. If they believe that a school is discriminating in violation of Title IX, then they will bring a lawsuit or get the federal Dept. of Ed. involved. HB 1008 wouldn’t have stopped that. In fact, it would have likely guaranteed such a suit.

    3. Anonymous

      Saying something should be controlled locally is often a cop out, and there is no better example of that then the governor’s justification for this veto. Either the Governor is a liberal in conservative clothes or he is spineless and controlled by the Chamber of Commerce leaders who value nothing but the money that they feared that they might lose from tourism. By the way, who truly believes that that bill would have hurt SD tourism? No one! All the liberals on the Left Coast are not flocking to SD as it is, and I am happy that that is the case.

      1. Mark N.

        Local control isn’t a cop out. It is what conservatives are supposed to believe. Let local people handle local issues. Unfortunately, some conservatives abandon this principle when it suits them. If they can win a policy issue at the state level, then local control gets pushed aside simply because they can.

        It is liberals who use whatever level of government they can to win their issue. If liberals can’t win at the local level, then they go to the state level. If they can’t win on the state level, then they go to the federal level. True conservatives don’t do this. If an issue doesn’t require a federal or state policy, then it should be left to the local governments, even if a local government might make a decision different than what you would want. A true conservative will fight for an issue at the local level, and if he or she is unsuccessful, will work to elect new leadership at that level. They don’t go to the state or federal government for help.

  6. Anonymous

    Baffled. I’m sincerely baffled by the latest. Can these people get any more disconnected?

  7. Anonymous

    –This law will create a certain liability for school districts and the state in an area where no such liability exists today.

    Wait until “reasonable accommodations” are demanded for restrooms for 32 different gender identities–how much will that cost a district?

  8. JohnDoe

    Dauggaard is a perfect example of why voters across the country are tired of establishment politicians.

  9. Mark N.

    Gov. Daugaard, thank you for this common sense veto. This is a local control issue. As you said, these situations are rare. They can be dealt with by local elected officials and administrators. The Legislature did not need to pass a law regarding who can use bathrooms.

    1. Anonymous

      Read the bill, wasn’t just the bathrooms but also the locker rooms AND showers. If it is local control why did the SDHSAA force the schools to allow transgenders into the opposites lockers and showers? Your statement is full of holes.

      1. Mark N.

        I’ve read the bill. Now you read the SDHSAA transgender policy. It only talks about participation in activities. It doesn’t say anything about the use of lockers or showers. That’s still left to local control.

        1. anon

          Oh! So you really think a boy who thinks he’s a girl would be allowed to play on a girls volleyball team, but then be banished to the boys locker room after the match to shower? You don’t have a clue!! Once they are allowed to choose their sports teams, they will also demand the same locker room as the rest of the team uses. And we can thank Governor Daugaard for the chaos that is just around the corner.

          1. Local Control

            When you leave it at local control things get done respectfully and there are conversations had prior to this happening. It is called communication. If there is a student in the school demanding to use the opposite sex bathroom or locker room there will be discussions with this student’s family to work out the details. I am not aware of any negative situation that has happened yet because communication was happening with the parents and the student. If it is not broken don’t fix it.

        2. Anonymous

          –It only talks about participation in activities

          Not exactly amigo.

          From the SDHSAA TG policy:

          ” Statements from individuals such as, but not limited to parent/legal guardians, friends, and/or
          teacher, which affirm that the actions, attitudes, dress and manner demonstrate the student’s
          consistent gender identification and expression. Documentation shall also include accommodations
          that have been made by the school for the student.”

          See, school accommodations are MANDATED to be made.

          Did you think no one would verify your assertion?

          1. Mark N.

            No, amigo, my statement was correct. The first two paragraphs in the “SDHSAA Transgender
            Procedure” are what actually state the policy, which only deals with “participation.” The part you quoted is from the section on the process used to determine when the student’s request is legitimate and when the policy on participation should apply. It is a request for documentation, and it specifically refers to documentation of accommodations that “have been made”–past tense. It is asking whether the school has already recognized the school as a transgender student by making other accommodations. That section does not “mandate” that any particular accommodation be made.

            In case anyone else wants to verify my statements, the policy can easily be found here:

  10. RLM

    I’m just baffled why this was even introduced. How do these guys come up with these ideas? It seems like they were trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, yet some paranoid people think “might happen”.

    It seems to me there are enough serious issues that should be given the time and consideration they deserve..and these frivolous issues should be put aside until the real work is done