The new second thoughts rule.

2014 marked the first year that legislators could take a legislative measure they were the prime sponsor of, and say “Naaahh.”

Here’s the list of legislative measures that were withdrawn at the request of their sponsors:

Withdrawal of Bill – a procedure occasionally used in the legislature whereby the prime sponsor of a bill may withdraw the bill in the house of origin with the approval of the presiding officer.
Bill Title
HB 1137 revise the title of the task force responsible for implementing and overseeing the assessment of agricultural land and to assign the task force certain other oversight responsibilities.
HB 1202 revise the index factor in the state aid to general education formula.
HCR 1020 Recognizing the 22nd anniversary of the Khojaly tragedy which resulted in the loss of over six hundred lives.
SB 67 provide protection to certain businesses or persons that decline to provide certain wedding services or goods due to the free exercise of religion.
SB 96 exempt certain purchases for law enforcement, fire protection, and emergency medical and transport services from the general provisions regarding procurement of public safety equipment for the state and its political subdivisions.
SB 133 clarify certain statutes prohibiting political subdivisions from restricting firearms, to assert the sovereignty of the State of South Dakota with regards to the regulation of arms and weapons, and to provide recourse and penalties for violations.
SB 140 exempt certain computer programming services and software
SB 146 revise certain provisions regarding the closure of county and township roads due to high water.
SB 148 ensure that parents may direct the rearing of their children without undue governmental infringement.
SB 174 revise the bank franchise tax apportionment of income provisions.
SB 175 revise certain bank franchise tax provisions regarding net income and net operating losses.

Any thoughts about the new rule? Good bad, or otherwise?

2 Replies to “The new second thoughts rule.”

  1. Anonymous

    It is a really good rule.

    A few times a session, a legislator puts in a bill that he or she regrets. Either because it is controversial, because it turns out not to be necessary, or it duplicates another bill.

    In the past, legislators might be reluctant to get up in front of a committee and admit to a mistake, and ask that the bill be tabled.

    Now, a legislator can quietly withdraw the bill – it saves time for everyone involved.

  2. Troy Jones

    Without this procedure, a bill essentially had to be scheduled for committee to die. This a procedure that was due long ago. in 1980, I recall a bill my boss was opposed, the sponsor told my boss he would kill it in committee, as an intern I happen to be there for something else and the room was filled with people who had driven from around the state to testify against it.

    This is essentially finding a way to be courteous to citizens.