House Judiciary Committee took solid action this morning on two bills that I had written about last week and yesterday that had A LOT of problems, and were just generally offensive to free speech as well as government transparency.
House Bill 1083, which wanted to “establish the crime of felony stalking of a public official” was sent to the 41st day on a vote of 11-2, despite testimony from the Governor’s office that claimed the punitive action against those disclosing information about public officials hinged on “intent,” and would not stifle free speech. The law was widely supported by representatives of law enforcement – and I’d agree with them, due to the nature of what they do – but the devil is in the details as the lobbyist for the defense attorneys pointed out the constitutional issues, and just picked it apart noting that the the bill wanted to include using biometric data (a.k.a., a picture of someone’s face) as stalking. It was also noted that we already have laws in place for much of what this legislation was attempting to re-do.
And then the committee started in. It did not survive the gauntlet of attorneys on House Judiciary who pointed out the bill’s problems. Rep. John Hughes led off the cross-examination of the bills main proponent quickly followed by most of the other attorneys on the committee including the chair. It was easily defeated.
House Bill 1084, again was trying to create a special class of protected politicians in terms of the voter database. This bill enjoyed many of the same supporters, but Justin Smith, the lobbyist for the South Dakota NewsMedia Association joined the fray, and pointed out the problems that this bill had. Rep. Matt Roby stepped in with an amendment which stripped out the offensive protections for elected officials, leaving the address redactions for law enforcement and judges in the measure, making it a much more palatable bill. I believe it passed 12-1 (and if I got that wrong, I’ll correct.)
A bad bill sent to the perdition of the 41st day, and another one reasonably fixed. That’s a good committee result by anyone’s standard.
Roby takes the time to really think things through, and in today’s world that kind of steady, common‑sense approach feels rare. I don’t see eye‑to‑eye with him on everything, and that’s perfectly fine. What I value is that he’s willing to explain where he’s coming from and genuinely listen in return. That’s the kind of presence that makes a difference. Way to legislate, Matt.
What surprises me is how he came out of District 5, the same group of voters who elected Garcia. That contrast is hard to wrap my head around.
As was noted at the committee meeting, this just creates a second class or inner party of citizens who get extra protection. Not sure who is pushing (funding and writing) this law, but I would like to know. However, I’m not sure if someone telling me that infomration would result in a felonious crime. 🙂