Home > 2015 SD Legislative Session > Senate State Affairs committee has four bills on Mon Feb 9

Senate State Affairs committee has four bills on Mon Feb 9

February 9, 2015

wineOn Monday, February 9th, at 10:00 AM the SD Senate State Affairs committee will take on 4 bills.

SB 137 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Revise certain provisions regarding the term of the Executive Board of the Legislative Research Council.

Sen Corey Brown (R, Dist 23) and Rep Dean Wink (R, Dist 29) are the prime sponsors. This seems to ensure that the legislators elected to the board only serve during the two-year period each legislator is elected to. I think the older language intends that, but this bill makes that much more clear.

SB 112 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Revise certain provisions regarding voting rights of a person convicted of a felony.

Sen Craig Tieszen (R, Dist 34) and Rep Steve Hickey (R, Dist 9) are the prime sponsors. This bill has been deferred from Jan 30. Here are my notes prior to that committee meeting:

This bill has caused a bit of a stir already. Current SD law doesn’t allow a felon who is “serving a sentence” to vote. This bill would change that to “imprisoned”. That would mean a felon out on parole trying to be a good citizen can now vote; and not wait until their entire sentence is done. Personally I think this is a good change to current law.

SB 190 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Clarify health coverage for applied behavior analysis.

Sen Alan Solano (R, Dist 32) and Rep Scott Munsterman (R, Dist 7) are the prime sponsors. This is one I will definitely listen to the testimony on. Here is the definition of “Applied behavior analysis” (ABA) taken from this bill:

the design, implementation, and evaluation of environmental modifications, using behavioral stimuli and consequences, to produce socially significant improvement in human behavior, including the use of direct observation, measurement, and functional analysis of the relationship between environment and behavior

This bill has to do with Autism spectrum disorder. This bill would mandate that certain health insurance policies in South Dakota cover ABA. I’ve covered this topic before. Here is what I wrote about HB 108 during the 2013 session after it was passed into law:

SB 108An Act to require a study of services and insurance coverage for the treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorder for children.

This was a hoghouse vehicle bill. The original ‘empty’ bill was to affected medical services in SD. It was briefly hoghoused by the Senate State Affairs committee makes sure third-party payers don’t refuse to pay for some medical claims in certain circumstances. The bill was then re-hoghoused in the House State Affairs committee to establish a workgroup study on the autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It was then further amended to focus more on a study of the services and insurance coverage for the treatment of ASD. The hoghousing of this bill towards ASD was response to HB 1257 being killed. Basically HB 1257 would have mandated Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) to be covered by insurance companies. I empathize with the parents trying to get this 1257 passed; but I cannot advocate any more mandates than ACA has already imposed on health insurance coverage. This bill, SB 108, is a bad on in my opinion. It is nothing but a two-step approach to getting the mandate passed in 2015. The study will be conducted in such a way that will ‘prove’ an insurance mandate is necessary. Hopefully other options can be looked at, including great private organizations that already help parents with children that need ABA.

I still empathize with parents trying to get this law passed. This years version of the bill has been modified a little. But in the end it is still a mandate. For that reason I hope this bill will not make it through Senate State Affairs.

HB 1001 – SoDakLiberty Posts – Establish a wine direct shipment license and wine carrier license to enable the direct shipments of certain wine in South Dakota.

Rep Roger Solum (R, Dist 5) and Sen Corey Brown are the prime sponsors. This bill passed House Taxation 13-1 and the House floor 65-2. I do think the move to legally allow direct wine shipment in SD is a good move (many people in SD have found ways around the law). But the provision of the ID being checked upon delivery makes this new law too burdensome. Other states are able to do this without placing that burden on parcel delivery services.

Here is what I wrote about the bill prior to the House Taxation committee meeting about the bill:

Here is a bill that should be good, but isn’t. At its core this bill would allow people to have wine shipped directly to their house. That’s great, many SD wine consumers could join wine of the month clubs or expand their cellar into areas not available in SD. But, because we are talking about alcoholic beverage it apparently has to use the law to place a burden on ordering wine through the mail; thus it would push people away from actually doing so. The main provision that kills this bill is the requirement that someone 21 or older must sign for the package for it to be delivered. Many other parts of the country are able to make wine shipments work without this requirement. The bill already has an age verification service built into ordering the wine. At that point it is up to the consumer to ensure it is delivered somewhere that only an adult would get to it. And let’s be honest, this service would not be used by minors to try skirting the law. There are much cheaper and easier ways for minors to get as much booze as they wish. No, this provision of the bill has nothing to do with minors. What it really has to do with is the current wineries in South Dakota being afraid of competition. Personally I don’t see the ability to order wine though the mail as having much of an impact upon the current wineries. Most people I’ve talked to that would use this service would enhance their wine collection with mail-order wine services. They have no intention of replacing the local wineries as a source of purchasing product. But special interest groups go into full protection mode when certain safety nets (government barriers preventing potential competition) are going to be removed. It doesn’t matter that removing those barriers will potentially increase the wine industry overall in South Dakota, and maybe even grow the business for local wineries. No, instead these special interest groups want to keep their current government barriers in place. Hopefully the legislature can amend this bill. As is, this bill is way to interventionist into the market.

%d bloggers like this: