A comprehensive economic development package hit a snag on the House floor on Tuesday, when a representative challenged the constitutionality of including a number of topics under one bill title. The bill’s sponsor says the bill contains actions designed to accomplish one purpose.
Representative David Lust introduces Senate Bill 235 as a significant piece of legislation, one that promises a new paradigm for growing business.
“I really think the beauty in this bill is the framework,” Lust says. “We’re using large projects to fund other economic development tools. In addition, we’re going to use unclaimed property going forward to fund the Building South Dakota Fund.”
The fund Lust references is designed to enhance education, infrastructure, housing, and small business to support large projects that locate in the state.
The ambitious agenda is not popular with fellow House member Stace Nelson. The representative says the South Dakota Constitution does not allow more than one action under one legislative title.
“We already have these bills standing separately, and I’d ask that these bills that been included in this omnibus bill, which is a violation of our constitution, be separated,” Nelson says.
House Speaker Brian Gosch gives Nelson time to chart how many bills he wants separated out, and Nelson comes back with five.
Bill sponsor David Lust responds to Nelson’s actions: “I commend the Speaker for his flexibility and generosity in our time giving it to people who are clearly not prepared as we came to the floor today.”
Lust’s response clearly angers Representative Stace Nelson.
“It’s not this good representative’s fault that we’ve got a hobgoblin Frankenstein monster of a bill with as much pork in it as possible to present to this body today,” Nelson says. “Each one of these items, as we know for a fact—there’s separate bills already out there that have been combined into this. Bottom line is, South Dakota does not allow omnibus bills.”
The South Dakota House did allow this omnibus bill to go forward. As a hoghoused bill, it is a completely rewritten proposal. And so it now goes back to the Senate for concurrence on the amendment.