riot boosting

This year's legislature is sending two riot boosting bills to the Governor for her signature.

The first one, House Bill 1117, was introduced early in the session and passed out of both chambers last week.

After that bill passed, the Senate Commerce and Energy Committee drafted an amendment to it and put the new language into a separate bill, House Bill 1199. That amendment cleared the full Senate on Monday, March 9.

Part of the amendment eliminates the term "riot boosting."

SDPB's Victoria Wicks has this report.

This year South Dakota's "riot boosting" bill was introduced early in the session, unlike last year. And by all appearances, House Bill 1117 has completed the last leg of its journey to the Governor's desk. The state Senate overwhelmingly voted Thursday, March 5, to pass it. But earlier in the day, a Senate committee passed Riot Boosting Part Two, starting that bill on a new journey. Now the legislature will have to consider that new bill in both houses by the end of the day Monday, which is the last day for bills to pass both chambers.

This year's riot boosting bill got a thorough hearing at a special evening meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, March 3. But after hearing close to two hours of testimony from opponents, committee members still voted 6-1 to pass the bill along to the full Senate for floor debate.

The state says this law fixes problems that were deemed unconstitutional in last year's version. Opponents say it still restricts speech and assembly through intimidation.

SDPB's Victoria Wicks reports.

House State Affairs has voted against allowing tribes to seek reimbursement for expenses associated with pipeline protests.

Last year's legislature established the PEACE fund to collect money for state or political subdivisions whose budgets might be stressed if the Keystone XL pipeline is built and protests rise up.

The committee voted 9 to 4 against including tribes in that group.

Listen to audio for the rest of the story.

SDPB's Victoria Wicks has this report.

South Dakota's 2020 "riot boosting" law has been approved by the state House and is on its way to the Senate. The controversial bill is a rewrite of last year's law, found largely unconstitutional by a federal judge. Advocates say this version ensures safe and peaceful protests, but opponents say it still deters free speech and assembly and pits government against tribes. For more of this story, click on the audio arrow.

SDPB's Victoria Wicks has this report, with rotunda audio contributed by Lee Strubinger.

South Dakota's refurbished riot legislation has been passed by House State Affairs. The bill rewrites last year's "riot boosting" law designed to squelch pipeline protests. The committee heard testimony on Wednesday, Feb. 12, and although there was strong opposition by the Speaker of the House, the bill passed on a 10-3 vote.

Most proponents say the law keeps protests peaceful. But opponents say the bill still steps on rights of free speech and assembly.

Last year Governor Kristi Noem introduced legislation designed to squelch pipeline protests and collect money from protest supporters.

The governor brought the bills late, and the legislature rushed them through to passage. But a federal lawsuit put a quick stop to one of them on constitutional grounds.

Now the governor has again introduced the legislation, but this time early in the session with major fixes.

South Dakota has settled the “riot-boosting” lawsuit, USD’s Director of International Studies talks Syria, Ranchers talk cattle prices, and SDPB's Lee Strubinger discusses state-controlled substance laws.

All this and more in this week’s In the Moment news podcast.

The state has settled a lawsuit against its riot-boosting laws passed at the end of the 2019 legislative session. Those statutes are designed to hold activists and organizations civilly and criminally liable if protests turn violent.

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline was the catalyst for the legislative action.

Last month a federal judge placed a temporary injunction against unconstitutional portions of the laws. If the judge accepts the settlement, the injunction becomes permanent.

SDPB's Victoria Wicks has this report.

Many of the provisions of South Dakota's new riot boosting laws have now been put on hold. Federal Judge Lawrence Piersol issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, Sept. 18. The order prohibits the governor and attorney general from enforcing aspects of the legislation passed in 2019, as well as two old statutes criminalizing the support of activists whose conduct turns violent.

SDPB's Victoria Wicks has this report.

One of the defendants in a lawsuit against South Dakota's newly-enacted "riot boosting" law has been dismissed. That order came out on Wednesday, Sept. 18.

Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom was listed as a defendant along with Governor Kristi Noem and Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg.

ACLU filed suit on behalf of indigenous and environmental activists who say the law squelches their right to free speech.

SDPB's Victoria Wicks has this report.

In The Moment News is a new podcast recaping news of the week. Find it every Friday afternoon.

South Dakota's "riot boosting" laws faced judicial scrutiny on Wednesday, June 12, in a Rapid City federal courtroom.

The riot boosting law that was passed in the 2019 legislative session works with old rioting laws to threaten protestors and their supporters with criminal and civil penalties.

Opponents say the laws violate free speech.

SDPB's Victoria Wicks was in the courtroom.

To hear long coverage of the riot boosting legislation, click on this link:

Activists are gathering in Rapid City to protest the "riot boosting" law passed at the end of the 2019 legislative session. The legislation is the subject of a hearing to be held on Wednesday, June 11, at the federal courthouse in Rapid City.

At the request of Governor Kristi Noem, lawmakers pushed the bill through to address protests against the Keystone XL pipeline. It holds protest supporters civilly and criminally liable if a riot breaks out.

Several groups sued in federal court to stop that law from going into effect.