Bill to end child marriage in SD clears first hurdle
Republican Senators Tom Pischke and Tamara Grove were the legislators voting against the measure.
Husband of day care provider arrested for child porn
The bill, brought by Republican Sen. Sydney Davis, strikes a portion of existing law that states that a person between the ages of 16 and 18 can be married as long as one of their parents/guardians signs a statement of consent.
The bill also sets the penalty for knowingly marrying an underage person as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Proponents of the bill included survivors of child marriages, including Sheena Eastman of Missouri, who gave emotional testimony.
'I got married 45 days after my 15th birthday to a 21 year old man,' Eastman began. 'The first month was the first hit. The second month was the first rape. I was told it was not rape because I was married and it was God's will.'
Eastman explained her struggle to escape what was an abusive marriage as a child.
'I couldn't go to a domestic violence shelter because I wasn't 18. I couldn't run away from home because the cops returned me to him when I did,' Eastman continued. 'I wasn't allowed to get a divorce because it was a contract and I couldn't hire an attorney, and I wasn't even allowed to get my restraining order until my mother came out and seen him beating me physically. When she finally agreed to take me to get a restraining order, the worst part of that is two years and four days later I was arrested for his murder.'
Eastman told the committee that she spent 25 years in prison of the murder charge, and argued that if this law had been in place in her state, it would have given her protection.
Much of the proponent testimony before the committee centered on concerns related to child trafficking and abuse.
Committee kills bill to roll back medical pot defense
Opponent testimony on the bill kicked off with Norman Woods of SD Family Voice Action. He began by stating for the record that forced marriage is horrible, before arguing that the marriages themselves aren't the problem, but that instead the issue is abusers.
Woods' second point was that the bill would take power away from the parents of minor would-be-brides/grooms and give it to the state instead. He used the example of pregnant 17-year-old girl and a 19-year-old man as a situation where it would be proper for a parent to sign off on a marriage.
Woods' third point of opposition is that the bill would raise the marriage age to 18, but would not change the state's age of consent, which is 16.
The other opponent testifying was Dawson Schroeder, who introduced himself as a freshman at SDSU and VP of the SDSU College Republicans, though he specified he was testifying on his own behalf.
Schroeder argued many child marriages are the result of unplanned pregnancies, and that current law shows South Dakota's commitment to respecting parental rights.
Davis spoke briefly in rebuttal, noting that while marriage itself may not be the problem, the issue of child marriage in particular is complicated. She noted that children must wait for many things, such as waiting until the age of 18 to vote, or the age of 21 to drink or smoke.
The committee asked no questions of the sponsor or witnesses, instead moving on to discussion.
Sen. Grove, who voted against the bill, argued that it does not go far enough toward protecting children.
Sen. Pischke, also opposing the bill, said he was worried about unintended consequences.
Pischke recounted a story from his high school of a 17-year-old couple who got pregnant. The boy was very religious, Pischke explained, and the couple had to confess before his church that they had gotten pregnant and intended to get married.
Pischke argued if the bill had been law at the time, these 17-year-olds would not have been allowed to get married and would have had a child out of wedlock, against the wishes of their parents and church.
Pischke made a motion to kill the bill, but nobody seconded it.
Republican Sen. Jim Mehlhaff moved to pass the bill, and his motion was seconded by Republican Sen. Helene Duhamel.
Passing 4-2, the bill will now go to the Senate floor for further consideration.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
32 minutes ago
Democratic lawmakers demand information about 'Alligator Alcatraz'
A group of Senate and House Democrats is pushing officials at the Department of Homeland Security for more information about the use of the immigration detention facility in the Florida Everglades known as " Alligator Alcatraz." In a letter sent late Tuesday to the heads of the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and FEMA, the lawmakers expressed concern that the Trump administration's decision to use what lawmakers called a "novel state-run immigration detention model" could violate federal law and make the federal government less accountable for the conditions at immigrant detention centers. The letter comes as the Trump administration has embraced the model of using state-run facilities -- as opposed to federal or private ones -- to detain noncitizens during immigration proceedings, including using a shuttered state prison as an additional site in Florida, dubbed "Deportation Depot," and expanding ICE detention space in an Indiana correctional facility dubbed the "Speedway Slammer" and in a Nebraska facility to be called "Cornhusker Clink." "Experts worry this novel state-run immigration detention model will allow Florida to create an 'independent, unaccountable detention system' that runs parallel to the federal detention system," the group of eight senators and 57 representatives wrote. The "Alligator Alcatraz" detention facility has been the subject of intense political and legal scrutiny since it was rapidly constructed on the site of a rarely used airstrip in the Florida Everglades in June. The temporary detention center -- which currently can house 3,000 migrants awaiting deportation -- was toured by President Donald Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in early July. "They have a lot of bodyguards and a lot of cops that are in the form of alligators. You don't have to pay them so much." Trump said while touring the facility. "I wouldn't want to run through the Everglades for long." In the letter, spearheaded by Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the lawmakers asked the Department of Homeland Security to provide more information about the facility by Sept. 3. They asked the Trump administration to identify the legal authority that allows Florida to run the facility, confirm the facility meets federal standards for the treatment of detainees, and outline the criteria used by DHS to reimburse Florida for the facility. "Brushing aside concerns from human rights watchdogs, environmentalist groups, and Tribal nations, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has greenlit the construction of this expansive detention facility that may violate detained individuals' human rights, jeopardize public and environmental health, and violate federal law. We ask that DHS promptly provide critical information for the American public to better understand this detention plan," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. The lawmakers also requested additional information about legal access for detainees at the facility and the environmental impact of the site -- issues that have been at the center of two federal lawsuits challenging the facility. A federal judge has temporarily paused further construction at the site over environmental concerns, and a lawsuit over legal access was partially dismissed after the Trump administration established a nearby immigration court to handle issues stemming from Alligator Alcatraz. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the letter. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has previously said the facility complies with federal detention standards. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has lauded "Alligator Alcatraz" as an efficient way for Florida to work with the Trump administration to carry out deportations, and has encouraged other states to do the same. "I know that the administration has called on other states to follow suit and expand this type of capacity, and I would just reiterate that call. I think it's important. I think it will make a difference," DeSantis said at a press conference at the site in July. "The whole purpose is to make this be a place that can facilitate increased frequency and numbers of deportations of illegal aliens." Since "Alligator Alcatraz" opened in July, immigration advocates have been pushing for more information about the facility, arguing that the custodial and operational details were initially kept murky to prevent oversight. According to documents released in an ongoing lawsuit challenging the facility, the Florida Division of Emergency Management and Florida State Guard -- along with private contractors -- are running the site under a 287(g) agreement with the federal government. "While the aliens are in the physical custody of the State, they are for certain legal purposes treated as in the custody of the federal government," an attorney with the Department of Justice wrote in a court filing earlier this month. According to H. Marissa Montes, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, the model used by Alligator Alcatraz allows the federal government to outsource detention facilities to eager states and private contractors. While the federal government has long relied on county jails and for-profit prison companies to house detainees, facilities like "Alligator Alcatraz" expand the scale of individual states' involvement in federal immigration proceedings, Montes said. "Given that DHS is working directly with the Florida state government on a detention facility with alarming implications, DHS should ensure transparency and accountability surrounding the facility's financing operations," the lawmakers wrote in their letter. With Trump vowing to carry out the largest deportation in U.S. history, the use of facilities like "Alligator Alcatraz" contributes to a deterrent effect that encourages self-deportation, according to Montes, who runs Loyola's Immigrant Justice Clinic. "We've got an increased number of people who come in seeking to self-deport because they'd rather self-deport in a way that's dignified, right, than at the hands of the federal government," Montes said.
Newsweek
32 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Georgia Moves Closer to Eliminating Income Tax
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Lawmakers in Georgia have met to discuss the possibility of axing personal income tax. Supporters say eliminating the state's income tax could attract businesses and residents, continuing recent tax relief efforts. Critics warn it would force service cuts or higher sales taxes, hitting low- and middle-income households hardest. Why It Matters Georgia has been amending its personal income tax rates in recent years. Governor Brian Kemp this year signed into law income tax rebates of up to $500 and a rate cut to 5.19 percent starting in January for all income earned in 2025. The measure is part of a broader plan to lower the rate to 4.99 percent. The law also replaced Georgia's system of tax brackets with a flat income tax. According to the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, individual income taxes are expected to amount to around 47 percent of Georgia's state revenue for the current budget year, which started on July 1. Currently, only eight states don't tax individual income, according to the Tax Foundation. What To Know The effort to abolish the Peach State's individual income taxes is being led by Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, a Republican, who argued in a Tuesday meeting that reducing income taxes to zero would help the state stay competitive, particularly among southern states like Florida and Tennessee which have no income tax, and Mississippi and North Carolina, both of which are working toward eliminating personal levies. Jones said lawmakers have already given back billions of dollars to taxpayers in recent years through tax cuts, rebates and other measures. Some $7.6 billion has been returned to Georgia taxpayers through property tax relief, motor fuel tax relief, and income tax rebates and cuts, according to Kemp. "But we must go further," Jones told the Senate Special Committee on Eliminating Georgia's Income Tax. "We must seize this opportunity to lead the South, not trail behind it." The Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta on December 30, 2024. The Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta on December 30, 2024. GETTY Danny Kanso, senior fiscal analyst at the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, said that for most Georgia households, eliminating the income tax would effectively be a "massive" tax increase. To offset the deficit, he said, the state would need to triple the sales tax and apply it to new products, calling that "a very tall order to replace the state's largest source of revenue." "[It] doesn't really make sense when you hear we're going to lower taxes, eliminate sources of revenue, and somehow we're also going to raise more money," Kanso said. "That's not something we've really seen work in the past." The committee also heard from Democrats, who warned that eliminating the income tax could force Georgia to either cut services or raise sales taxes, measures they said would hit low- and middle-income residents the hardest. "The same people who favor lowering taxes want the ambulance to be there in four minutes when their loved one is having a health crisis," said State Senator Nan Orrock. "That requires an investment." The committee also heard from Grover Norquist, president of the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist argued that states like Florida, which has no income tax, continue to generate revenue even after cutting personal levies. He said that when businesses see states moving to eliminate the tax, they begin investing there, and residents follow. What People Are Saying Georgia Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones said on Tuesday: "If we want to continue to stay competitive here in the state of Georgia, and continue to be the number one state to do business, we've got to be looking for ways to keep us competitive and make it where we have a competitive advantage over states that we are competing with all the time." Danny Kanso, senior fiscal analyst at the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, said in Tuesday's meeting: "The proposal would have to increase taxes on far more Georgians than it would reduce taxes on, and so it's a little bit of a solution in search of a problem that would likely cause ripples all across the state and across the economy as well." What Happens Next The committee has set a goal of delivering a workable plan to eliminate income taxes ahead of next year's legislative session, which begins in January 2026.
New York Times
32 minutes ago
- New York Times
Would You Trust This Man With Your Elections?
With Republicans potentially losing their current seven-vote majority in the House in next year's midterm elections (or, less likely, their six-vote majority in the Senate), President Trump has been sending clear signals of his intent to interfere with the fairness and integrity of those elections. After saying in a social media post on Monday that 'DEMOCRATS … CHEAT AT LEVELS NOT SEEN BEFORE,' he promised to sign a new executive order aimed at 'MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD' in order 'to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 midterms.' Mr. Trump also promised to 'lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN ballots and also, while we're at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial Voting Machines.' He also claimed that the United States is the only country using mail-in balloting. (In fact, it is used in Canada, Britain and many other countries.) Mr. Trump's claim that 'the States are merely an 'agent' of the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes' is as legally wrong as it is politically dangerous. That can also be said about his plans to issue an executive order interfering with how states run their elections. The fear that Mr. Trump will try to subvert the 2026 elections is real — after all, he tried to overturn the results of the first presidential election he didn't win. But even if Mr. Trump fails to keep the House and the Senate in Republican hands, he will have delegitimized future Democratic victories in the eyes of his MAGA base. Mr. Trump wants his supporters to believe that Democrats can win only by cheating. 'Democrats are virtually Unelectable without using this completely disproven Mail-In SCAM,' he wrote in his Monday post. (Never mind that he raised his claim after he was apparently lectured on the supposed insecurity of mail-in ballots by the noted democracy enthusiast Vladimir Putin.) It's a recipe for further polarization and, as someone in Mr. Trump's orbit told The Times, 'maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.' It is going to be up to states, the courts and ultimately the American people to stop this further erosion of American democracy. For decades, I argued that the United States should join other modern democracies in having national nonpartisan administration of elections. What we have instead is a hyper-decentralized system that gives states the primary role in running elections, and states in turn give their counties the authority to conduct elections and count ballots. I had thought that the variety of voting rules, machines and personnel was inefficient and particularly dangerous in polarized times, when every local mistake becomes evidence of some claim of a stolen or botched election. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
