With stenographers in short supply, SD lawmakers advance bill letting judges opt for recordings
South Dakota State Court Administrator Greg Sattizahn speaks to the state Senate Judiciary Committee on Jan. 16, 2024. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
A shortage of stenographers in South Dakota helped spur unanimous support in a legislative committee for a bill that would allow judges to decide if a stenographer is necessary in lower-level court hearings.
Stenographers, also called court reporters, are people who transcribe everything said in a court proceeding, using stenographic machines with specialized keyboards.
Current law allows the parties involved in misdemeanor criminal or civil cases to demand a stenographer to cover hearings in person.
Chief justice says SD would benefit from expanding its new criminal public defense office
That's not usually necessary, though, State Court Administrator Greg Sattizahn told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday at the Capitol in Pierre. An audio recording can be used after the hearing to create an official written transcript if necessary, Sattizahn said, and that's become the most common method for creating official records in South Dakota.
The technology has been a boon for the state in the face of a steady loss of trained court reporters in recent years, Sattizahn said.
The Unified Judicial System has eight open stenography positions at the moment.
'As those positions come open, we've in many cases converted them to court recorders,' Sattizahn said, referring to the audio recording systems used to create transcribable audio records of hearings.
There are 41 court reporters on staff for the state courts at the moment. There are 11 court recorder systems available.
The slim stenography labor pool can create a scheduling burden for felony cases, Sattizahn said — one that can be exacerbated when parties to lower-level cases opt to exercise their right to demand a stenographer.
House Bill 1011 would put the decision on whether a human court reporter is needed in the hands of a case's presiding judge. No one testified against the bill, which was presented on behalf of the state court systems at the request of South Dakota Supreme Court Justice Steven Jensen.
The committee backed the bill 7-0, sending it to the Senate, where final passage would send the bill to the governor's desk.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Yahoo
Oregon bill would reduce administrative burden for patients seeking physician assisted suicide
A doctor holds a hospital patient's hand. (Getty Images) Terminally ill people who want their doctors' help in dying could do so twice as quickly under an Oregon bill that would cut the waiting period between asking for a lethal dose of medication from 15 days to seven. Oregon is one of 11 states and Washington, D.C., that allow terminally ill individuals to choose to end their lives by asking a physician for a lethal dose of medication. Only adults who are given six months to live and who can effectively communicate for themselves can elect for physician-assisted suicide. In 2023, the state removed a residency requirement, enabling people from other states to travel to Oregon to die. Patients must make two oral requests to their physician for the medication, each separated by at least 15 days. But Senate Bill 1003, as amended, would change the law and reduce that time frame from 15 days to seven days. The bill would allow electronic transmission of prescriptions and filings, and it would require hospices and health care facilities disclose their physician-assisted suicide policy before a patient is admitted and publish the policy on their websites. The bill would also broaden who can prescribe lethal drugs by replacing 'attending physician' and 'consulting physician' in the law with 'attending practitioner' and 'consulting practitioner' while retaining the requirement that they are licensed physicians in Oregon. The bill is sponsored by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill received a public hearing Monday afternoon in the Senate Committee on Rules, with dozens of individuals testifying and submitting letters mostly in opposition. It has yet to receive a vote by either chamber. The state's policy, called the 'Death by Dignity Act,' was created through a 1994 citizens initiative that passed with 51% of the vote. A lawsuit paused the act from taking effect for three years, but in 1997 that injunction was lifted and an attempt to repeal the act in a citizens initiative failed the same year. In 2024, 607 people received prescriptions for lethal doses of medications, according to the Oregon Health Authority. Most patients receiving medications were 65 or older and white. The most common diagnosis was cancer, followed by neurological disease and heart disease. Most individuals, including mental health providers and Christian medical groups, testified in opposition to the bill, saying it would undermine the time needed for patients to process their diagnosis, disregard alternative health solutions and ignore mental health concerns. The committee received 429 letters in opposition to the bill and only 12 letters in support. Rep. E. Werner Reschke, R-Malin, said it 'creates a culture of death over that of life.' But a few proponents, such as Portland resident Thomas Ngo, said it would make the process smoother and less of an administrative burden for patients enduring terminal illness and pain. Ngo said his mother used the Death with Dignity Act to die after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. 'Her passing was peaceful and on her teams,' Ngo told the committee. Ngo's father's partner died of the same disease but could not opt for physician-assisted suicide because they were at a religiously-affiliated health care provider. Oregon health care providers are not obligated to participate in the Death by Dignity Act, and many religiously affiliated hospitals do not participate. The bill will be scheduled for a work session for a later date where the committee can decide to hold the bill — killing it for the remainder of the session — or advance the bill to the Senate floor for a vote. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Amid national outbreak, South Dakota reports its first measles case of the year
A nurse readies an MMR vaccine at Sanford Children's Hospital in Sioux Falls. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight) A national measles outbreak has reached South Dakota. The state Department of Health on Monday reported the first measles case of the year. The infected person is a Meade County adult who 'visited several public locations,' according to the department's news release. The department said people may have been exposed to measles in the Rapid City Medical Center Urgent Care waiting room from 7:15 a.m. to 10 a.m. Mountain time on May 28 and the Monument Health Sturgis Urgent Care waiting room from 9:45 a.m. to 3 p.m. Mountain time on May 29. People who were in those settings should self-monitor for measles symptoms for 21 days, the department said. 'I question it myself': South Dakota vaccination rates fall amid mistrust and misinformation Measles is a highly contagious viral disease that spreads through the air from an infected person. People who lack immunity from vaccination or past infection are at high risk of measles infection if they have contact with an infected person. Measles symptoms appear in two stages. In the first stage, the individual may have a runny nose, cough and a slight fever. The eyes may become reddened and sensitive to light while the fever consistently rises each day. The second stage begins on the third to seventh day of symptoms and consists of a temperature of 103-105 degrees Fahrenheit, and a red blotchy rash lasting for four to seven days. The rash usually begins on the face and then spreads down to the trunk and out to the arms and legs. The department said the measles vaccine 'offers the best protection against infection and avoids the risks that come with infection.' The department said the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine 'is highly effective at preventing measles infection, and two MMR doses usually produce lifelong immunity.' According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a measles vaccination rate of 95% is needed to prevent outbreaks, given the highly contagious nature of the virus. Vaccination rates have been falling in South Dakota, where incoming kindergarteners are required to be up to date on the MMR vaccine unless they have a medical or religious exemption. Ten years ago, six South Dakota counties had less than 95% of kindergarteners vaccinated for measles, with the lowest being 80%. Now, more than 40 counties in the state are below 95%, with 12 below 80% and five below 70%. The South Dakota measles case comes amid the most severe U.S. measles outbreak in decades. According to the CDC, there had been more than 1,000 measles cases detected this year across 33 states prior to the detection in South Dakota. Last year, South Dakota reported its first measles case in nine years. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Federal action could make SD's Medicaid work requirements ‘an exercise in futility,' official says
South Dakota Department of Social Services Secretary Matt Althoff speaks at a press conference in Sioux Falls on April 25, 2025. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) South Dakota's proposal to implement work requirements for Medicaid expansion could be 'an exercise in futility' now that the federal government is also considering it, said state Department of Social Services Secretary Matt Althoff. The state began drafting its proposal immediately following the end of the state legislative session in March, Althoff said, before debates about work requirements heated up at the congressional level. Department officials presented their plan at the state Board of Social Services meeting Friday morning via video conference, just before the first of two public hearings on the proposal. 'Respectfully, humbly, we ask for your grace,' Althoff told board members, 'because we're asking for your feedback on something that might be obsoleted by the vote of 100 senators and the stroke of a pen from our president.' Health care advocates form coalition urging Republicans to take their 'Hands Off Medicaid' Medicaid is government-funded health insurance for people with low incomes. South Dakotans voted in 2022 to expand Medicaid to adults with incomes up to 138% of the poverty level, a decision that allowed the state to capitalize on a 90% federal funding match — funding that could be in jeopardy, pending the outcome of congressional action. Last year, voters passed another constitutional amendment to let the state seek approval from the federal government to impose work requirements on expansion enrollees. At the federal level, proposed Medicaid work requirements would mandate those between ages 19 and 65 who rely on the program to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program for at least 80 hours each month. The work requirement would be applied at the time of application, and Medicaid renewal would be changed to every six months instead of an annual basis. South Dakota's plan would require adult Medicaid recipients work, train, attend school or serve as a caretaker for a child or elderly or disabled person in their home unless they meet an exception. Compliance with the state-level work rules would be reviewed on an annual basis, at the time of Medicaid renewal, rather than at the time of application. The state would not require a set number of hours of work or education time. Heather Petermann, Medicaid director at the department, said the requirement would be a 'complement' to Medicaid to 'encourage' work without 'trying to track arbitrary work hours.' 'This approach really recognizes that for many individuals who need assistance with health care, that comes first,' Petermann said. 'Then it allows them to maintain their health so that they can work, or obtain the health needed to seek employment.' The federal government also has more exceptions in its proposal than the state, including tribal community members, people who are in foster care or were in foster care who are younger than 26, and people released from incarceration in the last 90 days. South Dakota would allow exceptions for people who are: Pregnant or postpartum. Disabled, as determined by the Social Security Administration. Diagnosed with cancer or another serious or terminal medical condition by a physician. In an intensive behavioral health treatment program, hospitalized or living in a nursing home. In an area with unemployment 20% or more above the national average and are exempt from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents. As of last month, 30,542 South Dakotans were covered by the Medicaid expansion. The state estimates 80% of them already work or qualify for an exception. SD seeks Medicaid work rules in spite of similar moves by Congress The proposed state-level work requirement would reduce enrollment by an estimated 5-10% in the first year. That would save the Medicaid program between $48.9 million and $71 million in the first year, the department says. The federal proposal as it stands now will cost more administratively than South Dakota's proposed work requirements, Althoff added. States 'will be asked to absorb' costs if the federal proposal is adopted. The state's proposal requires less administrative oversight to reduce anticipated costs, due in part to the state's tight budget approved by the Legislature this year. 'That's just sort of naming the tension about how not having new funds is sort of an important wrinkle to our development process,' Althoff said. 'It's really having to be done within an existing budget.' Board member Colleen Winter said the proposal is 'respectful' of the individuals the department serves. Work requirements are already in place for some federal programs, such as SNAP, and state efforts, such as child care assistance and parental reunification expectations within Child Protection Services. While more than 20 people sat in on a virtual public hearing regarding the state's proposed Medicaid work requirements on Friday, only one member of the public spoke. Attorney Nathaniel Amdur-Clark spoke on behalf of the Great Plains Tribal Leaders Health Board. He said his client wants to see an exception for Indian Health Service beneficiaries. Native Americans who are tribal enrolled members are eligible to receive health care services through the federal Indian Health Service. Those individuals are eligible for Medicaid coverage even if they do not meet other Medicaid requirements, such as income limits, 'to implement and further trust and treaty obligations the U.S. has to provide health care' for tribal members, Amdur-Clark said. Though Althoff and Petermann did not respond to Amdur-Clark's comments about IHS patients, they did address the subject during the earlier board meeting. Petermann said the proposal includes 'geographic exemptions,' including areas of the state with 'high unemployment.' 'Things like that would also apply to tribal members and American Indians, but we otherwise did not call out or exclude American Indians,' Petermann said. 'The approach is that this is a benefit and we want that dignity and pride to be part of the benefit for everybody, so they would be treated the same in this approach.' Amdur-Clark added that there are technical concerns regarding exemptions in the proposal and that more work is needed to achieve 'real tribal consultation.' The department met with some tribal leaders last week to discuss the proposal, Althoff said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Shelly Ten Napel, CEO of the Community HealthCare Association of the Dakotas, said in an emailed statement that her organization is monitoring state and federal work requirement proposals closely. The group did not give input at the first public meeting, but plans to share its perspective on state work requirements during the public comment period. Ten Napel opposed last year's ballot measure authorizing the state's pursuit of work requirements. Compared to the work requirement proposal being considered in Congress, Ten Napel said, the state proposal is 'overall pretty reasonable.' Gov. Larry Rhoden's administration 'did a careful job of responding to concerns' raised during the debate last year, Ten Napel said, including administrative burdens and exceptions. 'We look forward to working with them to ensure smooth implementation of the new rules if they are approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,' Ten Napel said in the statement. 'We also encourage members of Congress to take a careful look at the common sense approach South Dakota is taking and rethink some of the heavy-handed rules currently under consideration in the Big Beautiful Bill.' The 'big beautiful bill' is the budget reconciliation legislation that the U.S. House sent to the Senate last week, including a Medicaid work requirements provision. Petermann said during the board meeting that South Dakota could perhaps seek to impose its own work requirements, even if the federal legislation passes. 'For example, some of the draft language does include references to things like 'the provisions from the federal legislation cannot be waived,' but we don't know whether that means states still could or couldn't have something that is less or more restrictive, as long as it has the same components,' Petermann said. 'We really don't know for sure yet.' If the state moves forward, it will submit an application to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in July or August. After that, the proposal would go through a federal comment period and application review. The department's next public hearing on the proposed Medicaid work requirements is set for 11 a.m. Central on June 12 at the Sioux Falls office of the Department of Social Services, and online.
