Latest news with #HB1041
Axios
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Indiana Democrats split on transgender athlete ban
Some Democrats in Indiana and across the country are starting to walk back from the party's stances on transgender rights — positions once embraced on principle but now increasingly seen as political liabilities. Why it matters: The reversal follows the 2024 campaign, during which the Trump team spent millions on ads targeting transgender women and girls in sports and criticizing Democratic nominee Kamala Harris' stance. At the same time, national party leaders are punting trans rights to local communities. The political effects are trickling down, and advocates fear for LGBTQ+ communities if their longtime allies no longer have the political will to stand with them. Driving the news: Statehouse Democrats split on House Bill 1041, which bans transgender girls and women from playing on women's collegiate sports teams. Gov. Mike Braun signed the bill into law this week. Flashback: HB 1041 expanded on a 2022 law that prohibited transgender girls from playing on K-12 girls sports teams. Not a single Democrat supported the 2022 bill. State of play: This year, four Democrats in the House and four in the Senate voted in favor of HB 1041. Those who supported it were Reps. Wendy Dant Chesser, Ed DeLaney, Chuck Moseley and Tanya Pfaff and Sens. David Niezgodski, Rodney Pol, Lonnie Randolph and Greg Taylor. "We each looked at the emails we received from our constituents," said Minority Leader Sen. Shelli Yoder (D-Bloomington), who voted against the bill. "So every person voted their district." Yoder said transgender rights have been weaponized and turned into a political football. "You see these political ads and the fear of the miscommunication that comes as a result of these bills, and unfortunately, that's where we've landed." What they're saying: "This is a very difficult vote," DeLaney said during a committee hearing earlier this session. The Indianapolis Democrat voted against the 2022 legislation. DeLaney had suggested leaving the decision to the NCAA, which had already barred transgender girls and women from female sports, but ultimately voted in favor of HB 1041. "Both … will keep males out of female sports, so on that broad principle we're in agreement," he said. "But I'm not part of the message that we want to belittle people who are having a difficult choice in life as to what they think their sex is." Zoom in: IYG, an Indianapolis-based nonprofit, said in a statement it was "deeply disturbed by the advancement of legislation targeting LGBTQ+ Hoosiers, particularly transgender individuals, with bipartisan support." "It's very disappointing," Zoe O'Haillin-Berne, IYG's director of engagement, told Axios. "It sends a message to our young people that they weren't worth fighting for, and that's devastating." O'Haillin-Berne said she's afraid Indiana could see a backslide in rights for the wider queer community. The big picture: Some top Democrats nationally have drifted rightward in an apparent attempt to make sense of the 2024 election losses. Rahm Emanuel — former Chicago mayor and U.S. ambassador to Japan, who has played coy about a 2028 White House run — told Axios: "Some kids in the classroom are debating which pronouns apply, and the rest of the class doesn't know what a pronoun is. That's a crisis." In a conversation with right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk on California Gov. Gavin Newsom's podcast, Newsom contended that trans athletes competing in girls' and women's sports was "deeply unfair." The other side: The Human Rights Campaign and other LGBTQ+ advocacy groups called on the Democratic Party "to do more" to stand up for LGBTQ+ rights.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Legislative committee softens budget blow to SD State Library, but concerns remain
From left: Sen. Ernie Otten, R-Tea; Rep. Mike Derby, R-Rapid City; and Sen. Mark Lapka, R-Leola, listen to a budgetary brief in Pierre on Jan. 14, 2025. (Joshua Haiar/South Dakota Searchlight) South Dakota's main legislative budget committee softened the proposed cuts to the State Library on Thursday at the Capitol in Pierre, but library advocates said the cuts still go too far. The Joint Committee on Appropriations endorsed House Bill 1041 in a 16-2 vote, with the two votes against it coming from Reps. Erik Muckey, D-Sioux Falls, and Scott Moore, R-Ipswich. The original proposal would have cut $1 million in state funds from the State Library, cut the state Department of Education's ability to seek $1.4 million in federal funding for the library and laid off a dozen employees. Former Gov. Kristi Noem proposed the budget cuts during her December budget address in response to lower-than-anticipated revenues and rising Medicaid costs. State Library budget cut would hamstring local libraries, opponents say The changes made Thursday would rescue most of the programs that were proposed to be cut, said South Dakota Department of Education Secretary Joseph Graves, including most databases, access to interlibrary loans and 'adequate personnel to provide for the training and the promotion of the summer reading programs.' The department's ability to seek $1.4 million in federal funding would also be reinstated to help 'make the difference' in cuts at the state level, Graves said. The actual budget cuts are not in HB 1041, since they're embedded in the state's general appropriations bill. The legislation dissolves the South Dakota State Library Board with plans to cut about $825,000 in the library's budget and three-and-a-half full time positions. The library would retain 'standard oversight' by the library director and the Education Department, Graves said. He told lawmakers earlier in the week the changes would cut four databases made available through the State Library to public libraries across the state, including Ancestry Library, Fold3, HeritageQuest and Swank. The library will be able to keep a total of 17 full time positions, said Rep. Terri Jorgenson, R-Rapid City. The library currently has 21 employees. Jorgenson, who worked on the changes with the state Department of Education, said the changes are a 'way for us to save our State Library.' Muckey said that statement is 'half true' in an interview with South Dakota Searchlight after the meeting. 'I simply just want the bill dead so we can restore all the funding back,' he said. South Dakota Searchlight's Joshua Haiar contributed to this report. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
25-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
State Library cuts might be less than Noem wanted
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — The South Dakota Legislature's panel that assembles state government's annual budgets has delayed until Thursday a decision on whether to reduce spending on the State Library — and if so, by how much. DOC official: No contingency if new prison plan fails The original recommendation from former Gov. Kristi Noem sought to reduce state general funds by $1.03 million, eliminate federal funding of $1.4 million, and eliminate 12.5 positions. Last February, the Legislature appropriated $2,371,975 of state general funds and $1,399,443 of federal funding to the State Library, and assigned it 21.5 positions for the current year. Noem's reductions would take those amounts down to $1,341,708 of general funds and zero federal funding, with a remaining staff of nine. The State Library operates as part of the South Dakota Department of Education — the department is now housed in the MacKay Building in Pierre that formerly was dedicated to the State Library — and on Tuesday the Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations considered the cuts proposed in House Bill 1041. The legislation would repeal parts of state laws, such as the requirement that 'Library services suitable to support informed decisions by the Legislature and the personnel of government shall be provided by the State Library Agency.' State publications would be deposited with the South Dakota State Historical Society instead. Last month the House Education Committee referred HB 1041 to the Joint Committee on Appropriations 13-0 with a recommendation that the legislation do-not pass. In turn, State Education Secretary Joseph Graves on Tuesday brought to the appropriators a modified recommendation. 'Another option would be to reduce the cut in state general funds by about $200,000, which would then allow us to leverage the $1.4 million of federal funds,' Graves told the panel. The funding, according to Graves, would be used for space billing for the area that the State Library occupies in the MacKay Building, as well as a state information officer who would maintain the State Library website and communication with school libraries and public libraries. But Graves said other services would still be reduced, including eliminating four data bases, the public library space in the MacKay Building, the State Library Board, and federal depository status of the materials at the State Library. He said there also would be 'a reduction but elimination' of education services. 'With these changes the total reduction of the State Library would be $830,000 in general funds and 3.5 FTEs,' Graves said. 'I do appreciate the committee's consideration of all options to balance our state budget. At DOE we believe we have left no stone unturned.' Speaking against the legislation in person was Abby Edwardson, vice president of the South Dakota Library Association, as well as several people online, including the association's president, Elizabeth Fox, and past president Sarah Jones-Lutter. The appropriators adopted a place-holder amendment to provide $100 to the State Library next year. Cody Stoeser, director of finance and management for DOE, said the department's proposed amendment would be brought on Thursday. 'We want to make sure everything is on the up and up on the other parts of the bill,' Stoeser said. 'We just want to make sure the whole bill is ready to go.' The panel's chair, Republican Sen. Ernie Otten, said that the appropriators would make a decision then. 'Nothing up my sleeve,' Otten said, 'except my skin.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
10-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Former state librarians oppose its elimination
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — Four of South Dakota's past heads of the State Library are taking a stand against an attempt by the Noem-Rhoden administration to defund many of its operations and eliminate most of its staff. They issued a statement on Saturday night strongly urging state lawmakers to oppose House Bill 1041. Old TV provides clear picture of KELOLAND's past The House Education Committee last week voted 13-0 to recommend that HB 1041 do not pass. The next decision will be made by the Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations that sets state government's budget each year. Then-Gov. Kristi Noem proposed getting rid of many of the State Library's functions and staff when she revealed her budget recommendations to legislators in December. Her budget office recommended cutting 12.5 positions from the current staff of 21.5 and stripping $1,030,267 from its current $2,371,975 state general funding and taking away all of its current $1,399,443 federal funding. Noem didn't mention the State Library reduction in her budget speech, but she told lawmakers that she was recommending many cost reductions in state government because revenue is flowing into the state treasury at a slower rate than lawmakers had forecast. Noem resigned last month to become federal secretary of homeland security. Her successor, Larry Rhoden, said in his first speech to lawmakers that he wouldn't be submitting a budget of his own this legislative session. The State Library is part of the state Department of Education. The legislation to defund the library came at the department's request. The legislation also would eliminate the State Library Board. State Education Secretary Joe Graves was the only person to testify for HB 1041 during its hearing by the House Education Committee. Ten people spoke against it. Some were librarians. Others included Sara Rankin from the South Dakota Municipal League and Republican Rep. Tim Walburg. The four former state librarians who issued the statement on Saturday are Daria Bossman, who served 2012-2021 during the Daugaard and Noem administrations; Dorothy Liegl, who served 2004-2007 during the Rounds administration; Suzanne Miller, who served 1999-2004 during the Janklow administration; and Jane Kolbe, who served 1986-1999 during the Mickelson, Miller and Janklow administrations. 'The State Library is an efficient, cost-effective, trusted and valuable resource for all South Dakotans,' they said in the statement. They said a review in 2006 led to reducing the State Library staff of 37 to 27, and a decade later the staff was further reduced to 21.5. At the same time, the State Library became more technologically advanced. 'This new system which was named South Dakota Share-IT allowed the State Library to link all participating libraries with no cost to the local school or public library. The end result is that patrons can discover what each library has for their physical holdings,' the joint statement said. The statement also said that South Dakota's universities and a few larger public libraries are members of the international OCLC library network. 'However, without the State Library's connecting software and their librarians who manage it, most of the state will go dark,' the statement warned. 'The information isolation will be devastating to local schools and communities, particularly rural areas. Without access to magazine articles through subject databases and access to books held by hundreds of linked South Dakota libraries, individual research and inter-library loan will be severely curtailed,' the statement said. It added, 'In short, the proposed drastic reduction of personnel and budget cuts would severely limit the State Library's capacity to support k-12 schools, homeschoolers, public and academic libraries. Additionally, the economic impact over time would be crippling, again most especially to rural schools and communities. This ill-advised legislation will NOT save tax-payers' money. In fact, it will most likely have the opposite effect, costing tax-payers more money but with limited access to fewer resources, trainings and services.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
