11-03-2025
Senate amends bill, will not send librarians to jail
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (KELO) — Republican South Dakota Senator Lauren Nelson lead the charge in the Senate for House Bill 1239, a bill which some argued was a threat to librarians.
Debate on the measure was spirited, including arguments about responsibility, culture wars and the hypothetical hanging of librarians.
Troopers find 250lbs of Marijuana in traffic stop
The bill would have removed legal protections for those working at a school, college, university, museum or public library if they were accused of providing obscene or harmful material to minors.
Nelson said HB1239 was simply providing teeth for the existing law.
Jodi Fick, Director for Siouxland Libraries, which has13 branch locations across Sioux Falls and Minnehaha County provided this statement on the measure prior to the Senate debate.
House Bill 1239 would change the legal standing of professionals, including librarians, and open them up to legal consequences when minors inadvertently access material deemed 'harmful to minors' – even if those materials are in an adult section of the library. Siouxland Libraries currently has established policies and procedures in place that allow community members to challenge materials if they have concerns. Our existing policies respect the right of parents and guardians to determine what materials are suitable for their own families. If the Senate passes House Bill 1239, and Governor Rhoden chooses to sign it into law, Siouxland Libraries would need to make significant changes in operations or policies to ensure the safety and well-being of our staff and guests while complying with the new state law.
Jodi Fick, Siouxland Libraries
Opposition came early from Democrat Sen. Jamie Smith, who called this an instance of national politics being brought into South Dakota, and arguing the issue addresses by the bill is not an actual issue in South Dakota.
Smith outlined various measures already in place, including systems to remove books or to flag specific student accounts if their parents wish.
'Instead what we're going to do is demonize one more profession,' said Smith. 'We're going to make it possible to actually arrest our librarians.'
Much of the proponent debate struck on the themes of accountability for libraries and disgust for the content of certain books.
If somebody had knowingly given that to my children when they were little, I'd want them strung up from the nearest tree.
Senator Taffy Howard
Republican Sen. Taffy Howard spoke about an excerpt from one of the books she looked at.
'I opened it up and right away it was like, oh my goodness,' said Howard, saying that the shut the text immediately.
'None of our children should be exposed to this garbage. It's absolute garbage,' Howard said, arguing that librarians should not be allowed to provide these books to kids.
'I don't care what your job is, no one should be able to hide behind their job and use that as a way to provide this garbage to our children,' said Howard, adding that she doesn't know if any librarians actually are providing these books. 'If somebody had knowingly given that to my children when they were little, I'd want them strung up from the nearest tree.'
Another theme of opposition was parental rights.
Republican Sen. Tamara Grove spoke of the lack of agency that individual parents have regarding what books library systems have. 'If a parent wanted to do something — there's nothing that they can do,' she said.
Before discussion on the bill could continue, and amendment was brought by Republican Sen. David Wheeler.
This amendment stripped the language that would result in potential criminal charges from the bill, and instead inserted sections that would allow for judicial review of a school board's decision on a book in the event that a parent disagrees with that decision.
Wheeler argued that while the Senate could probably come to an agreement that a handful of books used as an example should not be available to children, there are hundreds of books out there that may offend different people for different reasons.
'How many of those are we going to agree on,' said Wheeler, arguing that judicial review would allow for the decision to be made by someone who understands the law, without subjecting librarians and teachers with the threat of criminal prosecution.
Howard was the first to speak against the amendment, though her thoughts were echoed by others.
Howard's opposition to the amendment began with a question about who would pay for the court costs if a parent decided to appeal a district's decision.
Wheeler answered that the cost would be on whoever decided to bring the appeal, and Howard argued that such a process puts too great a burden on parents, using her own mother, who was a single mother as an example, and saying she never could have afforded to take it to court.
Nelson echoed Howard's statement and argued that the crux of the bill was the ability to criminally charge people.
'This amendment just simply it guts the bill,' Nelson said. 'It would turn the bill into something that says 'you don't have an affirmative defense' or — for something — 'you can't be charged with anyway'. And that's the crux of it.'
Instead, Nelson says the amendment perpetuates the status quo and would leave schools unaccountable.
Speaking in favor of the amendment was Republican Sen. Steve Kolbeck, who argued that this is a local issue, and not one that should be addressed state wide.
Kolbeck, like Smith, noted that there are already systems in place to address material parents find objectional. 'We already have a process. And that's my issue with the bill,' he said.
Instead, Kolbeck advocated for talking to your local librarians.
'I know my librarians — Mary and Wilma,' said Kolbeck. 'There isn't a rampant problem with librarians. And if you don't know your local librarian, or if you haven't called your local librarian to double check that these [books] are in there, I think that you should vote no on this bill.'
I dare everybody who wants to vote for this bill, who thinks we should help hold the librarians accountable to look in the gallery today, look in the eyes of these librarians that are up here and say, 'I don't trust you.'
Senator Stephanie Sauder
Republican Sen. Stephanie Sauder also spoke, giving a more forceful statement in support of the amendment.
'No one has been able to tell me — and I've asked this a lot of times since this all has come up — how many actual incidences have been reported,' said Sauder. 'There haven't been any in my district.'
Here Sauder issued a challenge to those who preferred the original text of the bill.
'I dare everybody who wants to vote for this bill, who thinks we should help hold the librarians accountable to look in the gallery today, look in the eyes of these librarians that are up here and say, 'I don't trust you.'' said Sauder. 'I dare you to do that. And then vote yes on this.'
Wheeler's amendment passed 18-16.
Following this vote, discussion turned to passage of the amended version of the bill, with many of the proponents of the original version expressing their displeasure with the amendment, and the less forceful impact.
Despite that, all of those lawmakers voted to pass the amended version, with the bill passing on a vote of 32-2, with the only opponents being Democrats Smith and Liz Larson, each of whom had opposed the initial bill.
As the bill has been amended, it will need to be re-approved by the House.
Nelson urged senators to vote yes on the amended bill. She implied the fight wasn't over. 'It will go to conference committee. We'll see what happens there.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
