March 
  1, 
  2016 
  
 
   
  
The 
  Honorable 
  Dean 
  Wink 
  
Speaker 
  of 
  the 
  House 
  of 
  Representatives 
  
500 
  East 
  Capitol 
  Avenue 
  
Pierre, 
  SD 
  57501 
  
 
   
  
Dear 
  Mr. 
  Speaker 
  and 
  Members 
  of 
  the 
  House 
  of 
  Representatives, 
  
 
   
  
I 
  respectfully 
  return 
  to 
  you 
  House 
  Bill 
  1008, 
  with 
  my 
  VETO. 
  
 
   
  
House 
  Bill 
  1008 
  does 
  not 
  address 
  any 
  pressing 
  issue 
  concerning 
  the 
  school 
  districts 
  
of 
  South 
  Dakota. 
   
  As 
  policymakers 
  in 
  South 
  Dakota, 
  we 
  often 
  recite 
  that 
  the 
  best 
  
government 
  is 
  the 
  government 
  closest 
  to 
  the 
  people. 
   
  Local 
  school 
  districts 
  can, 
  and 
  
have, 
  made 
  necessary 
  restroom 
  and 
  locker 
  room 
  accommodations 
  that 
  serve 
  the 
  
best 
  interests 
  of 
  all 
  students, 
  regardless 
  of 
  biological 
  sex 
  or 
  gender 
  identity. 
   
  
 
   
  
This 
  bill 
  seeks 
  to 
  impose 
  statewide 
  standards 
  on 
  “every 
  restroom, 
  locker 
  room, 
  and 
  
shower 
  room 
  located 
  in 
  a 
  public 
  elementary 
  or 
  secondary 
  school.” 
   
  It 
  removes 
  the 
  
ability 
  of 
  local 
  school 
  districts 
  to 
  determine 
  the 
  most 
  appropriate 
  accommodations 
  
for 
  their 
  individual 
  students 
  and 
  replaces 
  that 
  flexibility 
  with 
  a 
  state 
  mandate. 
  
 
   
  
If 
  and 
  when 
  these 
  rare 
  situations 
  arise, 
  I 
  believe 
  local 
  school 
  officials 
  are 
  best 
  
positioned 
  to 
  address 
  them. 
   
  Instead 
  of 
  encouraging 
  local 
  solutions, 
  this 
  bill 
  broadly 
  
regulates 
  in 
  a 
  manner 
  that 
  invites 
  conflict 
  and 
  litigation, 
  diverting 
  energy 
  and 
  
resources 
  from 
  the 
  education 
  of 
  the 
  children 
  of 
  this 
  state. 
  
 
   
  
Preserving 
  local 
  control 
  is 
  particularly 
  important 
  because 
  this 
  bill 
  would 
  place 
  every 
  
school 
  district 
  in 
  the 
  difficult 
  position 
  of 
  following 
  state 
  law 
  while 
  knowing 
  it 
  openly 
  
invites 
  federal 
  litigation. 
   
  Although 
  there 
  have 
  been 
  promises 
  by 
  an 
  outside 
  entity 
  to 
  
provide 
  legal 
  defense 
  to 
  a 
  school 
  district, 
  this 
  provision 
  is 
  not 
  memorialized 
  in 
  the 
  
bill. 
   
  Nor 
  would 
  such 
  defense 
  eliminate 
  the 
  need 
  for 
  school 
  or 
  state 
  legal 
  counsel, 
  nor 
  
avoid 
  expenses 
  relating 
  to 
  expert 
  witnesses, 
  depositions 
  and 
  travel, 
  or 
  other 
  defense 
  
costs. 
   
  Nor 
  does 
  the 
  commitment 
  extend 
  to 
  coverage 
  over 
  settlement 
  or 
  damage 
  
expenses. 
   
  This 
  law 
  will 
  create 
  a 
  certain 
  liability 
  for 
  school 
  districts 
  and 
  the 
  state 
  in 
  
an 
  area 
  where 
  no 
  such 
  liability 
  exists 
  today. 
  
 
   
  
For 
  these 
  reasons, 
  I 
  oppose 
  this 
  bill 
  and 
  ask 
  that 
  you 
  sustain 
  my 
  veto. 
  
 
   
  
Respectfully 
  submitted, 
  
 
   
  
Dennis 
  Daugaard