House concurs in Senate amendments to HB 12-39 after heated debate over school and library appeals process

The South Dakota House of Representatives voted to concur in Senate amendments to House Bill 12-39 after intense debate over whether the measure would criminalize librarians or instead create a civil path for parents to challenge school and library materials. The House passed the substitute motion to concur 36–34.

Representative Zwick, who described how the House arrived at the bill, said the Senate amendment "totally and completely gutted the bill" the House originally sent over and included a last-minute change. Zwick said the amended language, as returned from the Senate, "makes it so it absolutely does nothing" and argued for a conference committee to fix what he described as process problems.

Representative Van Diepen offered a substitute motion to concur in the Senate amendment. Van Diepen said the amended bill "actually does more than just let you appeal to the school board. If you read the bill, it says you can appeal it to a court. So there is a penalty that you could end up with down the road." He urged colleagues to vote to concur so parents would have a clear path to judicial review.

Several members spoke at length on both sides of the issue. Representative Jorgensen called the narrative that the bill would jail librarians "just that — a narrative," arguing that the statute the bill references applies when a person "knowingly" disseminates material harmful to minors and that librarians are unlikely to meet that standard. Representative May recounted personal experiences she said convinced her that certain books in schools were harmful to children and urged action to remove those books. Representative Peterson read language from the Senate amendment during debate, saying it requires school policy to allow "an individual to appeal to the school board to determine whether any matter or material is obscene" and makes any determination subject to judicial review; he said a similar provision applies to public libraries under South Dakota Codified Law 14-2-27.

Other lawmakers urged caution. Representative Schaeffbauer asked that the bill be sent to conference committee so legislators could "bring common sense back to an issue of protecting our children" and to give librarians and other stakeholders an opportunity to testify. Representative Soy said the amendment represented a last-minute "hog house" and argued the statute contains a broad exception that would blunt the bill's effect.

The clerk displayed the final vote as ayes 36, nays 34. Supporters said the bill creates a civil cause of action and a pathway for parents and school boards, which backers argued is the most practical way to remove material they consider obscene. Opponents said the amendment was rushed onto the floor without adequate hearings and that the bill, as amended, either failed to accomplish its stated aim or improperly exposed librarians and libraries to legal risk.

Why it matters: The bill addresses ongoing disputes about access to certain books and materials in public schools and libraries, and it clarifies that determinations by school boards or governing library bodies are subject to judicial review. The debate reflects deeper disagreements on parental rights, local control and the proper role of criminal law in addressing contested materials.

What happened (formal action): Representative Van Diepen offered a substitute motion to concur in Senate amendments to House Bill 12-39; the motion carried. The clerk reported ayes 36, nays 34.

Next steps: Because the House concurred in the Senate amendments, the bill proceeds under the amended language unless a later procedural motion changes its status.