Require the display of the state seal or motto in public school classrooms.
Summary
HB1105 would require every public school administrator in South Dakota to display either the state seal or the state motto in a prominent location in each classroom. The display could be a plaque, student artwork, or another format chosen by the administrator, but if the motto is used, it must be clearly readable and meet a minimum size requirement of 11 inches by 8.5 inches. The bill ties the required display to the state constitution’s definition of the motto.
The bill also expands the state’s legal protection for schools by requiring the attorney general to provide legal representation, at no cost to the school district or school personnel, if a lawsuit or complaint arises from displaying the national motto or the new state seal/motto display. It further makes the state financially responsible for related expenses, including damages, attorney’s fees, and costs that would otherwise fall on the district, employees, or school board members.
Impact
HB1105 would amend South Dakota education law by creating a new classroom display mandate for public schools and by broadening an existing indemnification and defense statute for school districts and personnel. It would affect school administrators, teachers, school boards, and the attorney general’s office by imposing a new compliance obligation and shifting litigation risk and costs to the state when disputes arise over the required displays.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have mixed to negative legislative support overall. It received a favorable committee vote on a do-pass-amended motion, but the full House later rejected that motion, suggesting the chamber was not broadly aligned on the proposal. The available vote history indicates the bill was contentious rather than consensus-driven, with support in committee but insufficient support on the floor.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the classroom mandate itself and the state’s assumption of legal and financial liability for any resulting disputes. Supporters may view the bill as promoting civic identity and state pride through classroom displays, while opponents may be concerned about adding requirements to public schools, potential constitutional or policy disputes over compelled displays, and the fiscal impact of making the state pay defense costs, damages, and attorney’s fees. The split between committee approval and floor rejection suggests disagreement over both the policy merits and the broader implications for schools and state finances.