Two pieces of legislation are going to South Dakota’s House and Senate floors with different levels of increased penalties for disturbing worshippers.
One bill, introduced by Rep. Brandei Schaefbauer, R-Aberdeen, would create a new felony crime of entering or remaining in a place of worship with the intent to “menace or harass congregants or employees,” or for “the purpose of political intimidation of or the incitement of fear of violence in those attending.”
The crime would be punishable by up to five years in state prison and the possibility of a $10,000 fine. The bill also protects the 50 feet around a house of worship an hour before or after services.
The House Judiciary committee advanced it Monday with a 7-4 vote.
“We live in increasingly dangerous times to be a Christian, conservative or even just a patriot who loves America,” Schaefbauer told the committee. “We are a divided nation and, sadly, even our houses of worship are now battlefields of this unfortunate political divide.”
Motivated by Minnesota protest
Schaefbauer said she was inspired by a protest last month in St. Paul, Minnesota, where demonstrators disrupted a church service while protesting the operations of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, resulting in arrests and federal charges. A pastor of the church works for ICE, which has had thousands of agents in Minnesota conducting enforcement actions for weeks. While operating in the state, federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in January.
Schaefbauer’s bill brought questions from committee members and legal experts, some with concern for the 50-foot perimeter and one-hour time buffer it establishes.
“Where this would apply would apply to public forums, streets, sidewalks,” said Cash Anderson with the South Dakota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “It can chill otherwise legal speech.”
The bill is vague, said Samantha Chapman, American Civil Liberties Union of South Dakota advocacy manager.
“It will be up to the law enforcement officer who’s responding to determine what the intention was of the demonstrators,” she said. “Ultimately, we think that this bill is a reactionary response.”
One opponent, Sam Matson of the South Dakota Trial Lawyers Association, asked if actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would also be prohibited by the bill.
Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, said he had a “pit in his stomach” over the legislation. He said the bill’s reach is “overly broad.”
You can read the full article at South Dakota Searchlight.