- Joint session of the House and Senate will come to order.

The prayer today will be offered by Pastor Tom Rooney and the Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Speaker Bartels.

(gavel banging) - Good afternoon.

My greetings to you, members of this chamber, and the South Dakota Senate, members of the executive branch, the judicial branch.

Let's pray.

Father, you have a way of speaking things into existence and declaring things that don't exist into reality.

Scripture describes this as declaring the end from the beginning.

Lord, we pray, show us this new way.

We resort to our human efforts, our hard work and ideas that we conceive, developing plans that we make to achieve them.

Lord, show us this new way.

Open a new path to us, for us to follow.

We understand that the framework of our government comes from scripture.

As the Prophet Isaiah declared, "The Lord is our judge, the Lord is our law giver, the Lord is our King, the Lord will save us."

We see in this description our judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government that are strong and effective so long as they remain in balance.

Yesterday, we heard from the Chief Executive, Governor Noem, plans that you have birthed in her heart, things that she desires to accomplish on behalf of the people of this state.

Today, we hear the needs of the judicial branch from our Supreme Court Chief Justice Steven Anderson, and soon, the work of this legislature will begin to find ways to address the needs pointed out wherever these, over these last few days.

Father, we pray for your favor and for your guidance over this process.

Teach us your ways on how to achieve the goals and develop the plans and programs that are within the confines of your will.

We pray that you would direct each member of these legislative bodies throughout these coming weeks of this session on when to speak, when to offer input, and yes, even when to hold our tongues, that they might experience the forcefulness of speaking right words at the right time and the right spirit.

We pray for our Chief Justice, as well as the executive and legislative branches, for a revelation of the mysteries that have been hidden in God.

We ask you, Lord, to make known the manifold wisdom that you possess.

Make it known through the church and through the actions of these authorities.

Make it known in the principalities and the governors and the powers of the heavenly places of all that, us, that live in this state, that they would be filled with the fullness of God and enjoy the liberties that you have intended for us, the ones that our forefathers fought and died to provide and protect, and we declare now, to him who is able, to exceedingly, abundantly go beyond, above all that we could ever ask, think or imagine according to the power that works in us.

To Him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever.

Amen.

- [Group] Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

- [Participant] Play ball.

(gavel bangs) - Secretary of the Senate will call the roll of the Senate.

- Senator Beal, Bolin, Bordeaux, Breitling, Castleberry, Crabtree, Davis, Deibert, Diedrich, Duhamel, Foster, Frye-Mueller, Hoffman, Hunhoff, Johnson, Klumb, Kolbeck, Jack, Kolbeck, Steve, Larson, Maher, Mehlhaff, Nesiba, Novstrup, Otten, Pischke, Reed, Rohl, Schoenbeck, Schoenfish, Stalzer, Tobin, Wheeler, Wiik, Wink, and Zikmund.

We have a quorum, Mr. President.

- Thank you.

Chief Clerk of the House will call the roll of the house.

- Representatives Arlint, Auch, Aylward, Bahmuller, Blare, Callies, Cammack, Chaffee, Chase, DeGroot, Derby, Deutsch, Donnell, Drury, Duba, Duffy, Emery, Fitzgerald, Gross, Hansen, Healy, Heermann, Jamison, Jensen, Kevin, Jensen, Phil, Karr, Kassin, Koth, Krohmer, Krull, Kull, Ladner, Lems, Lesmeister, Massie, May, Mills, Moore, Mortenson, Mulally, Mulder, Nelson, Odenbach, Olson, Otten, Ernie, Overweg, Perry, Peterson, Drew, Peterson, Sue, Pinnow, Pourier, Randolph, Rehfeldt, Reimer, Reisch, Sauder, Schaefbauer, Schneider, Shorma, Sjaarda, Soye, St. John, Stevens, Teunissen, Tordsen, Venhuizen, Wangsness, Weisgram, Wittman, Speaker Bartels.

Mr. President, there is a quorum.

- Thank you.

Madam Secretary?

- Senator Crabtree moves that a committee of three on the part of the Senate and a committee of five on the part of the House be appointed to escort Chief Justice Steven R. Jensen to the rostrum.

- [Senators] Second.

- Comments on that motion?

Hearing none, all in favor say "Aye."

- [Group] Aye.

- Opposed, nay.

Motion carries.

(gavel bangs) The President announces such committee is comprised of Senator Schoenbeck, Crabtree and Nesiba, and House Members, Representative Stevens, Mortenson, Rehfeldt, Lesmeister and Healy.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is my privilege and my honor to introduce Chief Justice Steven Jensen.

Chief Justice Jensen was sworn into the highest court in the State of South Dakota in 2017 and was selected by his colleagues on the court to serve as the Chief Justice two years ago, and he has stepped up to the plate in that role.

Chief Justice Jensen cares about the people of South Dakota and he does not take his job lightly.

He knows that every South Dakotan, myself included, trusts him to do the responsible thing and to do what is right and to ensure that justice is served in the State of South Dakota.

It's been my privilege to have the opportunity to get to know him a little better in the last two years.

Chief Justice Jensen, I look forward to hearing what you have to say as you deliver the State of the Judiciary address and I also look forward to working with Chief Justice into the future.

Sergeant at Arms, would you please announce the arrival of the Chief Justice?

- [Sergeant At Arms] Members of the House and members of the Senate, would you please welcome Chief Justice Steven R. Jensen?

(audience clapping) - Appreciate it.

(audience clapping) Thank you, thank you.

(audience clapping) Thank you.

I appreciate the warm welcome.

Governor Noem, Lieutenant Governor Rhoden, members of the legislature, constitutional officers, and my fellow justices, judges, and unified judicial system employees, and all South Dakotans, I am honored to deliver my 2023 State of the Judiciary message to you.

It is my privilege to serve the court system and the citizens of South Dakota as Chief Justice.

I am fortunate to work with a talented group of justices, judges and court staff in the unified judicial system who understand the important and unique work of the court system in providing a forum for the fair resolution of disputes of every nature that arise across this state.

This work is twofold.

First, the courts provide procedural fairness, so that every person has an opportunity for their disputes to be heard in an open forum by an impartial decision maker.

Second, the courts are duty bound to apply and uphold the rule of law in each case.

In the United States, we understand the rule of law to mean the system of laws consistent with the core principles of our state and federal constitutions designed to protect citizens, maintain order, and restrain governmental power.

The Constitution must always be the source for governing and applying the rule of law.

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia commented on the foundational role the Federal Constitution has played in building, sustaining, and uniting our country since its inception.

He said, quote, "Unlike any other nation in the world, we consider ourselves bound together not by genealogy or residence, but by belief in certain principles, and the most important of those principles are set forth in the Constitution of the United States," end quote.

In discussing the rule of law, former Harper law professor John MacArthur Maguire described the law as the wise restraints that make men free.

The restraints provided by the rule of law preserve our liberty when they are applied to everyone regardless of rank or status.

The importance of these restraints for our society is much like the household rules we heard as children.

Don't hit your brother.

Keep your hands to yourself.

Don't run with scissors in your hands, and don't cross the street without looking.

As adult, we recognize that these rules were for our safety and the common good of our household.

In the same way, when the restraints of the rule of law are applied consistently and equally to all, they produce a safe, peaceful, and orderly society for everyone.

An independent judiciary is a central pillar of the rule of law.

Judges are duty bound to apply the law as set forth in the Constitution, statutes, and codes enacted by our elected officials.

Let me assure you that judges do not sit in the back room throwing darts or flipping coins to make their decisions.

Judges also do not decide cases based upon their own likes or dislikes or based upon the most popular view on social media.

In fact, the correct result, the one required by the rule of law, may be unpopular.

One of the reasons judges all wear the same black robe is because our individual personalities and differences should not matter when it comes to our obligation to apply the law.

As I once heard a judge rightly describe, "The robe is often very heavy."

In donning the robe, a judge is reminded of the duty to fulfill the oath to apply the law and administer justice to all persons with impartiality.

Justice Scalia cautioned judges about this obligation, especially in those instances where the judge might not like the result of the decision.

He said, quote, "Do not depart from the words of the law.

Will that produce a perfect world?

Of course not, but it will produce a better world than the one in which judges run about enforcing their own view of natural law and equity."

The rule of law will always be second best to the rule of love, but we have to leave that to the next world.

Justice Scalia believed there were three ideal qualities for a judge to be adherent, to be a good judge.

First of all, adherence to the law, scholarship, and an even-handed demeanor.

In South Dakota, the judiciary continually strives towards all three of these.

Careful selections of, selection of judges, and training for judges and court staff is crucial to fulfilling these qualities.

The South Dakota Judiciary meets biannually for training on procedural and substantive law, updates on the law, considerations for sentencing criminal defendants, as well as personal, mental, and physical wellness.

Throughout the year, many other training opportunities are offered to South Dakota judges.

However, one of the best, some of the best judicial development takes place informally in South Dakota as judges talk with one another on issues that regularly come before the courts.

In 2023, we will continue to foster this culture of growth within the South Dakota Judiciary.

The members of the judiciary put this training and mentoring to good use as the number of disputes submitted to our courts continue to climb.

This past year, nearly 200,000 criminal and civil cases were filed by the courts in South Dakota.

Our 45 circuit judges and 17 magistrate court judges are responsible to ensure that each case is decided fairly and based upon the facts and the law.

If you've done the math in your head, it works out to a little over 3,000 cases per judge.

The judges are only able to manage this caseload because the work of the UJS court staff who docket the thousands of pleadings that are filed annually and keep these cases on track.

I can tell you from both a review of the many court transcripts and from experience that our judges and court staff work hard to provide a fair process.

They respect the rule of law, care about the people that are in front of them, and treat litigants and lawyers with patience, respect and dignity.

We in the court system are all human, and we can make mistakes, but we will continue to strive to be the justice system worthy of the citizens' trust.

In that vein, I wanna speak for a few minutes today about some of our current initiatives.

Last year, I told this body that, in 2022, we would begin a project to improve and enhance our efforts at rehabilitating young criminal offenders.

I made the decision to move forward with such a project because I believe that upholding the rule of law extends beyond the courtroom.

Young adults between the ages of 18 and 25 comprise the majority offenders in our court system.

They often struggle to comply with orders of the sentencing court due to immaturity and other barriers to their success, such as unmet education, housing, and employment needs.

I've been reminded again and again this past year of the rising incidence of violent crime amongst our young offenders, especially in Sioux Falls and Rapid City.

While the focus of this project is on non-violent offenders, I believe the greater success that we have rehabilitating non-violent young offenders, the less likely these offenders will be to gravitate toward gangs, drug dealing, and more serious criminal behavior that often accompanies these high risk activities.

Many young adult offenders are drug involved.

We are aware of the impact methamphetamine has had on the crime rate in South Dakota.

Both the economic and non-economic costs of substance abuse and associated criminal activity are immense.

We're also becoming more aware of the dangers presented by opioid abuse, particularly the abuse of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

From 2015 to 2020, deaths from synthetic opioids increased nationally by tenfold.

Additionally, the court system must often address the mental health issues observed in offenders entering our courts.

While these deeper societal issues do not originate with the courts, we become uniquely positioned to assist the individuals who are willing to change the direction of their lives.

Our court services officers and problem solving courts, including our drug courts, DUI courts, mental health courts, and veterans courts work hard to supervise and provide opportunities for rehabilitation to these offenders.

However, the court system cannot go it alone.

The assistance of other governmental agencies, service providers and community-based nonprofit and faith-based organizations has been and will continue to be integral to our efforts to rehabilitate offenders in the criminal justice system.

Crime is a community problem, and the entire community must be involved in its solution.

Thus, the Barriers Group was formed to share information, collaborate to find better solutions, and improve public awareness of these issues.

We began the Barriers Project earlier this year by enlisting support from the National Center for State Courts to begin interviewing and gathering data from stakeholders in the criminal justice system.

This past fall, we assembled a strong group of representatives from the governor's office, the legislature, the UJS, Department of Corrections, Department of Social Services, the Department of Education, Department of Labor, along with state's attorneys and defense lawyers.

The group's focus, as it considers the data, is to discuss ways to improve rehabilitation, hold young offenders accountable and maintain public safety.

In terms of the breadth of perspective and experiences, this group's discussion is the first of its kind in our state's history.

Through its collaborative work, the Barriers Group discussed several steps for improving services and reducing barriers to rehabilitation for young adults.

The Barriers Group is planning a conference later this year to include traditional justice partners such as law enforcement, attorneys, parole and probation officers.

It will also include behavioral health professionals, employment and housing experts, adult education services and others to better serve young adult offenders struggling with addiction, mental illness, lack of education, training, and other issues.

It became apparent after a few meetings that the work of the Barriers Group has just begun to scratch the surface.

The group primarily focused on the front end of the criminal justice system, meaning those individuals who could be diverted from the criminal justice system or sentenced to a suspended penitentiary sentence with probation.

There's much more work to be done throughout the entire system, including support for young offenders sentenced to the penitentiary who are eventually released into the community and reintegrated back into our communities.

To that end, I am proposing a bill for the legislature's consideration that we formalize the work of the Barriers Group began this past year.

The legislation is designed to bring together the three branches of government and many others across South Dakota to continue to address rehabilitation barriers.

The legislation does not request additional funding at this time.

Instead, it's designed to bring public attention to these issues and create an established and recognized process for collaboration and problem solving of these challenges within the criminal justice system.

A commitment to the rule of law and the expectation that people will settle their disputes peacefully also means that South Dakota courthouses must be safe for everyone working and doing business in them.

These past two years, I've discussed the need and importance of improving security at our courthouses across South Dakota.

I'm pleased to report on the progress we are making.

Thanks to Governor Noem and the legislature, the UJS now has a statewide security coordinator dedicated toward this effort as well as one-time grant dollars to make security infrastructure improvements at county courthouses.

The UJS Security Grant Review Committee is responsible for reviewing and verifying requests for grants for security infrastructure improvements.

To foster active local participation by each county, the UJS requires a county to form and operate a local security committee for grant requests that exceed $10,000.

These larger grant requests must also be supported by an assessment from a trained security expert.

The county is further responsible for contributing 25% of the cost of the infrastructure improvement.

The UJS has approved 12 requests for security grants to date.

The total dollars approved so far are just under $560,000.

With additional anticipated requests on the way, the security grant request will soon exceed $1 million.

The approved applications have been for both large and small improvements.

Some of the smaller grant requests have funded items such as video cameras, ballistic shielding, security doors and locks.

Examples of larger requests include remodels to allow secured entry into the courtroom for judicial staff and the creation of a security office within a courthouse.

These security improvements are important, but the formation and development of local security committees are really the backbone of our plan to enhance courthouse security.

Local committees are responsible for assessing needed security enhancements within their courthouses and to provide planning, education, and training to courthouse employees.

The local committees are made up of UJS and county employees, representatives from the sheriff's office, county commissioners, and attorneys who regularly appear in the courtroom.

It is vital that county sheriffs who are responsible for courthouse security be involved in this process as well.

The UJS security coordinator provides each local committee with information, policy and technical assistance, and ongoing administrative aid to keep committees operating effectively.

To date, we have 16 county courthouse securities up and running.

We plan to at least double that number of committees within the next 12 months.

As we add committees, we anticipate the request for security improvements will grow along with the work of managing these committees.

Presently, we do not have a need for more resources or funding.

However, there is still much work to be done toward our long-term goal of improving security for judges, UJS court staff, county employees, attorneys, litigants, jurors, and members of the public who work and conduct business in our county courthouses statewide.

In addition to these ongoing projects, the Supreme Court and UJS will be starting two projects in 2023.

The first project is intended to address the provision of court-appointed attorney's fees in criminal, juvenile, and child abuse and neglect cases in South Dakota.

The right to counsel for the accused is granted in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1963, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the landmark case of Gideon versus Wainwright, reaffirming what many states, including South Dakota, already recognized, that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires states to provide the cost for court-appointed counsel to defendants who are unable to afford counsel in more serious criminal cases.

As Wainwright aptly recognized, lawyers in criminal court are necessities, not luxuries.

Our system of justice depends upon competent counsel defending every person accused of a crime.

The presence of counsel ensures that other fundamental rights of the accused, such as cross-examination, calling witnesses, and presenting defense are meaningfully exercised.

The right to counsel is integral to the truth finding function of our adversarial process.

Without competent counsel for both parties, we would not have confidence in the decisions made by judges and juries.

We would be left wondering whether all the facts were presented or whether the accused had an opportunity to present a full defense.

The beauty and brilliance of our adversarial system is dependent on the availability of counsel for every defendant.

The right to counsel is just as important in juvenile cases and child abuse and neglect cases.

Court-appointed attorneys in these cases protect the rights of parents, adolescents, and children involved in these proceedings.

Additionally, when all the parties are adequately represented in child abuse and neglect cases, judges are able to make timely, well-informed interventions and issue decisions that serve the best interests of children and families in crisis.

We are fortunate that South Dakota has long recognized the importance of court-appointed counsel for indigent defendants for more than 100 years.

Long before the decision in Wainwright, state law required a court to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant and the county where the charge is filed to pay the cost of representation.

South Dakota law guarantees indigent defense for both felony and misdemeanor charges where a defendant faces the possibility of incarceration.

We have many excellent criminal defense attorneys in South Dakota who are experienced and zealously represent and protect the rights of their clients.

Attorneys in private practice who serve as public defenders do so at significantly reduced hourly rates.

Attorneys are also not paid an hourly rate for their drive time to the courthouse or facility where a defendant may be incarcerated.

In some areas of the state, this is an inordinate burden on the attorney's time.

Nonetheless, many attorneys agree to serve as public defenders when a judge calls, recognizing the importance of their public service to the justice system who are unable to afford counsel.

The attorneys performing this service deserve to be thanked and commended for their work.

While South Dakota has a great tradition of providing court-appointed counsel, we are facing some challenges in our public defenders system that I want to discuss today.

Three counties, Minnehaha, Pennington and Lawrence counties have public defender offices and full-time attorneys engaged to handle indigent defense.

The other 63 counties either negotiate an annual rate contract with one or more private attorneys or pay the cost of defense to private attorneys on a case by case basis.

The variety of public defender arrangements from county to county can make it difficult for judges to appoint counsel and counties to manage costs.

Judges, particularly in rural areas, are having more and more difficulty finding counsel to represent defendants in criminal cases.

This past year, I was approached by county groups about their challenges relating to indigent defense in South Dakota.

Some counties are struggling to afford court-appointed attorney's fees and lack additional funding sources.

Many counties find it difficult to manage and contain these costs, and some are having difficulty finding attorneys to agree to sign indigent defense contracts.

State law currently provides counties with reimbursement for a minimal portion of their indigent defense costs each year.

In the 1980s, the legislature approved a fund to reimburse counties for these costs.

No general fund dollars are used.

Instead, the funding is generated from a small portion of the $50 liquidated cost surcharge which is added to every fine in a criminal case in South Dakota.

The surcharge is collected by the UJS and paid to the State Treasurer.

By statute, most of the surcharge is used for the law enforcement officers training fund.

However, $7.50 is set aside for the public defender fund and another $1.50 is set aside for the public, for the abused and neglected child defense fund.

During the last, (coughs) excuse me, during the last fiscal year, South Dakota counties paid out over $21 million for indigent defense costs.

The reimbursement from this fund amounted to 2 to 3% of the total annual criminal defense costs incurred by counties.

Funding to shore up our public defender system is needed, but it isn't the only improvement that can be made.

Some efficiencies may be created through regionalized or statewide management of indigent defense.

We are one of the few states that does not have a centralized system for management of indigent defense cases.

Many states have an independent board or other governmental entity responsible for the overall management of the public defender system on a statewide basis to contain costs, manage caseloads, and ensure the appointment of competent counsel.

I'm not suggesting a particular solution today for our various county by county approach in South Dakota, but we do need to explore some options in order to maintain a viable public defender system into the future.

County and attorney groups have expressed interest in working to improve our indigent defense system.

Support from the executive and legislative branches will be needed as the challenges are bigger than the courts, counties and attorneys can address on their own.

Therefore, I'm presenting a bill to the legislature this session to create a study group to work on indigent defense in South Dakota.

The UJS is willing to staff and manage this group with the goal that we would come back to the legislature with recommendations for its consideration.

I have no doubt that, if we roll up our sleeves, we can develop a more cost effective and efficient public defender system that will continue our state's long tradition of guaranteeing the right to competent counsel in every case.

The second new project I want to spend a few minutes discussing is the Supreme Court's assembling of a study group to consider the process for admitting lawyers to the legal profession in South Dakota.

Last year, a bill was introduced in the legislature that would have significantly altered the process for admitting new lawyers to the South Dakota Bar.

It would've admitted any applicant graduating from the USD Knudson School of Law into the legal profession without a separate assessment of their competence to practice law.

It was concerning to the court that the bill was introduced without any notice or prior discussion with the court, the state bar or the law school concerning the impact this change might have on the legal profession, or more importantly, the public that the current admission process is designed to protect.

I'm grateful that the House State Affairs Committee voted against moving the diploma legislation forward.

I wanna spend just a few minutes providing some background on the current admission process in South Dakota and the efforts of the court to study this issue with the goal of avoiding similar proposed legislation this session.

The current admission process includes both a character and fitness determination and a competency determination before an applicant is admitted to the profession in South Dakota.

The Supreme Court appoints a five member Board of Bar Examiners who's responsible to oversee both determinations.

The character and fitness portion of the process involves an extensive background review of each applicant, which in some instances, results in further investigation, interviews or a formal hearing with the board.

The competency component of the admission process is an assessment of minimum competence to practice law conducted through a written examination.

The Supreme Court requires an applicant to obtain a passing score on the multiple choice portion of the examination, known as the multi-state bar examination, as well as a separate essay examination.

Both exams are prepared by the National Conference of Bar Examiners, also known as the NCBE.

The South Dakota essay portion of the exam also includes an Indian law question drafted by the Board of Bar Examiners here in South Dakota.

The NCBE Bar Exam has been administered in South Dakota for nearly 40 years to objectively measure minimum competence to practice law.

This is the same examination given in 49 out of 50 states and several US territories.

The test is designed to measure an applicant's understanding of the core legal principles and the ability to apply these legal principles to specific factual situations.

The South Dakota Supreme Court sets the minimum score necessary to pass each portion of the bar exam.

Recently, there's been some criticism of the bar exam.

This criticism started when the bar exam pass rates began to decline during the past decade.

Historically, first time bar pass rates exceeded 80% and were well above 90% after one or two retakes.

Beginning in 2014, however, first time pass rates dipped significantly, both in South Dakota and nationally.

There were several reasons offered for the reduced pass rates, including lower admission standards at law school due to declining enrollment, as well as changes to the bar exam itself.

There's also been a claim that South Dakota's method of separately grading each portion of the bar exam has negatively impacted pass rates.

This is simply inaccurate.

The portion of the exam that is most often failed in South Dakota is the MBE portion, which is graded and scaled by the NCBE, just like every other state.

The NCBE has also indicated there's no correlation between pass rates and combining or separately grading each portion of the bar exam.

Further, and good news is, in South Dakota, pass rates for USD graduates taking the South Dakota Bar Exam for the first time have exceeded the national average every year since 2018.

Over the past few years, the pass rates in South Dakota have returned close to historical numbers, both as a result of efforts by applicants and the law school.

In July, 2022, the first time pass rates for USD law graduates was 79%.

The ultimate pass rate will be even higher, as those who did not initially pass retest.

Viewed over a period of two years from graduation, the pass rates for 2019 and 2020 USD graduates were 94% and 87% respectively.

The legal profession is not unique in requiring a written competency examination.

Doctors, accountants, and many other professionals are required to prove their preparedness as well.

This is to protect the public.

The requisite education for professional licensure is a significant step in the process, but an assessment of the ability to practice in the profession is both expected and necessary.

Each current member of the Supreme Court took the NCBE Bar Examination.

As such, the members of the court can attest to the value of studying for the bar exam, studying law, or following law school, to prepare for admission to the legal profession.

The court also understands the importance of the bar exam to assess an applicant's knowledge of core legal principles and the ability to apply those principles to the very scenarios they will encounter in practice.

Some of the criticism of the bar exam is that it is too hard.

Respectfully, the process to assess competence must be rigorous.

Lawyers occupy unique positions of trust and responsibility.

Clients place their confidence in lawyers to represent them in questions concerning their property, their liberty, and in most serious cases, their very lives.

As a court, we're not unsympathetic to the individuals who have invested time and money in law school but have been unable to pass the bar examination.

However, these sympathies cannot outweigh our institutional obligation to protect the public by requiring an assessment of competence before issuing a license to practice law in this state.

The study group appointed by the court met for the first time in December and will continue its work into 2023.

The court has tasked the study group to review the entire admission process, an assessment of each applicant's competence to practice law and the method or methods to make this determination will be a central focus of the study.

The group will gather data, including interviews with members of the bar, recent successful and unsuccessful bar exam test takers and others who can assist the study group in this process.

They will also have the opportunity to meet with representatives from the NCBE to discuss the bar exam as well as current changes being made to the exam.

The study group will receive technical assistance in this process to ensure that it is considering the best data to make informed recommendations to the court.

We have requested that the study group provide a report to the court no later than this fall.

The court will then make the report public for comment and input before considering any recommendations for changes to the current admission process.

In initiating this study, the court's overarching goal is to maintain an admission process that is fair, ensures attorneys are available to meet the future needs of both rural and urban South Dakotans, and protects the public.

I respectfully ask the legislature to defer to this court's constitutional authority to consider and address whether any changes should be made to the bar admission process.

The UJS has several budget priorities that we look forward to working with, working on, with the Joint Appropriations Committee during this session.

I want to take just a moment to highlight one priority in particular, which is our request for an additional magistrate judge in the Second Circuit, which comprises Minnehaha and Lincoln Counties.

Magistrate judges are limited jurisdiction judges with authority to hear initial appearances on all criminal cases, criminal misdemeanor cases through disposition, and civil cases up to a maximum of $12,000.

Many magistrate court judges also serve as judges in our problem solving courts.

The Second Circuit has had four magistrate judges for more than 20 years, while the population of the Second Circuit, as most of you know, has more than doubled during that time.

The magistrate judges in the Second Circuit spend a significant amount of time in court handling initial advisement of rights, appointing counsel and setting bond in nearly all criminal cases.

They handle all criminal misdemeanor cases from start to finish, including presiding over misdemeanor jury trials.

I'm requesting the legislature to fund this new position in this year's budget.

Finally, I want to comment on judicial elections for circuit judges who are current, which are currently required every eight years by Article V, Section 7 of the South Dakota Constitution.

A resolution was introduced a few days ago in the Senate to change the process for selecting and retaining circuit judges through an amendment on a statewide ballot.

So, I wanna take just a few moments.

I think it's important for me to briefly describe the current process for selecting circuit judges and how this amendment would alter it.

In 2022, the eight year terms for all 45 circuit judges were up for reelection, as required by the State Constitution.

Every judge seeking reelection was required to file a petition for candidacy with the Secretary of State.

A circuit judge can be challenged in a nonpartisan election by a South Dakota licensed attorney who files a petition of candidacy.

However, historically, very few sitting judges are challenged, and most circuit judges are initially appointed through, to the circuit bench, through a merit selection process rather than by election.

The process of merit selection requires a submission of an application for an open circuit judge position and an extensive background investigation and an interview with the Judicial Qualifications Commission.

The JQC is a constitutionally created board made up of judges, lawyers, and laypersons appointed by the South Dakota Judges Association, the president of the State Bar and the governor.

The board is also responsible for investigating complaints of judicial ethics by a judge.

As part of the merit selection process, the board must nominate and send the names of at least two applicants that the board finds to be qualified to the governor.

The governor will then make the appointment from the list of qualified applicants received from the board.

The appointee fills the remaining eight year term of the open position.

The proposed amendment would modify the Constitution to require every circuit judge to be initially appointed through the merit selection process that I just described.

There would no longer be contested elections.

Instead, circuit judges would stand for retention by the voters in their circuit at the general election three years after their appointment.

Every eight years thereafter, a judge would stand again for retention by the voters.

A retention election places the judge's name on the ballot and asks the voters to indicate yes or no on a retention of a judge.

A majority of voters must vote to retain that judge.

This is the current process in the Constitution for selecting and retaining Supreme Court justices here in South Dakota.

The proposed amendment would provide a parallel system for selecting circuit judges.

I'll tell you today that the court will be discussing this resolution within the UJS and amongst the circuit judges, and we'll be communicating further with the legislature on the resolution as the session moves ahead.

In 2022, there were three contested elections.

Only one of those involved a sitting circuit judge.

The other two contested elections involved attorneys running for a position of a judge who had resigned or retired.

The incumbent judge who was challenged was reelected.

The court system also had a fourth position open for, to fill, by virtue of a spot previously held by Judge Jon Flemmer in Sisseton.

Sadly, Judge Flemmer passed away unexpectedly this August.

I want to take a moment to honor Judge Flemmer's memory and service to the court system.

Judge Flemmer was humble, possessed a great judicial demeanor, and faithfully served the citizens of South Dakota for more than 30 years.

He was a true public servant.

Marshall Lovrien was elected to replace Judge Flemmer.

I want to congratulate Marshall Lovrien as well as Doug Barnett from Sioux Falls and John Fitzgerald from Deadwood who won their elections to replace judges who were resigning or retired.

All three judges took their oath of office and began their duties last week.

I express a warm welcome to these three new circuit judges.

I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to speak today about the critical work performed by, daily, by judges and court staff in South Dakota.

None of us in the court system take the resources we have been provided or the trust of our citizens lightly.

As such, we will continue to work in the court system and will remain accountable to the other two branches of government, and most importantly, the citizens of South Dakota.

The prophet Amos declared more than two millennia ago in Amos 5:24, "Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream."

This was Dr. Martin Luther King's most quoted Bible verse as he spoke about justice.

The clarion call of this verse is no less clear today than it was in the days of Amos or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. May the lives and livelihood of our people be protected and strengthened by the work of our justice system today and throughout the next year, so help us God.

Thank you.

(audience clapping) - You may be seated.

Madam Secretary?

- Senator Crabtree moves that the joint session be dissolved.

- [Senators] Second!

- Comments on that motion?

Hearing none, all in favor say, "Aye."

- [Group] Aye.

- [Larry] Those opposed nay?

This joint session is hereby dissolved.

(gavel bangs) Thank you.

Thank you very much.

(crowd chatting) (upbeat folk music)