South Dakota House Bill HB1179

South Dakota 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/25/24
• Refer: 1/25/24

Caption

Make an appropriation to ensure South Dakota's greatness.

Impact

The passage of HB 1179 may impact state laws regarding budgetary appropriations and the allocation of state funds. Although the bill allocates only $1, the act represents an acknowledgment of the state's priorities and objectives, potentially setting a precedent for future appropriations. If enacted, the provisions also clarify the process for executing financial expenditures from the general fund, ensuring accountability and oversight in state spending. The anticipated effectiveness date of June 30, 2024, positions the bill as a forward-looking measure as the state prepares its budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

Summary

House Bill 1179 is a legislative proposal introduced to make a specific appropriation from the general fund in South Dakota. The bill allocates a nominal sum of $1 to be used for the purpose of 'ensuring South Dakota's greatness.' The language of the bill is notably symbolic, suggesting an intention to reinforce the state's purpose and values in governance rather than implying a substantial financial commitment. Furthermore, it stipulates the procedural requirements for the approval and distribution of the funds through vouchers and warrants, ensuring that expenditures authorized by the act are appropriately managed by the state auditor.

Contention

There appears to be minimal contention surrounding HB 1179 due to its symbolic nature and the minimal appropriation amount. However, the underlying implications of such legislative efforts may raise discussions about the significance of appropriations in state governance. Supporters may argue that any appropriation, regardless of size, reflects a commitment to state development and integrity, while critics could highlight concerns over fiscal responsibility or question the relevance of such a nominal funding amount in the context of larger budgetary issues facing the state. The lack of opposition noted in the voting history suggests that legislators generally viewed the bill as non-controversial.