State-level legislation aimed at abolishing the twice-yearly clock changes associated with Daylight Saving Time faced strong headwinds this week, as lawmakers from South Dakota and Utah decisively killed bills intended to transform the status quo.
Both states have seen increasing public sentiment against the biannual ritual of moving clocks forward and back, commonly criticized for its disruption to sleep patterns and daily routines. Yet, legislative action to establish permanent time—either keeping daylight savings time year-round or reverting to standard time—has repeatedly stalled.
Starting with South Dakota, where the Senate State Affairs Committee shot down the proposal to end the time change practice, testimony revealed mixed feelings among lawmakers. Senator Carl Perry of Aberdeen argued against the clock changes, stating, “Changing clocks can be more negative than an inconvenience,” highlighting the psychological and physical impact on residents. On the other hand, Representative John Sjaarda of Valley Springs expressed his preference for maintaining Daylight Saving Time as is, indicating the state's divided stance on the issue.
During the recent legislative session, the committee voted 8-1 to shelve the bill designated S-B 186, signaling weariness among lawmakers to revisit the topic this year. Senator Kevin Jensen emphasized the importance of adjusting clocks to fit within conventional timekeeping practices.
Moving west, Utah faced its own battle over the continual clock rehearsal. The state Senate also voted against HB120, proposed by Republican Rep Joseph Elison, which aimed to eliminate the time changes altogether. The proposal had previously garnered momentum by passing the House with a solid 52-23 majority earlier this month. Rep Elison's bill sought to take decisive action on the time issue without awaiting federal intervention, which has long been stalled.
Senator Todd Weiler, also from Utah, found the decision to delay frustrating, reflecting on how becoming “a renegade” state by opting for permanent daylight time might not sit well, especially with surrounding neighbors and the state’s international airport. Saying, “We are a peculiar people, but I don’t know if we want to be extra peculiar...,” he encapsulated the hesitation within the legislature to stray from the established norms.
Fellow lawmakers noted the necessity of federal input before any state-level decision could be attempted, echoing discontent over Congress's hesitance to finalize any standard time framework—despite public calls for consistency.
Local sentiments revealed through polls show Utahns are not fond of the seasonal clock adjustments and are divided on which time to favor, daylight savings or standard time. Parents like Stacy Muhelstein from Monticello presented compelling personal accounts before the Senate committee about the adverse effects on children, particularly those with special needs. “The time changes are especially hard on my child who has autism, disrupting sleep schedules and prompting him to act out,” she described, stirring emotions among committee members.
Nonetheless, the bill faced opposition from major stakeholders like the Utah Homebuilders Association and Utah Golf Alliance. Their representatives raised alarms about potential disruptions to construction schedules and sports events, arguing for the economic and social benefits of sticking with Daylight Saving Time during the summer months.
The result was stark; the Senate Business and Labor Committee voted unanimously, 7-1, against Elison's proposed measure and deferred discussions until federal legislation might bring clarity.
Senator Calvin Musselman voiced similar frustrations, criticizing Congress for its lack of action, yet he remained optimistic about potential federal leadership under the new administration. “I truly hope we can address this permanent time standard soon,” he remarked, hinting at national discussions still to come.
Legislators on both sides seem to agree on one thing: the debate over Daylight Saving Time isn’t likely to vanish. If anything, with more states exploring the issue, as seen in both South Dakota and Utah, public interest may swell, prompting renewed discussions both locally and nationally. The question remains whether significant legislative change can be achieved without federal action, or if more states will join the ranks desiring to break free from the relics of the clock-changing tradition.