Should South Dakotans have the opportunity to see what's taking place behind courtroom doors? Thanks to the South Dakota Legislature removing a ban on cameras in the state's courtrooms, we're at a point in time that question will get serious debate and, we hope, result in more public access to state's courtrooms.

In light of the July 1 law change that removed the ban, a 22-member committee is discussing the feasibility of cameras in courtrooms.

Opposition to the proposal, however, is developing from the strangest place: California, and in particular, O.J. Simpson.

South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long said ambivalence to allowing cameras in courtrooms stems from the Simpson trial (circus) and how poorly it was handled. The trial, he said, was an opportunity to educate the public and fell short.

Can the O.J. Simpson trial really provide the antithesis to the argument for cameras in the courtroom? Let's not put that circus cloaked in the guise of a court trial in the position of having a significant impact on South Dakota's courtrooms and what's best for this state. Frankly, this state is better than that and the judges, courts, and media, wouldn't fall prey to allowing that circus to take place.

The 2007 televised legislative hearings concerning state Sen. Dan Sutton provide some evidence of how cases could be well handled by the state media. Dave Bordewyck, general manager of the South Dakota Newspaper Association, pointed out the Sutton hearings were televised and, far from becoming a media circus, instead served to open the process to the public.

Agree or disagree with the outcome of the hearings, he said, but you can't disagree the process followed was fair and that the public viewing of it effectively dispelled any misconceptions about how the Legislature reached its decision.

For South Dakotans, cameras in the courtroom are an openness issue - providing the public an understanding of courts while at the same time demystifying the court process. We agree with Long that cameras provide an education opportunity for the public and hope the committee will open the courtroom doors to cameras; finding a common ground between an outright ban and lack of any control at all.

Currently in South Dakota cameras are allowed in the state Supreme Court appeals hearings and the appeals court in Pierre allows cameras and recording equipment during oral arguments.

Bordewyck said the SDNA lobbied for the change in law and will continue to support cameras in courtrooms.

"Think of school funding lawsuit taking place now in Pierre," he said. "What better example of something that could be of interest and serve the public statewide than being able to view that trial? There's a case that has implications for anyone and everyone in South Dakota."

Opening the courts to cameras will demystify the courtroom and take away questions and concerns about the process. Cameras in the courtroom could, and should, be working for everyone in South Dakota.