Arguments on contract clause slated Jan. 8
Gov. Noem seeks opinion on conflict of interest rules for state lawmakers
The South Dakota Supreme Court has picked a day to hear oral argument regarding the interpretation of a provision of the state Constitution’s contract clause.
Justices will hear argument Jan. 8, according to a release from the court. Gov. Kristi Noem, AG Marty Jackley and Ron Parsons, the attorney appointed for the Legislature, are each allotted 20 minutes to speak.
The argument will be open to the public and livestreamed on the state’s Unified Judicial System website.
Noem, with the support of AG Marty Jackley and top lawmakers, requested an advisory opinion on the contract clause in late October after former Sen. Jessica Castleberry, R-Rapid City,
Continued from Page 1A
resigned following an investigation that found she had improperly received COVID-19 federal stimulus loans for her daycare business, violating the state constitution.
The contract clause, also known as Article III, section 12, in the state constitution, reads “Any member of the Legislature during the term for which he shall have been elected, or within one year thereafter, be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the state or any county thereof, authorized by any law passed during the term for which he shall have been elected.”
The justices are expected to rule on a series of nine questions issued by Noem, such as whether sitting lawmakers could receive foster care benefits, if their spouses were subject to the contract clause and if the lawmaker can be employed by a county or school district. The justices have also been asked to provide a definition for what is considered an “indirect” contract benefit.
The Governor’s Office, Jackley and Parsons, on behalf of the state legislature, each filed briefs discussing the governor’s questions and their interpretations of the conflict of interest clause ahead of the scheduled argument.
The Legislative brief argued lawmakers weren’t in violation of the contract clause if the funds came through the General Appropriations bill, but if a lawmaker received either a direct or indirect benefit from a special appropriation that would violate the constitution.
Some legislators, however, have taken an opposing position. Rep. Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, with support from 16 other lawmakers, penned a letter to the Supreme Court that disagreed with the legislature’s brief and argued a majority of state spending would fall outside the conflict of interest protections as laid out by the constitution if the court adopted the legislative position.
Parsons asked the Supreme Court to issue an opinion soon since at least a quarter of the state legislature could be impacted by the ruling.
Noem has said she will not appoint two people to fill legislative vacancies after the resignation of Castleberry and Rapid City Republican Rep. Jess Olson until the Supreme Court reaches a decision.