The South Dakota Supreme Court will convene Monday (Jan. 8, 2023) to examine the issue of conflict of interest rules for lawmakers– one day before the start of the state’s 2024 legislative session (Jan. 9, 2023).
The Court ruled in 2020 that according to the state Constitution, lawmakers are banned from entering into state contracts “directly or indirectly” during their term and for a year after they finish serving in office.
Depending on the ruling, Representative Roger Chase of Huron says it could be challenging to find citizens eligible– and willing– to run for state lawmaker positions.
Chase says it’ll be valuable to have clarity on the conflict of interest issue.
Chase says there are other potential conflicts that could also be considered.
Oral arguments have been set for 11am CST in the Supreme Court Courtroom on the second floor of the State Capitol in Pierre. The Governor, Legislature and Attorney General each get 20 minutes to speak. The argument is open to the public and will also be livestreamed via the UJS website at https://ujs.sd.gov.
The conflict of interest question arose after state Senator Jessica Castleberry of Rapid City was asked to repay over $600,000 she received in federal COVID pandemic stimulus money to support her daycare business. Castleberry resigned last year (2023) and agreed to repay $500,000 in federal COVID-19 relief.
Governor Kristi Noem, Attorney General Marty Jackley and two Republican lawmakers sent letters to the Court seeking an advisory opinion regarding their interpretation of the relevant section of the state constitution (Article III Section 12). Noem raised specific questions about indirect contracts such as whether lawmakers or their spouses can be employed by school districts or counties; can their businesses subcontract with the state for goods and services; or can they receive foster care reimbursements?
(News partner KOKK contributed to this story.)
Comments