The South Dakota Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments Monday about a constitutional provision relating to lawmakers and contracts.
Gov. Kristi Noem wants an advisory opinion on the issue before appointing two members to vacant seats in the state legislature.
The constitutional provision in question says that any legislator cannot “be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with the state” during or one year after their time in the legislature.
"Nor shall 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." — Article III, Section 12 of the South Dakota constitution
The section has been in the constitution since statehood, but some say the definition of contract is different now. It’s also unclear what an “indirect” interest is.
These are clarifications Noem is calling for from the state supreme court.
Sioux Falls Republican Representative Tony Venhuizen is also a former chief of staff to Noem and Dennis Daugaard. He’s helped with legislative appointments in the past. He said the provision was originally meant to prevent lawmakers from voting on contracts that created a job for themselves.
“They didn’t want direct self-enrichment in that way,” Vehuizen said. “That was the way the government operated in those days—the legislature would create a position one at a time, authorize a contract one at a time. One hundred and thirty years later, government works very differently.”
Noem has called for clarity to the issue since former Senator Jessica Castleberry was found to have inappropriately received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal pandemic aid through the state. Castleberry resigned. Another Rapid City lawmaker resigned their seat last November for health reasons.
Venhuizen said the vacancies give the governor a chance to seek clarification on the issue.
“You can’t just ask purely hypothetical questions; the court won’t answer those. She has these vacant legislative seats in front of her. She needs to fill them," Venhuizen said. "This is a current decision she has to make. She can go to the supreme court and ask for guidance on who is qualified to fill these. That’s why she’s doing it and tying it to the appointees.”
Venhuizen says because it’s a structured argument before the court, it’s unclear how long it will take before they issue an advisory opinion. Noem’s office has repeatedly declined to say whether the Rapid City legislative seats will remain vacant until an opinion is made.
