The South Dakota Supreme Court is now weighing several arguments in a request to clarify what kinds of contracts are allowed between lawmakers and the state.
Gov. Kristi Noem is asking the supreme court to weigh in on nine hypothetical questions about what does and does not constitute authorizing a contract with the state.
The governor is waiting on an advisory opinion from the court before filling two vacant Rapid City legislative seats.
Over the years, the state’s high court has weighed in on the matter at least five separate times. Some argue those rulings still leave significant gaps. Some on the court say each hypothetical is situational and have expressed hesitation about issuing an advisory opinion on litigated cases.
Republican Representative Will Mortenson is the majority leader. He said the justices have important work ahead of them.
“Everybody agrees the legislature shouldn’t be passing a law that we then turn around and get a contract from,” Mortenson said. “We all know that is wrong. It’s been prohibited forever. That’s something we mind very carefully. What we’re asking the court to do is clarify how far does this go?”
Lawyers for the state legislature argue the court needs to issue a course correction—that funding the state government does not authorize a specific contract.
Attorney General Marty Jackley is leaning on the opinions of prior state attorneys general - that a lawmaker has a conflict if there’s a substantial benefit that would affect their decision-making.
“I think it’s a simple standard. I think it’s a practical standard and I think it protects the taxpayers, which is why I and all the attorney generals have applied that practical standard," Jackley said.
He added until the court clarifies the issue, they will continue to receive cases on the constitutional provision and his office will still have to issue opinions.
Supreme Court justice Steven Jensen said the court will issue a written decision. It’s unclear when the decision will get dropped.
