A gap in South Dakota statute means state departments can’t pay for interpretive services when somebody contests an administrative case. One legislator is looking to change that in light of a recent—and unique—case.
Democratic Rep. Erik Muckey plans to bring a bill during the 2026 legislative session that would allow state departments to cover the costs of interpretive services. He called the bill one of due process, and points to the story behind the bill.
“This is a unique situation where you have two individuals contesting a case who are completely fluent in Lakota, but illiterate in every language including Lakota. It’s not a common situation, but one of the things that is important to remember that just the domain of these cases are state government," Muckey said. "This would not be the appropriate response for the tribes or the federal government for that matter to pay for those services when the domain is a state proceeding.”
Muckey is referring to a group of Lakota elders who are opposing a permit for uranium exploration in southwestern South Dakota. State statute today doesn’t specify if a department, in this case the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, has the spending authority to reimburse or cover interpretive costs.
Elizabeth Lone Eagle is one of the Pro Se intervenors in the case. She said this is about the Lakota people being able to participate as South Dakotans.
“Lakota is the first language of South Dakota. This was spoken here for thousands of years before non-Lakotas ever came. But we’re being forced to speak a language that’s foreign to us.”
Lone Eagle said she believes it’s a Constitutional Right and part of their due process to have access to interpretive services, so it should come out of the state’s budget.
“This is all because the state is requiring everything to be done in English. And if the state’s going to require that, they have people that speak any other language besides English or are not fluent in English no matter where they are, or who they are or what language they speak. Right? Common sense says you provide those services so that they can have full participation.”
The bill proposed by Muckey did not pass as a committee bill through the Rules Review Committee, but he said he expects more support once the financial impact can be fully hashed out ahead of session. Legislators on the committee largely pointed to the fact
Sen. Taffy Howard was the only person who voted no and spoke during the Interim Rules Review Committee’s discussion over the bill. She told Rep. Muckey she was "sorry" for her no vote, and said her concern was a fiscal issue.
“I mean they already have the ability to hire the interpreter on their own, or bring, you know, maybe they have a family member that would be able to interpret for them. My concern is how this starts out fairly small, but I mean how much does [the Unified Judicial System] spend on interpretive services? I don't know; that would be a question I'd want to know," Howard said. "I know I saw an article the other day, in the Sioux Falls School District there’s 115 or so home languages. So, I am just concerned about the cost down the road. And if they have the ability to do it on their own. So, I'm sorry I am going to be a no.”
Pro Se intervenor Lone Eagle said, in her opinion, the money shouldn't matter.
“I can tell you what it feels like," Lone Eagle said. "It feels like Marie Antoinette saying, ‘Let them eat cake.’”
Muckey told the committee he didn't provide the fiscal staff of the Legislative Research Council enough time to get a comparison of the costs with the Unified Judicial System. That's something that would allow the legislators to better understand what the bill could cost the state. However, he said his understanding is that the "systems that would be in place within the state government today would cover the majority of the software costs that are already prepared for this." Muckey said it would be more so a case of what the usage is, and added that was a concern he shares with Sen. Howard.
Muckey told SDPB this is an opportunity to mend the relationships between the state and Native Americans by allowing tribal residents, who are residents of South Dakota, to actively participate in state proceedings further.
