South Dakota lawmakers divided on conflict-of-interest standards

Group of legislators sign letter opposing arguments made by attorney hired to represent them

An attorney representing the Legislature contends funds in the annual general appropriations bill aren’t necessarily off-limits for South Dakota lawmakers who pass it.

However, a group of House Republicans and a state Senator don’t see it that way and are urging the South Dakota Supreme Court to maintain legal precedent that contracts between legislators and the state are constitutionally prohibited regardless of how the funds are appropriated.

“The Legislature's brief is asking for a massive loosening of our state conflict of interest protections in favor of making it easier for taxpayer money to flow from the state coffers to legislators,” Rep. Jon Hansen told The Dakota Scout Friday after he sent a letter to the Supreme Court asking that it maintain the state’s strict prohibition on contracts between lawmakers and the state.

NEWS: Noem, Jackley file briefs seeking clarity on lawmaker conflicts

Hansen is specifically pushing back against a brief former U.S. Attorney Ron Parsons submitted to the Court days earlier, which the Court is working on for an advisory opinion regarding what financial interactions between lawmakers and the state rise to constitutional violations.

The pending ruling, requested by Gov. Kristi Noem, Attorney General Marty Jackley, and the Legislature, comes amid an increasingly bright spotlight on legislative contracts and conflicts of interest and follows the resignation of two state lawmakers this year who were in contract with the state.

SCOUTING HOLLYWOOD: Dec. 14-20