John Hult/South Dakota Searchlight
The South Dakota Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on legislative conflicts of interest one day before the start of the 2024 legislative session.
The announcement from the court came Friday. Attorneys representing lawmakers, Gov. Kristi Noem and Attorney General Marty Jackley will have 20 minutes each to stake out their positions on the issue.
The conflict of interest issue rose to the level of state Supreme Court scrutiny through a request from the governor earlier this year.
Noem wants the justices to clarify and define the boundaries of a clause in the state Constitution that bars lawmakers from benefiting “directly or indirectly” from their votes in Pierre.
Former state Sen. Jessica Castleberry, R-Rapid City, resigned over the summer after it was revealed that she had accepted around $600,000 in COVID relief funds for her preschool after she’d voted on a bill authorizing the relief package. Castleberry has since entered into a settlement with the state that will see her replay just under $500,000, the amount of that relief that did not directly benefit preschool families.
Rep. Jess Olson, R-Rapid City, resigned later in the year, citing medical issues. Her business’s state contracts have also been scrutinized, however, as she’d signed contracts with the state while serving her district.
Noem has the power to appoint lawmakers to replace Castleberry and Olson, but has said she will not do so without guidance from the state’s highest court on conflicts of interest.
Attorneys for Noem and Jackley submitted briefs in the case one week ago. Lawmakers submitted their brief days earlier.
Rep. Jon Hansen, R-Dell Rapids, submitted a letter presenting an alternative view, as well, and Unified Judicial System confirmed this week that the letter is in the official court record in the case. Sixteen other Republican lawmakers joined Hansen in disagreeing with the rest of the Legislature’s filing.
While the primary arguments from the legislature’s lawyer, Ron Parsons, argue for looser standards with regard to what constitutes an unacceptable conflict of interest for a sitting lawmaker, the Hansen camp’s counterclaim says such a conclusion would serve to weaken the state’s current ethical standards.
Hansen told South Dakota Searchlight on Friday that he did not file as an official party to participate in the oral arguments.
The court has not offered comment on its timeline for a decision, but GOP officials in Pennington County have sounded alarm bells about the possibility of going into the 2024 legislative session without a full slate of lawmakers.
Oral argument for the case has been set for 11 a.m. on Jan. 8 in Pierre. The session begins the following day.
The courtroom is open to the public, and the arguments will be livestreamed from the second floor of the State Capitol in Pierre on the UJS website.