Attorney General’s Brief in Governor Noem’s request for an advisory opinion

Pat Powers

The South Dakota Attorney General has released his brief provided to the South Dakota Supreme Court in reference to Governor Noem’s request for an advisory opinion, on what constitutes a conflict of interest between a legislator and the state of South Dakota under Article 3 of the constitution.

In case you were looking for some white reading this afternoon…

NoemopinionSCTbrf Filed 12-15-23 by Pat Powers on Scribd

9 thoughts on “Attorney General’s Brief in Governor Noem’s request for an advisory opinion”

  1. I thought the plot twist here was riveting:

    “a relation existing between husband and wife, and mutual liabilities growing out of the family relation, which creates, on the part of each, an interest in the contracts of the other, out of which compensation arises, and the proceeds of which are used directly or indirectly within the family circle.”

    I have many questions.

    I find comfort in the effort to codify principles into law.

    Thanks.

    1. So how was this enforced previously?

      AG would notify the Auditor or the Auditor would notify the AG? And the legislator would either comply or challenge it to the courts?

      Why aren’t we doing it that way anymore?

      We don’t need hypotheticals when we have some serious head scratchers. Kevin Jensen could be cleared up followed by Mortenson and Duhamel.

      That would give more clarity than some hypothetical or non answer from the courts while session is on going.

  3. Anon at 8:07 pm, you NAILED IT. These arguments in court are trying to muddy up the water so that legislators can take a little money, “here and there.” Get a pry bar under the edge of article 3, section 12.

    3-12 is the single strongest anti-corruption clause of the constitution. And here the Governor and AG are arguing to water it down.

    Shame on both of them.

  4. YAY to legislator Jon Hansen for writing a letter of objection. Apparently our officials up in Pierre are NOT defending the constitution.

    this whole notion of letting legislators have money out of the state budget, is repugnant.

  5. Jackley is telling the court (p. 14) that legislators should be able to take federal pass-through funds, and continuing appropriations. That is a VERY big slice of the state budget.

    Voters would be appalled.

  6. The only way this will ever bee solved with any finality is a lawsuit. The most likely way this would come up is the AG’s office going after a legislator (who is not directly benefiting from a business relationship with the state) saying they are indirectly benefiting and must return the funds. That legislator would have to challenge that in court and ultimately the SD Supreme Court will have to rule on what indirect is.

    As for directly benefiting, everyone can spin it how they like but it’s in the text. An amendment would be needed to change that up.

  7. Wish DWC would put up a separate post about Hansen’s letter. It’s an interesting battle brewing. This executive committee seems to represent the reasonable wing of the GOP, but their position is crazy. Hansen represents the crazy wing, but their position is the reasonable one.

Comments are closed.