Former Rounds chief of staff, now USD Law dean Neil Fulton says the problem Governor Kristi Noem is having with the Constitution’s prohibition on legislators taking state contracts is not its lack of clarity but its crystal clarity:
The problem may be that Article III, Section 12 is entirely too clear. Its prohibitions are pretty explicit and unconditional. In the current world, the problem becomes that the scope of contracts that have direct or indirect benefit reaches many more people than it once did: education, healthcare, many banks, lots of major contracting firms, businesses that sell office supplies or other materials are all covered.
…A second problem is that these conflicts have been ignored at least as often as they have been enforced. So some selective assertion and enforcement just makes it more complicated and arguably as much politics as principle.
…More than lack of clarity, I think what is very possible is that we collectively no longer like the clear answers this provision provides. When it captures people who obtain salary from an entity that has pass through funding grants with the State, work in any aspect of education, or are employed by some subcontractor it may be that the reach of Article III, Section 12 is just broader than we remain willing to live with [Neil Fulton, interviewed by Bob Mercer, “Q & A: Neil Fulton on Legislator Conflicts Ban,” KELO-TV, 2023.12.18].
Wow—so in South Dakota, where we vaunt our freedom from government, government is so pervasive that almost everyone who’s qualified to serve as a citizen legislator (which in a properly functioning democracy with a healthy educational system and robust civic spirit should be pretty much every citizen) is making money from a government contract? I can’t wait to hear legislators campaigning on that theme—We all need government contracts, so let’s change the Constitution to ignore conflicts of interest!
It is easy to criticize from the cheap seats. Mr. H, you should run for the legislatures so you could give this speech on the floors! All here would support you.
Yessir. We support you like an 18 hour over the shoulder boulder holder. I wish dean Fulton used heavier words in his interview to describe SD’s incestuous cess.
Here’s the key point from Fulton’s statement linked above: “In the current world, the problem becomes that the scope of contracts that have direct or indirect benefit reaches many more people than it once did: education, healthcare, many banks, lots of major contracting firms, businesses that sell office supplies or other materials are all covered.”
Pay attention to that “In the modern world…” statement. I’ve made this same point in previous comments on previous DFP discussions on this issue. Article III, Section 12 was an excellent anti-corruption measure when the SD Constitution was written. It has not fared well in that regard in the modern world. Government is a lot more dependent on the private sector contracting. Government does a lot more things that it used to.
I’m not sure at what point this section of the constitution became widely ignored or selectively enforced, but it’s now a joke. Selective enforcement of this Section is now a part of modern corruption in that it provides way for the leadership to threaten, intimidate and punish legislators when they stray from the party line. If someone gets in the way of what the Majority Leader wants, Section 12 is something that he can hang over someone to get him to vote the right way. So, it needs to be reformed. Of course, the Legislature took apart a more modern anti-corruption measure that the voters approved, so most people now will review any “reform” of this Section as just another attempt to legalize legislative corruption.
Still, it makes some sense to reform, It needs to address corruption in a way that fits modern life and modern legislative corruption. I see a way forward with much more detailed disclosure of conflicts of interest and recusal from voting on issues where there are conflicts of interest. It’s what I had to do a couple of times on the Rapid City School Board. Why can’t legislators be at least as honest as school board members?
I would also say that the anti-corruption measures that voters approved needs to be enacted by the Legislature. It’s shameful what they did. Make it right.
Give every SD citizen a guaranteed minimum income and repeal the whole section of the constitution.
Donald’s mention of the legislature’s evisceration of the anti-corruption initiative passed by the majority of SD voters is yet another reminder, this needs to be enacted:
Consent of the Governed Act:
“Any initiated act or Constitutional Amendment passed by a direct vote of the people, shall not be nullified or altered or amended in any way by any means other to a direct vote of the people.”
BTW Cory – how is Professor Bengs coming along with petitioning for his over-thought, weak-kneed version of the above? Any word?
Attorneys General and Guv Chiefs of Staff have shown Article III, Section 12, is a delightful tool to torture political foes and twist arms in the legislature even though it’s horribly out of date. Transparency is probably the only option that makes sense with laws that have real teeth and strong penalties. Noem’s abuse of the state airplane law and her selective discrimination and criminal harassment of Sherry Bren indicate just how nontransparent and corrupt governing is in Pierre. She eluded justice entirely based with jaundiced readings of the laws and a “double secret probation” ruling from a spineless board. And I think Don can recited chapters and verses of abuses in the legislature that resulted in crappy public protections and sweetheart deals for the billionaire class.
It would be a dumb idea to expect state legislators of either party to draft an anti-corruption set of statutes and constitutional measures. This needs to be developed by legal and ethics scholars to fit the current times with no allowances for the weasels in the legislature, lobbying couches and the governor’s office to amend the package. The S.D. Newspaper Association took a whack at some of this. It fell miserably short and all of it remains a bad joke. The only way forward is to keep it out of the influence of those who want to keep their corrupt little corners (remember Jason Gant?) of control.
Those fellows on the brown leather couches always get their say. They just do.
Let this be a cautionary tale: don’t involve the newspaper people, they can’t even save theirownselves.
The Republicans are rolling up 70-80 % election majorities in many legislative races. In many of these races the Democrat Party doesn’t field a candidate. Thus, in the legislature, the attitude is ” what’s good for the Republican Party, and its legislators, is good for South Dakota.” Thus, what is “special interest” and what is just “legislative positioning” and “business as usual” gets very, very blurred, and misunderstood. How can it be “special interest” when it is good for the Party and its’ members?? If it’s good for the Party and it’s members, it must be good for South Dakota, right???
Everybody knows the South Dakota legislature is full of democrats with a “R” by their name.
Not in the Districts numbered in the thirties, Mr. Spier.
grudz; apparently the US and SD Constitutions and laws do not apply to repubs.
The South Dakota state senate showed us this spring they don’t think the Constitution applies to them.
As a republican, I will state democrats are not bad. What is bad is democrats who hide in South Dakota behind the “R” shield.
And, yes, the Districts numbered in the thirties have a number of these posers.