Title: In re Interpretation Of South Dakota Constitution and State Laws Regarding Eligibility For CRF Grant Programs

State: south-dakota

Issuer: South Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

#29441
2020 S.D. 58

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

#29441
IN RE: THE REQUEST OF GOVERNOR KRISTI NOEM
FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION IN THE MATTER OF THE
INTERPRETATION OF SOUTH DAKOTA CONSTITUTION

AND STATE LAWS REGARDING ELIGIBILITY FOR
CRF GRANT PROGRAMS.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

REQUEST RECEIVED OCTOBER 13, 2020
OPINION FILED 10/22/2020
#20441

ADVISORY OPINION
‘TO HER EXCELLENCY, KRISTI NOEM, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE
OF SOUTH DAKOTA.
my Pursuant to Article V, § 5 of the South Dakota Constitution,? you have
requested an advisory opinion from this Court on whether the South Dakota
Constitution or any state law prohibits a current state legislator from being eligible
to receive funds from coronavirus relief fund (CRF) Grant Programs,

A

(24 Pursuant to § 001 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (CARES Act), South Dakota received $1,250,000,000 in federal funds
(CRF funds) to cover necessary expenditures due to the COVID-19 public health
‘omergency. During a special session on October 5, 2020, the South Dakota

Legislature passed House Bill 1001 (HB 1001) and adopted Senate Concurrent

 

Resolution 601 (SCR 601) to address the expenditure of these funds,
1931 HB 1001 revised the general appropriations act to include federal
expenditure authority for the CRF funds. SCR 601 authorized expenditures made
prior to October 5, 2020, and for the unspent and unobligated ORF funds provided

recommended uses through grant programs administered by the Governor for:

1. South Dakota Article V, § 5 reads in part

‘The Governor has authority to require opinions of the Supreme
Court upon important questions of law involved in the exercise of
his [sic] executive power and upon solema occasions.

 
#29441
businesses, health care providers, non-profits, and qualified individuals that have
been impacted by COVID-19.

[14] SDOL 4.8.17 provides:

‘The Governor is authorized and empowered to accept on behalf
of the state any appropriations made or moneys allotted to the
state by the United States of America, as well as the provisions
of any act of Congress appropriating or allotting such funds to
the state to be used in cooperation with departments of the
federal government and appropriations and acts of Congress.

‘The funds received for the State of South Dakota pursuant to
the provisions of this section shall be administered and
expended undor the immediate supervision of the Governor
through such state departments as he [sic] shall designate for
that purpose, and shall be deposited in the state treasury to be
paid out by warrants drawn by the state auditor on vouchers
approved by the Governor.

(951 Your request to this Court states that in administering the grant

 

programs described in SCR 601, an application agreeing to the terms of the
program is required. You further state that “A contract will be required in which
the recipient agrees, among other terms and conditions, to expend its grant in
accordance with the CARES Act and other restrictions provided for in federal law.”

According to SCR 601,

 

(plications [are] proposed to open October 12, 2020, and
close on October 23, 2020."
(ie, ‘You have received inquiries from current state legislators as to their
eligibility to receive funds from one or more of the grant programs. You ask:
Assuming all other criteria is met to qualify, does the South
Dakota State Constitution or any state law prohibit a current

state legislator from being eligible to receive funds from a CRF
Grant Program.

 
#29441
B.

(71 ‘The Court must first determine whether it is appropriate to issue an
advisory opinion. You contend that this is an important issue of law involved in the
exercise of your executive power pursuant to SDCL 4-8-17. You also contend that
this is solemn occasion because:

Both the current pandemic and the large allocation of federal,

funds are unprecedented. Considering the proper expenditure of

public funds, the potential conflict of interest, and the doctrine

of separation of powers, this is a matter of great public

importance and of significant impact on state government.
(18) While South Dakota Article V, § 5 is disjunctive and presents two
situations in which the Court can give an advisory opinion.? the Court agrees that
the question you pose raises both an important question of law involved in the
exercise of your executive power and a solemn occasion,
(194 Pursuant to SDCL. 48-17, you, as Governor, have accepted
$1,250,000,000 in federal CRF funds and must administer and expend those funds
within certain time constraints. Whether current legislators who passed HB 1001
and adopted SCR 601 are eligible to receive a part of these funds is a question that
will “result in immediate consequences having an impact on the institutions of state
government” and involve a question “that eannot be answered expeditiously
through ustal adversary proceedings.” In re Opinion of the Supreme Court Relative
to the Constitutionality of Chapter 239, Session Law of 1977, 257 N.W.24 442, 447
(1977) (Wollman, J., concurring specially)

(910) In addition, the query you have posed presents a solemn occasion.

2 Inre Daugaard, 2011 8.D. 44, § 4, 801 N.W.2d 438, 439,

 
#29441
In determining whether a request for an advisory opinion
presents a solemn occasion, the Court weighs whether an
important question of law is presented, whether the question
presents issues pending before the Court, whether the matter
involves private rights or issues of general application, whether
alternative remedies exist, whether the facts and questions are
final or ripe for an advisory opinion, the urgency of the question,
whether the issue will have a significant impact on state
government or the public in goneral, and whether the Court has
been provided with an adequate amount of time to consider the

In re Daugaard, 2016 8.D. 27, 4 13, 884 N.W.2d 168, 167 (citing In re

Janklow, 530 N.W.24 367, 369 (S.D. 1995)). The Court has determined that

you have presented an important question of law. Id. § 8-9, supra. Te issue

is not pending before the Court. While the issue doos involve private rights,
it also raises a bronder conflict of interest question involving a logislator’s
entitlement to appropriated funds, which is an issue with significant impact
on State government and public perceptions associated with the distribution
of such an extraordinarily large sum of money. Because of the unprecedented

COVID-19 pandemic, the timeframe for administering and expending the

funds, the inadequate time to pursue alternative remedies, and the Cout's

timely ability to consider the request, a solemn occasion exists and the Court
will answer the question you pose.
c.

[111] Article IIT, § 12 of South Dakota's Constitution provides:

No member of the Legislature shall, during the term for which
he [sic] was elected, be appointed or elected to any civil offic in
the state which shall have been created, or the emoluments of
which shall have been increased during the term for which he

[sic] was elected, nor shall any member receive any civil
appointment from the Governor, the Governor and senate, or

oe
#29441

(412)

from the Legislature during the term for which he [sic] shall
have been elected, and all such appointments and all votes given
for any such members for any such office or appointment shall
be void; nor shall any member of the Legislature during the term
for which he {sic} shall have been elected, or within one year
thereafter, be interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract
with the state or any county thereof, authorized by any law
passed during the term for which he [sic] shall have been
elected. (Emphasis added).

In Pitts v. Larson, 2001 S.D. 161, 13, 638 N.W.2d 254, 257, this Court

explicitly stated, “The meaning of this provision, however, is unambiguous.”

‘The language of the constitution is plain. Its meaning cannot be
mistaken. The purpose of [Article IIT, § 12] is apparent. It is
intended to preclude the possibility of any member deriving,
directly or indirectly, any pecuniary benefit from legislation
enacted by the legislature of which he [sic] is a momber. .... It
is intended to remove any suspicion which might otherwise
attach to the motives of the membors who advocate the creation
‘of new offices or the expenditure of public funds. Palmer v.
State, 11 $.D. 78, 80-81, 75 N.W. 818, 819 (1898). Therefore,
“the language in the constitution must be applied as it reads.”
Inrre Janklow, 530 N.W.24 367, 870 (8.D. 1995)

 

 

Id. (Emphasis added).

(913)

‘This Court strictly intorprets the language of South Dakota Article 111,

§ 12. Asphalt Surfacing Co. v. South Dakota Dep't of Transp., 385 N.W.24 115, 117

(S.D. 1986). Its prohibitions are broad in scope and extend to any contract between

a legislator and the State, including the General Appropriations Bill. Jd. at 118.

“When Article III § 12 is violated, the ‘contract is wholly illegal, void, and against

public policy, and cannot be enforced in whole or in part on any theory of any kind.”

3. In Pitts, the plurality and the dissent agreed that it is a violation of South
Dakota Article Ill, § 12 for a state legislator to enter into a contract with the
State during the same session in which s/he sat. 2001 S.D. 151, 638 N.W.2d

254.

 
#29441

Pitts, 2001 S.D. 151, 4 14, 638 N.W.2d at 268 (quoting Norbeck & Nicholson Co. v
State, 32 $.D. 189, 203, 142 N.W. 847, 848 (1913).

[114] Therefore, South Dakota Article III, § 12 precludes a current state
legislator from contracting directly or indirectly with the State to receive funds from

CRF Grant Programs.

Respectfully submitted this 22! day of October 2020.

pau

David Gilbertson, Chief Justice

fi m

i fees Dea IM Kern, Supreme Court Justca

fo) Meer? R peaaier-

Srevon R Jonson, Supe Court Tuntce

   

Patricia J. DeVaney, Supromd Pourt Justice

Justice Mark E. Salter deeming himself disqualified did not participate,