The Center for Public Integrity

Kansas is one of 23 states in which an outside ethics agency oversees ethical conduct of state legislators. It is one of 10 of those states where the ethics agency also oversees both personal financial disclosure and campaign finance disclosure for members of the legislature.

Kansas is among the 22 states that established outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements of legislators in the post-Watergate 1970s.

Of the 32 states that have outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements for legislators — 23 that cover ethics and disclosure, plus nine that cover disclosure only — Kansas is one of 12 where the legislature appoints at least one commission member. Only three states — California, Hawaii and Massachusetts — have members picked without the input of the legislature.

Budget

Kansas is among 22 states that did approve a budget for its ethics agency exceeding the rate of inflation, or 7 percent, between 1997 and 2000. Those states include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin. Six state ethics agency budgets — in Arkansas, Georgia, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington — at least doubled during this time period.

More than half of the nation's state legislatures have no independent oversight of elected legislators' ethical conduct, the Center has found. A survey of state ethics offices reveals that only 23 states have independent commissions that have at least minimal authority to investigate or enforce violations of ethics rules.

In ten of those states, ethics agency heads said the legislature they oversee used the budget writing process to punish their commissions or limit their effectiveness.

In 27 states, there is no independent body to regulate unethical conduct by lawmakers. Four states — Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont — have no formal ethics statutes covering conduct of legislators. Seven legislatures, including Michigan, created independent ethics commissions that regulate the conduct of executive and judicial branch officials, but exempt the state legislature. Another nine created independent agencies to oversee disclosure laws for the legislature. However, they do little beyond collecting the disclosure forms. Eight states added oversight of legislative ethics to the responsibilities of the secretaries of state or attorneys general.

In most of the 27 states without independent oversight, lawmakers regulate themselves through a committee process, similar to that of the U.S. Congress. The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics — both of which are comprised exclusively of members of Congress — are charged with reviewing and interpreting ethics rules for members. They also enforce those rules.

"It's very difficult for a non-independent, partisan group to be able to judge their peers. I don't think it works at the federal level and I don't think it works in the states that have that," said Alan Plofsky, director of the Connecticut State Ethics Commission.

Montana is one of 27 states in which no outside agency oversees ethical conduct of state legislators. It is one of 9 of those states where an outside ethics agency does oversee disclosure for members of the legislature, in this case both personal financial disclosure and campaign finance disclosure.

Montana is among the 22 states that established outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements of legislators in the post-Watergate 1970s.

Of the 32 states that have outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements for legislators — 23 that cover ethics and disclosure, plus nine that cover disclosure only — Montana is one of 17 where the legislature has some involvement in choosing commission members. Only three states — California, Hawaii and Massachusetts — have members picked without the input of the legislature.

Budget

Montana is among 10 states that did not approve a budget for its ethics agency exceeding the rate of inflation, or 7 percent, between 1997 and 2000. Those states include Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and West Virginia. Two state ethics agency budgets — in Missouri and Montana — actually decreased during this time period.

Investigation

Of the 32 two states with outside ethics and/or disclosure oversight, only two ethics agencies — in Florida and West Virginia — cannot initiate an investigation or investigate an anonymous complaint. Only one agency, Alabama's, cannot issue subpoenas.

Delaware is one of 27 states in which no outside agency oversees ethical conduct of state legislators. It is one of 9 of those states where an outside ethics agency does oversee disclosure for members of the legislature, in this case only personal financial disclosure.

Delaware is one of 9 states that waited until the 1980s or the 1990s to established outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements of legislators; the Delaware State Public Integrity Commission, in place in 1994, is the most recent ethics agency to be setup.

Of the 32 states that have outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements for legislators — 23 that cover ethics and disclosure, plus nine that cover disclosure only — Delaware is one of 17 where the legislature has some involvement in choosing commission members. Only three states — California, Hawaii and Massachusetts — have members picked without the input of the legislature.

Budget

Delaware is among 10 states that did not approve a budget for its ethics agency exceeding the rate of inflation, or 7 percent, between 1997 and 2000. Those states include Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and West Virginia. Two state ethics agency budgets — in Missouri and Montana — actually decreased during this time period.

Investigation

Of the 32 two states with outside ethics and/or disclosure oversight, only two ethics agencies — in Florida and West Virginia — cannot initiate an investigation or investigate an anonymous complaint. Only one agency, Alabama's, cannot issue subpoenas.

Oregon is one of 23 states in which an outside ethics agency oversees ethical conduct of state legislators. It is one of 13 of those states where the ethics agency also oversees personal financial disclosure for members of the legislature.

Oregon is among the 22 states that established outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements of legislators in the post-Watergate 1970s.

Of the 32 states that have outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements for legislators — 23 that cover ethics and disclosure, plus nine that cover disclosure only — Oregon is one of 17 where the legislature has some involvement in choosing commission members. Only three states - California, Hawaii and Massachusetts — have members picked without the input of the legislature.

Budget

Oregon is among 10 states that did not approve a budget for its ethics agency exceeding the rate of inflation, or 7 percent, between 1997 and 2000. Those states include Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and West Virginia. Two state ethics agency budgets — in Missouri and Montana — actually decreased during this time period.

Conduct

To identify the extent of outside oversight applied to state legislators, the Center included six categories of conduct often found in ethics law in the survey of state ethics agencies: conflicts of interest, improper use of office/abuse of power, nepotism, acceptance of honorarium and gifts and post-term employment restrictions. Of the 23 states in which there is outside oversight of ethical conduct, all have a provision dealing with lawmakers' possible conflicts of interest. Oregon's ethics agency also oversees the other five categories of conduct for legislators.

Louisiana is one of 23 states in which an outside ethics agency oversees ethical conduct of state legislators. It is one of 10 of those states where the ethics agency also oversees both personal financial disclosure and campaign finance disclosure for members of the legislature.

Louisiana is one of 9 states that waited until the 1980s or the 1990s to established outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements of legislators.

Of the 32 states that have outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements for legislators — 23 that cover ethics and disclosure, plus nine that cover disclosure only — Louisiana is one of 12 where the legislature appoints at least one commission member. Only three states — California, Hawaii and Massachusetts — have members picked without the input of the legislature.

Budget

Louisiana is among 10 states that did not approve a budget for its ethics agency exceeding the rate of inflation, or 7 percent, between 1997 and 2000. Those states include Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and West Virginia. Two state ethics agency budgets — in Missouri and Montana — actually decreased during this time period.

Nevada is one of 23 states in which an outside ethics agency oversees ethical conduct of state legislators. It is one of 13 of those states where the ethics agency also oversees personal financial disclosure for members of the legislature.

Nevada is among the 22 states that established outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements of legislators in the post-Watergate 1970s.

Of the 32 states that have outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements for legislators — 23 that cover ethics and disclosure, plus nine that cover disclosure only — Nevada is one of 12 where the legislature appoints at least one commission member. Only three states — California, Hawaii and Massachusetts — have members picked without the input of the legislature.

Budget

Nevada is among 22 states that did approve a budget for its ethics agency exceeding the rate of inflation, or 7 percent, between 1997 and 2000. Those states include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin. Six state ethics agency budgets — in Arkansas, Georgia, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington — at least doubled during this time period.

Rhode Island is one of 23 states in which an outside ethics agency oversees ethical conduct of state legislators. It is one of 13 of those states where the ethics agency also oversees personal financial disclosure for members of the legislature.

Rhode Island is among the 22 states that established outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements of legislators in the post-Watergate 1970s.

Of the 32 states that have outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements for legislators — 23 that cover ethics and disclosure, plus nine that cover disclosure only — Rhode Island is one of 17 where the legislature has some involvement in choosing commission members. Only three states — California, Hawaii and Massachusetts — have members picked without the input of the legislature.

Budget

Rhode Island is among 22 states that did approve a budget for its ethics agency exceeding the rate of inflation, or 7 percent, between 1997 and 2000. Those states include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin. Six state ethics agency budgets — in Arkansas, Georgia, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington — at least doubled during this time period.

Georgia is one of 27 states in which no outside agency oversees ethical conduct of state legislators. It is one of 9 of those states where an outside ethics agency does oversee disclosure for members of the legislature, in this case both personal financial disclosure and campaign finance disclosure.

Georgia is among the 22 states that established outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements of legislators in the post-Watergate 1970s.

Of the 32 states that have outside oversight of ethical conduct and/or disclosure requirements for legislators — 23 that cover ethics and disclosure, plus nine that cover disclosure only — Georgia is one of 12 where the legislature appoints at least one commission member. Only three states — California, Hawaii and Massachusetts — have members picked without the input of the legislature.

Budget

Georgia is among 22 states that did approve a budget for its ethics agency exceeding the rate of inflation, or 7 percent, between 1997 and 2000. Those states include Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin. Six state ethics agency budgets — in Arkansas, Georgia, Maine, Nevada, New Jersey and Washington — at least doubled during this time period.

Investigation

Of the 32 two states with outside ethics and/or disclosure oversight, only two ethics agencies — in Florida and West Virginia — cannot initiate an investigation or investigate an anonymous complaint. Only one agency, Alabama's, cannot issue subpoenas.

South Dakota is among four states — including Michigan, North Dakota and Vermont — in which there are no formal ethics laws dealing with ethical conduct of legislator beyond personal financial disclosure and/or campaign finance disclosure requirements.

More Info

What, if any, ethics agency exists in the state?

None. There was a statute calling for a state ethics commission, but it was repealed.
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/index.cfm?FuseAction=DisplayStatute&txtStatute=12-25A&FindType=Statute

If the above agency does not oversee legislators, is legislative oversight defined in statute?

No.

Are there state statutes that address ethical conduct for legislators?

No. South Dakota has no statute regarding ethics and disclosure beyond sections pertaining candidates' campaign finance and outside interest disclosure, which are both governed by the South Dakota Secretary of State.
http://www.state.sd.us/sos/sos.htm

South Dakota Constitution Article III, Section 12, "Legislators ineligible for other office," is the only provision dealing with conflicts of interest.
http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/Index.cfm?FuseAction=DisplayStatute&FindType=Statute&txtStatute=0N-3-12

When were the ethics statutes enacted?

N/A