South Dakota Lawmakers Embrace AI in Lawmaking, Raising Concerns

Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Grok are being used to draft bills and research talking points, but some worry about the risks of relying on unvetted AI-generated information.

Apr. 3, 2026 at 4:36pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A highly detailed, glowing 3D macro illustration of a complex circuit board with neon cyan and magenta lights, conceptually representing the digital infrastructure powering AI-assisted lawmaking in South Dakota.As generative AI tools become more prevalent in South Dakota's legislative process, concerns grow over the potential for errors, lack of context, and erosion of traditional vetting procedures.Sioux Falls Today

South Dakota state lawmakers have increasingly turned to generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Grok to assist with drafting bills, researching talking points, and speeding up legislative processes. While some lawmakers see the benefits of using AI to quickly gather information and refine proposals, others are concerned about the risks of relying on potentially inaccurate or incomplete AI-generated content, especially when it comes to ensuring new laws are consistent with existing statutes.

Why it matters

The growing use of generative AI in South Dakota's legislative process highlights the broader challenges and opportunities presented by these rapidly evolving technologies. As AI becomes more integrated into policymaking, there are concerns about the potential for errors, biases, and a lack of human oversight, which could lead to the creation of flawed laws. At the same time, lawmakers argue that AI can help improve efficiency and access to information, as long as the technology is used responsibly and with appropriate safeguards.

The details

Several South Dakota lawmakers, including Republican state representatives Al Novstrup and Kent Roe, have acknowledged using generative AI tools like Gemini, Grok, and ChatGPT to assist with researching issues, drafting bill language, and preparing speeches. They see it as a more advanced version of previous practices, such as pulling language from other states' laws or industry proposals. However, others, like former state representative R. Shawn Tornow, are concerned that relying on AI-generated information could lead to the creation of poorly crafted laws that conflict with existing statutes. John McCullough, the head of the South Dakota Legislative Research Council, is also skeptical that AI can reliably analyze a bill's potential conflicts with current laws, a key part of the council's review process.

  • The 2026 South Dakota legislative session saw a notable increase in the use of generative AI tools by lawmakers.
  • In February 2026, state Rep. Al Novstrup cited information from Google's AI assistant, Gemini, during a speech on the House floor.
  • Also in February 2026, state Rep. Kent Roe said he runs all his bill drafts through the Grok AI tool to refine his ideas.

The players

Al Novstrup

A Republican state representative in South Dakota who has used generative AI tools like Gemini to assist with researching issues and preparing speeches.

Kent Roe

A Republican state representative in South Dakota who uses the Grok AI tool to help refine his bill proposals.

John McCullough

The head of the South Dakota Legislative Research Council, which is responsible for reviewing and drafting bills, and who is skeptical that AI can reliably analyze a bill's potential conflicts with current laws.

R. Shawn Tornow

A former Republican state representative in South Dakota who is concerned that relying on AI-generated information could lead to the creation of poorly crafted laws that conflict with existing statutes.

Liz Larson

A Democratic state senator in South Dakota who has limited her use of generative AI to drafting communications with constituents and electoral messaging, and who is troubled by what she sees as inadequate due diligence when AI conclusions are presented in legislative testimony or speeches.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“You've always got to be skeptical, but you've also got to give it consideration.”

— Al Novstrup, State Representative

“You just recycle it 10 times, and if it comes up with 10 different answers, you know it's not working. If you come up with nine out of 10 answers that are very similar, well, then you know it's doing its job.”

— Kent Roe, State Representative

“I think it can be a very significant problem. AI is not obviously old fashioned legal research and reasoned analysis, because one small trigger of incorrect information can greatly skew and make a legal position absolutely incorrect.”

— R. Shawn Tornow, Former State Representative

“Those standards of rigor have gone down in the past year. People aren't even ashamed to say 'I just looked this up.' If something is on the Senate floor and up for final passage, you probably should've done the research before it got to that point.”

— Liz Larson, State Senator

What’s next

The South Dakota Legislative Research Council is expected to review its policies and procedures around the use of generative AI tools in the legislative process, with a focus on ensuring appropriate safeguards and oversight are in place to maintain the integrity of new laws.

The takeaway

The growing use of generative AI in South Dakota's legislative process highlights the broader challenges and opportunities presented by these rapidly evolving technologies. As lawmakers seek to leverage the efficiency and speed of AI, there are valid concerns about the potential for errors, biases, and a lack of human oversight, which could undermine the quality and consistency of new laws. Striking the right balance between embracing AI's benefits and maintaining robust legislative review processes will be crucial in the years ahead.