AI in Lawmaking Sparks Excitement and Concern
In 2026, lawmakers across the nation, especially in South Dakota, began to embrace artificial intelligence (AI) tools, leading to notable shifts in how legislation is drafted and researched. This transition has ignited a mix of enthusiasm and concern among political representatives and experts. On February 5, in the House of Representatives, South Dakota state Rep. Al Novstrup, a Republican, shared his reliance on AI, specifically Google’s AI assistant Gemini, to craft arguments in support of a bill aimed at expanding the availability of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Although he admitted he wasn’t an expert in the area, he emphasized that AI can serve as a useful source of information.
During his speech, Novstrup recounted how AI helped him gather data quickly, reflecting on the evolution of information sourcing—from the Dewey Decimal System to the internet. The emergence of generative AI tools has fundamentally altered the legislative landscape, allowing lawmakers to create summaries, draft bills, and refine arguments with unprecedented speed. Generative AI, as described in the article, refers to tools that can produce or summarize content, moving beyond merely accessing information.
Novstrup pointed out that while one should be cautious of AI’s reliability, the necessity of critical evaluation of any source—AI-generated or otherwise—is paramount. This realization has resonated with many in the legislature. For instance, Rep. Kent Roe stated he uses Grok, a tool from Elon Musk’s xAI, to enhance his proposal drafts. He stated that refining queries and reviewing multiple responses fosters reliability, showcasing a strategic approach to utilizing AI.
Furthermore, Sen. Amber Hulse shared her experiences using generative AI for legislative research, remarking on its efficiency in conducting 50-state surveys of legal codes. The speed of AI provided her the ability to manage tight timelines while fulfilling her responsibilities. Despite the utility it brings, Hulse noted that the bill in question failed due to policy concerns rather than the efficacy of the research itself.
AI’s application isn’t limited to research; it’s also being integrated into the initial stages of bill drafting. Rep. John Hughes reported that his first draft on tax policy benefited enormously from Grok’s assistance, allowing him to present a nuanced proposal aligned with existing frameworks. Other representatives, such as Scott Odenbach, acknowledged the potential of AI to create initial drafts, albeit with caution about fully relying on it for legislative consistency.
While the potential benefits of AI are clear to many, there are prominent concerns about its reliability and the quality of legislation derived from machine-generated insights. John McCullough, from the South Dakota Legislative Research Council, stressed that while AI can facilitate research, it cannot replace the nuanced analysis that human experts provide. His personal experience with an AI tool that incorrectly cited non-existent laws serves as a cautionary tale about the technology’s limitations.
Some lawmakers harbor fears that generative AI could lead to a decline in rigorous legislative standards. Former rep R. Shawn Tornow expressed concern about the implications of AI-generated misinformation on legal accuracy. His remarks echo a sentiment shared by several lawmakers who feel that despite AI’s assistance, the human element remains crucial to ensure accountability and dependable legislation.
Overall, the intersection of AI and lawmaking represents a powerful shift in political processes, stirring debates about efficiency versus accuracy while highlighting the need for a balanced approach to technology in governance.