Justia Election Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of this election contest and its determination that Constitutional Amendment A was submitted to the voters at the November 3, 2020 election in violation of the single subject requirement in S.D. Const. art. XXIII, 1, holding that the circuit court did not err.At the election at issue, South Dakota voters approved Amendment A, "An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana; and to require the Legislature to pass laws regarding hemp as well as laws ensuring access to marijuana for medical use." Plaintiffs filed a statutory election contest and a separate declaratory judgment action claiming Amendment A was unconstitutional. The circuit court dismissed the election contest, concluding it was not an appropriate proceeding to challenge the amendment, but concluded in the declaratory judgment action that Amendment A violated Articles XXIII, 1 and 2. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs identified no irregularity in the election process; and (2) the submission of Amendment A to the voters plainly and palpably violated Article XXIII, 1. View "Thom v. Barnett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a writ of mandamus requiring the Secretary of State Steve Barnett to appear and show cause why the Supreme Court should not issue a peremptory writ of mandamus directing him to approve Dakotans for Health's form for referral of House Joint Resolution (HJR) 5003 to voters at the general election on November 8, 2002, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to the writ.Petitioner, Dakotans for Health, submitted a petition seeking to refer HJR 5003 to the voters of South Dakota at the November 2022 general election. The Secretary of State refused to file the petition, determining that HJR 5003 did not qualify as a "law which the legislature may have enacted" and that the petition did not have a valid effective date. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's writ of mandamus, holding that Barnett correctly determined that HJR 5003 does not constitute a law subject to referral and that he had no authority to file the petition. View "Dakotans For Health V. Barnett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Appellants’ requested writ of certiorari to challenge an Attorney General’s ballot explanation of a proposed initiated measure that would limit the price state agencies may pay for prescription drugs.Appellants alleged as grounds for the writ that the Attorney General’s explanation did not comply with the requirements of S.D. Codified Laws 12-13-25.1. The circuit court denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Attorney General did not fail to carry out his statutory duty to provide a ballot explanation meeting the requirements of section 12-13-25.1. View "Johnson v. Jackley" on Justia Law

Prior to the 2016 general election, Theresa Maule Rossow filed a nominating petition to seek election as state’s attorney in Brule County and then Lyman County. Dedrich Koch filed a separate nominating petition seeking election as state’s attorney in Jerauld County and then Buffalo County. Competitors in the four counties brought separate lawsuits seeking to prevent Maule Rossow and Koch from running for state’s attorney in more than one county at a time. The circuit court in the Lyman and Buffalo Counties suits ruled that the candidates’ second filings were invalid for violating S.D. Codified Laws 12-6-3’s prohibition against dual candidacies. The Supreme Court consolidated Maule Rossow’s and Koch’s appeals and affirmed, holding (1) although the issue is now moot, the case falls under an exception to the mootness doctrine; and (2) section 12-6-3 prohibited Maule Rossow from seeking election as Lyman County state’s attorney and Koch from seeking election as Buffalo County state’s attorney. View "Larson v. Krebs" on Justia Law

Then-State Representative Steve Hickey sponsored an initiated measure to be certified for the November 2016 general election that would, if adopted, impose a maximum finance charge against certain lenders for certain types of loans. On April 1, 2015, Hickey submitted a copy of the final version to Attorney General Marty Jackley. On May 27, 2015, Jackley filed the title and explanation that he drafted in regard to this measure with the Secretary of State. On June 5, 2015, Erin Ageton, an opponent of the measure, filed an application for a writ of certiorari, asserting that Jackley did not comply with his legal duties under S.D. Codified Laws 12-13-25.1 because his explanation failed to education the voters that the purpose and effect of the measure was to ban short-term lending in South Dakota. The circuit court denied the application for a writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the explanation was adequate under section 12-13-25.1. View "Ageton v. Jackley" on Justia Law