Larson v. Krebs, 898 N.W.2d 10

Theresa Maulé Rossow (Brule resident) filed nominating petitions to run as Independent State’s Attorney in Brule County (Jan 21, 2016) and later in adjacent Lyman County (Feb 12, 2016).
Dedrich Koch (Buffalo resident) filed to run as Jerauld County State’s Attorney (Feb 23, 2016) and later filed in adjacent Buffalo County (Mar 18, 2016); he had previously pursued dual candidacies in 2012.
Challengers in Lyman and Buffalo Counties sued seeking writs of prohibition to keep Rossow’s and Koch’s names off the respective county ballots, alleging violation of SDCL 12-6-3 (prohibition on dual candidacies).
The circuit court ruled for plaintiffs in Lyman and Buffalo Counties, declaring the second-filed nominating petitions null and barring the candidates from those county ballots; it denied relief in the Brule and Jerauld actions.
Rossow and Koch appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court after the 2016 election—appeals were technically moot because ballots could not be changed, but the Court invoked the public-interest exception to decide the statutory question.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SDCL 12-6-3 prohibits a person from being a candidate for election to more than one public office in the same general election	Rossow/Koch: A "general election" is a series of separate county elections; statute doesn’t bar running in different counties in the same year. Also argued offices are compatible and Legislature allows regional prosecutors.	State/Intervenors: "Election" includes the statewide general election (single event on one day); SDCL 12-6-3’s plain language bars candidacy for more than one public office in the same general election.	The Court held that SDCL 12-6-3 prohibits seeking election to more than one public office in the same general election; affirmed the circuit court orders barring the second candidacies.

Bridgman v. Koch, 840 N.W.2d 676 (S.D. 2013) (background on prior dual-candidacy litigation involving Koch)
Rowley v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 826 N.W.2d 360 (S.D. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles; give plain meaning to text)
In re Woodruff, 567 N.W.2d 226 (S.D. 1997) (mootness doctrine and exceptions)
Cummings v. Mickelson, 495 N.W.2d 493 (S.D. 1993) (public-interest exception to mootness)
Sedlacek v. S.D. Teener Baseball Program, 437 N.W.2d 866 (S.D. 1989) (elements of public-interest exception)
City of Sturgis v. Koch, 583 N.W.2d 170 (S.D. 1998) (doctrine of incompatibility of public offices)
Schafer v. Shopko Stores, Inc., 741 N.W.2d 758 (S.D. 2007) (avoidance of absurd statutory results)
Libertarian Party of Ohio v. Blackwell, 462 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2006) (election disputes often fit the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception)
Merle v. United States, 351 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 2003) (same point regarding election-timing and mootness)