918 N.W.2d 880
S.D.2018Background
- Deuel County adopted Ordinance B2004-01-23B on May 23, 2017, amending Section 1215 (WES requirements) of its zoning ordinance; the Auditor published notice on May 31, 2017.
- Appellants circulated three referendum petitions challenging the ordinance and timely submitted all three to the County Auditor.
- The Auditor accepted Petition 1 (19 signatures) but rejected Petition 2 (51 signatures) and Petition 3 (252 signatures) for noncompliance with SDCL 7-18A-17—Petition 2 lacked the ordinance title and Petition 3 omitted the words “Wind Energy Systems (WES) Requirements” and the date of passage.
- After rejecting Petitions 2 and 3, the Auditor determined the Appellants had only 19 valid signatures—insufficient for a referendum.
- Appellants sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Auditor to accept Petition 3 and order a special election; the circuit court denied relief, concluding Petition 3 failed to substantially comply with SDCL 7-18A-17.
- The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the mandamus denial and affirmed, holding Petition 3 did not substantially comply with the statute requiring the ordinance title and date of passage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petition 3 substantially complied with SDCL 7-18A-17 so the Auditor must accept it | Petition 3 contained sufficient information; omitted wording and date were technical defects that posed no risk of confusion or fraud and should be excused under substantial-compliance and liberal-construction principles | Petition 3 failed to include the full ordinance title (“Wind Energy System (WES) Requirements”) and the date of passage as required by SDCL 7-18A-17, so Auditor properly rejected it | Court held Petition 3 did not substantially comply; rejection was proper and mandamus relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Coester v. Waubay Twp., 909 N.W.2d 709 (S.D. 2018) (mandamus reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Krsnak v. S.D. Dep’t of Env’t & Nat. Res., 824 N.W.2d 429 (S.D. 2012) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Wald, Inc. v. Stanley, 706 N.W.2d 626 (S.D. 2005) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Baker v. Atkinson, 625 N.W.2d 265 (S.D. 2001) (referendum petition requirements are substantial, not merely form)
- Larson v. Hazeltine, 552 N.W.2d 830 (S.D. 1996) (presumption petitions that are circulated, signed, and filed are valid)
- Bjornson v. City of Aberdeen, 296 N.W.2d 896 (S.D. 1980) (statutory requirements for referendum petitions must be substantially complied with)
- Headley v. Ostroot, 76 N.W.2d 474 (S.D. 1956) (substantial compliance necessary to prevent fraud or corruption)
- Sorrels v. Queen of Peace Hosp., 575 N.W.2d 240 (S.D. 1998) (mandamus requires clear legal right and definite legal duty)