*1
16.15,
Children, §
pp. 59-
Legal Rights
reasonable BUTLER, Treasurer; Dick Lar- Vernon to find. son, Auditor; Gary Viken, Secre- tary of Revenue of the appreciate Educators must how Dakota, Respondents. important stopping their role is child neglect. abuse and When a school official No. 21942. abuse, reasonably suspects report child Supreme Court South Dakota. “immediately.” 26- must be made SDCL Truly, always easy 8A-8. it is not Argued Aug. 2001. abuse, report and some- comfortable Decided Dec. reporting courage.6 times takes Our mes- report sage professionals obligated against
should clear: it is the law not to report suspected immediately. abuse Of
course, it is understandable that a counsel- Hughes could make an error in like judgment. If that were the reason for mistake,
excusing challenge her few would Hughes it. But I the Court accomplish decision the law to restructures children, its end. For the sake of our however, hope I that South Dakota edu- wording
cators continue to follow the clear statute, of our state instead of this Court’s reinterpretation unfortunate of it. Underwood, Hale, MarqLRev Hurting, Are 6. Linda L. Ph.D. and Julie J.D., Ph.D., Helping Child Abuse: Kids Who *2 Treasurer, Auditor, State Secretary of Revenue. Petitioners out, seek to bar these officials from paying disbursing, allocating funds from the *3 Racing South Dakota Bred Fund and the Special Racing Revolving Fund under cer- tain the 2001 deny bill. We the writ.
Background Dakota Racing South Bred
Fund is authorized SDCL 42-7-71: money by One-fourth of all received chapter state treasurer under this operating licensees racing horse tracks placed special shall be in a revenue fund to be known as the “South Dakota-bred racing fund.” The by shall used fund encourage commission to horse rac- ing raising and the breeding horses in South Dakota shall be purpose providing used com- for pensation to South Dakota-bred horses by providing to all horsetracks However, licensed in South Dakota. moneys not more than one-fourth of the deposited the South rac- Dakota-bred ing may by fund be used the commission provide purse supplements to horse- for other than Da- tracks horses South horses, kota-bred fashion, Special Racing In a similar Fund 42- Revolving is authorized SDCL 7-79.1: Cogley Theeler and F. Jack John In addition to the deductions authorized Mitchell, Cogley, Morgan, Theeler and 42-7-79, §by dog racing licensees Dakota, Attorneys South for Petitioners. sum shall deduct from the total contrib- Barnett, General, Attorney Mark Jef- races, dog except uted on contributions Hallem, frey Attorney P. Assistant Gener- win, place on in the and show dog races Pierre, al, Dakota, Attorneys for pool, three-quar- an additional three Respondents. percent ters on the dollars contributed. one-quarter retain The licensee will KONENKAMP, Justice. capital percent improvements for Petitioners, all contributed and an addition- group of South Da- amounts percent kota al three and one-half shall be legislators during state who served session, per- retained the licensee for discretion- request the 2001 special racing revolving emptory prohibition against ary writ of use. The bill, shall be in the the state general appropriations fund office of treasurer to be disbursed the com- during joint amended meeting of the purses increase opera- mission to Appropriations House and Senate Commit tions, upon request, be tees. Section 26 of the bill was amended granted a political subdivision following pertinent to make the appropria unique unusual or law tions from the Bred Fund and the enforce- ment incidental to having a Special Racing Revolving Fund: race track or site in that politi- off-track Section 26. The state treasurer shall cal subdivision. Funds in the South transfer to the state fund racing Dakota-bred fund following pur- from the funds for the (cid:127) racing revolving shall be disbursed fund *4 poses herein indicated: by the commission on warrants drawn by the ap- state auditor on vouchers proved by the commission and such From the South Dakota Racing Bred shall be disbursed without author- Fund: acts, ity (emphasis Department Systems of Health —Health added). Development $1,000,000 Regulation session, During the 2001 leg- Department of Social Services—Adult
islature considered three involving bills $125,000 Aging Services and Racing Special Bred Fund and Racing Special From the Racing Revolving Revolving proposed Fund. Senate Bill 51 Fund: to transfer from each fund to the
Department of Social grants Services for Department of Agriculture —Resource to establish or maintain pro- shelters or $300,000 Conservation and Forestry grams for domestic abuse victims. The Department Agriculture Fair —State pass bill failed to the Senate. Senate Bill $700,000 sought to amend SDCL 42-7-71 and Department of Social Services—Adult permit money 42-7-79.1 to in the rac- two $125,000 Aging Services and ing funds to .be purposes used for other [¶ House Bill ultimately 5.] 1233 was provided by legislature. Although this passed by legislature petitioners Senate, passed bill pass it failed to in brought stop this suit to the fund transfers Finally, the House. Bill House 1285would authorized section 26. As a basis for have transferred money from each of the prohibition, issuance of a writ of petition- racing help funds to fund the Fair. argue ers that these amendments, After numerous the bill the Bred Special Fund and the passed the House. Additional amend- Racing Revolving Fund provisions violate ments were in the Senate and the of the South Dakota Constitution and are ultimately passed that chamber. How- therefore void. ever, the House failed to concur in the Availability amendments, Senate refused to Writ accept the report committee, of a conference prohibition [¶ 6.] Writs of offer appoint failed to a new conference commit- an extraordinary remedy, only in available tee to work out the in differences the bill. “plain, the absence of no other speedy and Thus the bill failed. adequate remedy in ordinary course of
[¶ 4.] After the demise of
Miller,
Senate Bills
law.”'
Argus
Sioux Falls
Leader v.
¶
51 and
63, 4,
176 and House Bill
House Bill 2000 SD
(quot-
state,
21-30-2).
pre-
the current
By longstanding
state insti-
mg SDCL
tutions,
debt,
in
Dakota
on the public
cedent
South
interest
appro-
common schools. All other
maintain a
taxpayer
or elector
priations
by separate
shall be made
officer
proceeding
public
to restrain a
embracing
object,
each
act,
and shall
illegal
an
performance
from the
require a two-thirds
all
vote of
the mem-
Attorney
has refused
where the
General
Legislature,
bers
each branch of the
prosecute the action
the name of
state,
sought
and where the relief
matter,
public
right.
or one of
language emphasized
Under the
necessary
case it is not
that the
such
above, this Court has held that “while the
taxpayer or elector have a
inter-
Legislature
impose
is free to
conditions
special injury
est
the suit or suffer
appropriated
and restrictions on
himself.
body
within the
of a general appropria-
423, 426, 11
Youngquist,
State v.
bill, it may
substantively legislate
tions
Thus, Duxbury
that bill
a manner
that changes,
(S.D.1992),
Harding,
v.
63 else, the recognize the existence of framers of the Constitution un continued doubtedly intended that continuing appropriations state law ever members of the legislature should be free to vote on it Kelly. Anderson and See State ex since knowing Wells, 389, nothing Maloney rel. 79 S.D. 400- (S.D. else were involved.” Sellers v. 601, Frohmil 401, 112 N.W.2d 606-607 ler, 24 Ariz. P.2d 666. 1961)(law creating employment security administration fund established a continu Given the administrative ing appropriation purpose); for a definite aspect of appropriations the legisla Dep’t Transp., Const. v. Candee alter, power ture change, “has or trans (S.D.1989)(statute provid fer an appropriation, appropria unless the ing judgments relating to contracts pledged by tion has been constitutional or Department the South Dakota statutory provisions payment paid Transportation must be out of the obligation some under circumstances highway provides continuing fund charge appropriation where the on such damages awarded and right.” has become a vested 81A CJS against costs assessed the State as result States Consistent with this against Department). rule, of an action previously recognized this Court has legislature’s authority ap to transfer Classifying special propriations funds. In In re by legislature specific pur created Opinion Judges, poses extremely im is (1925), legislature appropri N.W. 462 portant inquiry in our because: $300,000 ated as rural credit funds be law, is not a in its [a]n addition, tween 1917 and In ordinary sense. It is not a rule of ac- received from the sale of state bonds au tion. It has no moral or divine sanction. thorized the Rural Credits Act were punishes rights It defines no no made rural credit funds as were sums wrongs. purely scripta. It is lex principal received on the and interest of law, only means to the enforcement of loans made the Rural Credit Board. order, good the maintenance of and the passed provid the legislature an act government. life of the state Such bills ing for an au investigating commission to pertain only to the administrative func- Department. pro dit the Rural A Credit *7 government. tions of expenses vision of the act made the of the Clausen, State v. 85 Wash. 148 P. payable commission out of the rural credit previously ech- This Court has questioned funds. The Governor the valid appropriations oed the view that bills are in a ity provision request of the for an nature, in holding administrative in State Court, advisory opinion from where it 447, 450, Jorgenson, ex rel. Oster v. provision a was held that the was valid (1965) that: appropriation: appropriation general legis- [a] bill is not opinion We are therefore of the that not in lation the true sense of the term. only may appro- the residue in the two language implies setting is as “a its priations above referred to be used for apart necessary of the funds for the use payment the In- the the depart- and maintenance of the Commission, various terim but also that government already ments of the state funds under the control of the rural In functioning.... pro- in existence and may except credit board be so used the viding nothing it should embrace that be raised said XII, special appropriations contained in SD Const art 2. In Childree Hub points posite conclusions. levy. No other
Tax Commission
(Ala.1988),
bert,
Alabama
brace executive, legis- expenses majority the thirds in both dinary approval houses of judicial departments such, the legislature. petitioners lative and the As con- state, state insti- expenses the current challenged appropriations tend the are debt, tutions, interest the and scope the general appropria- outside of the appropri- All other therefore, for common schools. are, tions bill and void. by separate be ations shall This not specifically Court has object, and shall embracing each special appropriations defined fall that vote of all the mem- require two-thirds scope outside the the general appropri- Legislature, of each branch of the bers XII, § ations bill under art 2. SD Const added). (emphasis Court, however, did Oster exhaustive- interpreted the above-em- This Court has ly analyze “ordinary the terms XII, phasized language in art SD Const executive, judicial legislative and following the providing as limitations: departments of the state” and “current expenses of state institutions” deter- provision allows This constitutional mine whether certain were majority appropriate properly general ap- included the 1965 ordinary expenses gov- of state propriations analysis, bill. its minority ernment denies to emphasized the repeatedly Court distinc- obstruct, stop power prevent, between “ordinary expenses” proper- tion govern- affairs of operation vital ly included in a general appropriations law denying necessary ment those funds. subject “extraordinary expenses” treasury But the door separate vote require- bill-two-thirds opened appro- as easily to “all other so XII, § ment of article Quoting 2. In re They priations.” single must be the Taxation, Limitation separate receive bills and (S.D.1893), N.W. 417 the Court noted arti- approval affirmative of two-thirds all XII, § 2 “guard cle had undertaken to legisla- members both houses of the taxpayers public treasury against ture. Matters which could be included hasty and outlays ill-advised for extraordi- may general appropriation bill be Oster, nary expenses 81 S.D. at [.] subjects special appropriation bills ” at 136 N.W.2d nullifying consequences. without How- examples provided “extraordinary of these ever, appropriations included within the expenses” approaching such “an pesti- general appropriation outside of lence, temporary provision or to make beyond scope its void. are patients hospital, of the insane un- Oster, S.D. at housed and a devastating scattered fire, argue any Petitioners that the chal- or for exceptional other and ex- special appropri- lenged appropriations traordinary object are essential to the welfare Commission) any special general part fund to the fund for and the transfer of of their true, expense. ordinary While it receipts appropri- fund to meet has been true since 1943 when this Court payable ations out of the fund. See Legislature’s upheld the reduction of con- Youngquist, supra. Dakota survived tinuing eighteen govern- appropriations of case unharmed. departments (including mental *10 454-455, Id., at 136 rate and struck 81 S.D. ten as state." of the beyond scope general appro- at 874 approval ten, with priations went on to cite eight Court bill. Of those were “ordi dictionary definition of following construction, appropriations for new nary” expenses: and “current” appropriation was an for acquisi- land tion, Ed, Dictionary, appropriated 4th and one funds for
Black’s Law defines “ordinary” adjectival sepa- in its road maintenance violation of the word usual; normal; provision com- rate constitutional on “Regular; sense as road con- mon; recurring; according to es- struction. often order; settled; customary;
tablished The Court followed [¶ 26.] its decision reasonable; pecu- not characterized Duxbury, in Oster in supra. Duxbury ...” liar or unusual circumstances and adopted following definition of ordi- the same source defines the term “cur- nary expenses and current from Oster to expense” “Ordinary, regular, rent as and appropria- resolve whether three different continuing expenditures for the mainte- tions in the 1992 Appropriations General property, carrying on of an nance of beyond Bill the scope were of that act: office, municipal government etc.” expenses “ordinary [T]he term of the Id. executive, judicial depart- and foregoing, In addition to the [¶ 24.] ments of the state” [is construed] cited Montana and Ohio court deci- Court any expense mean related which recurs defining ordinary and current ex- sions regularity certainty. and The term penses as follows: expenses “current of state institutions” v. Agency The court Miller Ins. [in equivalent on the other hand is to “run- Porter, 20 P.2d said 643] Mont. ning expenses” which includes usu- ordinary expenses include the current al, regular, continuing expenditure and expenses government “Any and property for maintenance of and for from time expense which recurs time to conducting regular and authorized reasonably anticipated as and is to be functions of the institution.... Extraor- proper likely to occur order for the dinary, emergent, exceptional and ex- operation government ... of the state penses any purpose for fall likewise Similarly ...” the Ohio court in State appro- “All other category within the Brown, ex rel. [Janes ] Jones priations.” 148 N.E. said the Ohio St. at 744 Duxbury, (quoting 490 N.W.2d Ost- phrase expenses “current of the state er, 875). at government and state institutions” all three The Court went to strike officering addition to those incident to Duxbury at issue in as 'be- maintaining government the state yond scope general appropria- preserving repair “includes the property tions an bill: maintaining property the state credits; tax an for construc- and, roads, applied to government, as an Armory; tion of a National Guard maintaining repairing includes the appropriation to reimburse counties thereof, con- distinguished new presidential primary expenses. struction”.
Id. fol- Duxbury Oster and use the concept lowing terminology defining analysis, Based sepa- “ordinary and current of state sixty-eight Oster Court considered *11 Second, usual; normal; the two government” regular; — Services, common; recurring; according to es- Divi Department to the Social often settled; order; customary; rea- Aging tablished of Adult and are also sion Services sonable; by peculiar characterized apportioned ordinary expenses for of state circumstances; continuing expen- unusual government. respondents The establish carrying on an maintenance ditures for appropriated that to by affidavit office; expenses government; current for the Domestic the Division will be used time; ex- from time to expenses recurring (DASA) Abuse Pro Abuse and Sexual likely anticipated as to reasonably penses program This was enacted gram. occur; and officing incident to expenses (see in 1989 SDCL 25-10-26 et legislature expenses maintaining government; has, inception, provided seq) and since its repair main- and preserving incident to throughout the state grants shelters expenses recurring property; taining state victims and sexual serving of domestic certainty; running ex- regularity and with and to shelter associations that offer abuse usual, continuing and ex- regular penses; to shel training and technical assistance property and for maintenance of penses Although program previous has ters. authorized conducting regular and for special appropriation ly been funded with contrast, following terms functions. longevity establishes it is an ordi its extraordinary describing ex- are used nary recurring expense govern of state extraordinary exceptional and ob- penses: if may ment. Even it have been an ex state; to the jects essential welfare traordinary expense inception, at as stated exceptional and extraordinary, emergent Oster, 456, 136 at any purpose. extraordinary may “the and be unusual definitions, these
[¶ 28.] Given
ordinary. The expanding
come usual and
appropriations fall
challenged
none of the
pro
cost
various health
welfare
extraordinary
ex
category
into the
grams
example.”
is an
scope
penses beyond the
respondents
expense
assert that the
is
sepa
to the
appropriations bill
extraordinary by
pro
virtue of the
requirement of SD
rate bill-two-thirds vote
Yet,
gram’s grants
programs.
to non-state
First,
XII, §
regard
art
2.
Const
authority
offer no
re
appropriation,
fair
'statutes
the state
are,
programs
per
grants
non-state
fair be held date back
quiring that a state
se, extraordinary expenses
state govern
appropriating
to at least 1903 and statutes
Oster,
ment. As this Court stated
“the
purpose
for that
are of the same
government
functions of state
cover a wide
1-21-9; 1-21-14.
vintage.
SDCL
See
range of
Id.
is not for this
activities]!]”
by affidavit that
respondents
establish
to determine the wisdom of the ac
Court
ex
appropriation
funds from the
will be
legislature.
funded
regularly
tivities
expenses6 of the
pended
operating
for the
regard,
In this
must be left to
“[m]ueh
provide no evi
petitioners
State Fair and
wisdom, integrity,
good judgment
Thus,
contrary.
any sugges
dence
legislators.”
our
Id.
tion that
of funds for
Third, the same conclusion can
type
holding the State Fair is
extraor
regard
drawn with
expense
dinary,
exceptional
emergent, or
Department Agriculture,
Division
is without merit.
extraordinary expenses
such as for new facili-
indication whatsoever
There
no
“operating expenses" would include
ties construction.
of these
cies,
Forestry.
consequent impracticability
and the
of Resource Conservation
*12
by affidavit that
in
respondents
fixing
arbitrary
establish
advance an
and inexora-
appropriated to the Division will
the funds
ble rule for the limitation and control of
conjunction
in
with local funds to
be used
necessary
taxation
to meet them[.]” Ost-
surplus
er,
motor vehi-
acquire
and refurbish
ment and the
except,
which have no common basis
legislature,
The
lar choice was made here.
perhaps,
separate inability
their
appropriations au-
in the exercise of its
receive a favorable vote on their own.
it
thority, obviously resolved that
merits;
ap-
prudent
challenged
more
to fund the
(2)
prevent the unintentional and un-
To
propriations
general appropriations
in the
knowing passage
provisions
of
in-
fully
prior continuing
than to
fund the
serted
a bill
which the title
for the Bred
Fund
appropriations
intimation; and,
gives no
Revolving Fund.
Special Racing
and the
(3)
apprise
public
of mat-
fairly
To
simple majority
If
of the legislature
even a
ters which are contained
the vari-
support
continued to
those
prevent
ous bills and
fraud or
transfer,
entirety
opposed
their
as to matters
deception
option
voting against
had the
being
Legislature.
considered
general appropriations
They
bill.
chose
interpreted
have
Section 21 to
We
not to.
“ ‘First,
requirements:
contain two
paraphrase
To
Anderson
that no law shall embrace more than
context,
it
un-
though may
second,
current
be an
that
subject,
permit
policy
legislature
wise
subject
expressed
shall be
in the ti-
”
repeal by majority
pro-
amend or
vote what it
tle.’
requirements
mandatory.
passed by
majority,
a two-thirds
“the
vision are
has
Youngquist,
S.D.
Youngquist must be read with care. Much
sions of the act.”
paid
portion
attention has been
to that
(emphasis
N.W.2d at 88
While
Youngquist striking down the transfer of cer-
a writ of
this Court did issue
special highway
tain
funds as a violation of a
Youngquist, was not issued because of
it
provision
highway
constitutional
infirmity
transfer of
constitutional
in the
However, this Court
that is not at issue here.
funds,
Secretary
but because the
of State
that,
invalidity
specifically held
"the
petition
to honor a referendum
on the
failed
highway
provision for transfer of
funds to the
transfer act.
provi-
fund
not affect the other
[did]
¶
Barnett,
84 at
at money
variety
purposes.
1998 SD
for a
original)(quoting
Accounts Court further determined the title of the
Williams,
Inc.
Management,
484 general appropriations bill need not state
(S.D.1992)) (citations
particularity
purposes
all of the
omitted).
appropriates money
which it
and that to do
so would cast an
unnecessary
“onerous and
that
argue
Petitioners
legislature.
burden” on the
As was ex-
challenged appropriations violate article
plained in full:
III, § 21
they change
because
or amend
permissible
law on the
existing
use of
singular
[An
bill's]
sub-
funds contained in the Bred Racing Fund
ject is
money.
Fund,
Special Racing Revolving
and the
purpose
serves no other
and its contents
subject
matter not
appropria
within the
are constitutionally defined and limited.
Barnett,
tions. As noted in
necessity,
appropriates
Of
it
money for
typically
an argument
goes
Such
hand in
variety
purposes all which need
argument
hand with
a matter of
not be stated with particularity in the
legislation
substantive
improp-
has been
title. To do so would cast an onerous
erly
in a general appropriations
included
and unnecessary
legisla-
burden on the
Brown,
(rule
bill. See
[¶ 41.] The discussion Part 1 re- 21, with the requirements of Art. Section there, solves this issue. As we conclude III. controlling The expressed rule is challenged appropriations do not sub- Morgan, landmark case of State v. 2 stantively change or existing amend law on 32, 314, S.D. 48 N.W. as follows: the use of Racing funds the Bred Fund Special Racing or the Revolving Fund. “The requirement constitutional in our Rather, previously transfer constitution is addressed to the sub- subject continuing appropriation ject. subject This single. must be purposes those to the general fund and provisions The of the act must all reappropriate those funds. As observed directly subject, relate to the same under Part appropria- modification of an connection, have a natural and not be tion proper subject is a in a general appro- foreign subject as stated in the Chiles, priations bill. See 682 So.2d at title. subject The title must state the can, n. (appropriations course, 3 bill information, of the act for the only modify existing an law appro- directed at legislature, of the public of the priations). generally. When the title of a legisla- Oster, 451-52, at expresses S.D. tive act a general or N.W.2d at purpose Court determined that single, which is all matters general appropriations the title of the which naturally reasonably are and adequate it, to alert average reader connected with and all measures singular subject its which will or facilitate the accom- notwithstanding stated, plishment purpose bill’s of the so executive, expenses legisla- dinary There is no to its title. germane are judicial departments tive and restriction as to constitutional state, expenses current state insti- single sub- scope magnitude tutions, debt, interest on and ject act.” appropri- for common schools. All other Oster, 450-51, 81 S.D. at by separate ations shall be object, each but one and shall embracing principles are true These same [¶ 43.] vote of require two-thirds all the mem- appropriations bill was here. Legislature. of each branch of the bers and, as re- captioned as such properly in question The funds are autho- [¶ 50.] appro- challenged under Part solved (S.D. by Racing rized SDCL 42-7-71 Bred scope fall within the priations properly Fund) (Special SDCL 42-7-79.1 Thus, there is no violation of SD its title. Fund). Racing Revolving The funds are III, § 21. Const art to “be used the commission to encour- foregoing, we Based [¶ 44.] and the age racing raising horse are not entitled to a petitioners hold that breeding of horses Dakota” South prohibition barring the peremptory writ of (SDCL 42-7-71) “by [Racing] out, disbursing, respondents paying purses oper- commission to increase or for from the South Dakota allocating ations, or” ... incidental law enforcement Special Racing and the Racing Bred Fund (SDCL 42-7-79). chal- pursuant Fund Revolving argues that the trans- lenged appropriations in Section 26 fers from the South Dakota Bred bill. general appropriations Special Racing Revolving Fund and the denied. [¶ 45.] Writ §XII 2 of the Fund do not violate Article Dakota Constitution. The confer- Justice, GILBERTSON, Chief opinion agrees, claiming ence these trans- KEAN, concur. Judge, Circuit Legisla- “the permissible fers are because *16 money prior to a ture transfer SABERS, AMUNDSON, [¶ 47.] appropriation special in a fund continuing Justices, dissent. that general reappropriate fund and KEAN, money purposes.” for new Judge sitting Circuit [¶ 48.] Justice, MILLER, Retired Chief who was obvious, however, the It is that [¶ 52.] at the time this a member the Court sub- challenged general appropriation bill disqualified was but was action submitted respect changes the law with stantively participate. did (2) (1) funds, spend the person who will (3) spent and the amount of the funds SABERS, (dissenting). Justice spent. purposes for the funds will be which challenged appropriations The [¶ 49.] Therefore, appropriation it constitutes an § 2 Da- violate Article XII of the South bills, by separate which “shall be prohibits sub- kota which Constitution object, embracing but one and shall each legislation general appro- stantive all the mem- require a two-thirds vote of priations bill. Legislature.” bers of each branch of §XII 2 of Dakota Article the South upon neither The cases relied provides: Constitution fully support explain nor the exact basis writ of requested bill em- denial of the general appropriation The shall example, For the case nothing prohibition. for or- brace Again, vote. this case lends credence to Kelly, this Court held State v. than legislators’ position, of funds rather that of attempted appropriation separate agencies violated Article State’s. bill for special appropria- §XII 2 that mandates If the State’s rationale is fol- by separate each em- tions “be made special lowed and such from transfers 345, object[.]” 65 S.D. bracing but one allowed, general nothing funds are there is (1937). 319, Specifical- 274 N.W. prevent the transfer of from ly, stated: this Court virtually any special fund to the appropriation under consideration is any ordinary expense. fund for This de- a direct violation of such constitutional put place by safeguard feats the art XII A provision 2]. Const [SD Constitution, specifically South Dakota support for the continuing requirement of a two-thirds vote in both Liquor and maintenance of the Control passage appropria- houses for of certain Department and the Commission Jus- purpose safeguard tions. The of this is to Safety single not for a tice and Public provide adequate guaranty against “an un- object special purpose. uphold or To funds, imprudent or wise use —a providing funds for sufficiently emergen- rule flexible to meet separate departments, and distinct insti- cies, yet trustworthy, safe and because tutions, agencies govern- of the state resting enlightened in the conscience and permit objectionable prac- ment is to judgment large proportion so provision tice at which the constitutional people’s representatives.” immediate In under consideration is directed. The at- Taxation, re Limitation tempted appropriation is void and of no N.W. effect, application and the for a writ of granted. is therefore AMUNDSON, (dissenting). Justice conclusion, reaching Id. this Court record discloses §XII applicable stated that Article session, during the 2001 three regardless of “whether revenue appropriations bills were introduced for treasury is derived from tax- expenditure the transfer of funds and the ation, fees, license other specifically, of funds. More Senate Bill 51 ” pro- Id. This constitutional sources.... providing for the transfer of funds to So- designed safeguard public vision “was February cial Services was considered on against hasty leg- revenues and ill-advised yeas nays, 2001. The vote was 15 to 19 Despite reasoning islation!.]” Id. em- *17 failed, it it so did not receive two- ployed in Kelly, result reached (2001). Next, majority. thirds S.J. 560 grant prohibition, of the writ of the State 176, Bill provided Senate which that mon- support uses this case as for the denial of ey from the funds could be transferred for prohibition. the writ of “any purposes provided by Leg- other islature,” Similarly, passed by also relies on State Senate Duxbury Harding, February yeas the case of 490 2001 with a vote of 20 (S.D.1992). (2001). 14 Duxbury, nays. N.W.2d 740 S.J. at 559 On Feb- 27, 2001, however, Bill pre- ruary Court issued writ of failed to appropri- majority vent the disbursement of certain obtain a in the House two-thirds 22 yeas nays. ated funds. The were held with a vote of and 48 H.J. (2001). Bill they Finally, invalid because had not been the sub- at 754 House ject Fair, separate requiring provided money bills which two-thirds
75 above, February As is evident from through the House passed special appropriations pass. these did not nays. yeas to 21 a vote of hand, midnight the other at the hour On (2001). House, however, H.J. at incorporated into the were General adopt extensive amendments refused to Appropriation Notwithstanding Act. Senate, transferring such as expenditures, the general merits of these fund, which could provide appropriation bill should not a re- any purpose provided have been used expenditure lease valve for the reducing the race- Legislature, derogation funds in of the constitution. March amounts. On track’s disbursement Therefore, See SD Const art §XII I 2, 2001, adopt not to the House voted I authorize Justice to state that Sabers yeas amendments with a vote of Senate join his dissent. (2001). at 842 The same nays. H.J. appoint not to day the House also voted a vote for this Bill with
new committee at 843 yeas nays. to 16 H.J. Thus, failed to the third bill at issue also required majority
obtain the two-thirds vote.