Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2019

Home

November 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 22 Zoning Bulletin title of such ordinance . . . and the date of its passage . . . ." The Auditor noted that Petition 2 was missing the title of the Ordinance, and Petition 3 was missing the words "Wind Energy Systems (WES) Requirements" from the title of the Ordinance as well as the date the Ordinance was passed. After rejecting Petition 2 and 3, the Auditor determined that the Petitioners had collected on Petition 1 only 19 of the 145 signatures needed for a referen- dum on the Ordinance. The Petitioners then sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Auditor to accept the rejected petitions and schedule a special election on the Ordinance. The circuit court denied the Petitioners application for a writ of mandamus. The circuit court concluded that Petitions 2 and 3 were properly rejected by the Auditor because they "did not substantially comply with the statutory requirements of SDCL 7-18A-17." The Petitioners appealed. On appeal, they argued that Petition 3 (which contained 252 signatures) substantially complied with the statutory requirements. More specifically, they argued that the defects in Petition 3 were "mere technicalities presenting no reasonable risk of confusion, fraud, or corruption," and thus Petition 3 was improperly rejected. DECISION: Judgment of circuit court affirmed. Rejecting the Petitioners' argument, the Supreme Court of South Dakota concluded that because Petition 3 failed to substantially comply with the requirements of SDCL 7-18A-17, Petition 3 was properly rejected. In so concluding, the court acknowledged that SDCL 2-1-11 provides that petitions for referendum "shall be liberally construed, so that the real inten- tion of the petitioners may not be defeated by a mere technicality." For that reason, the court said that there is a presumption that referendum petitions are valid. However, the court also emphasized that statutory requirements "governing a referendum petition are substantial in character and not merely requirements of form." Thus, explained the court, statutory requirements for such petitions must be "substantially complied with in order to render the petition valid." The court further explained that "[s]ubstantial compliance" means that the statutory requirements must be "followed sufficiently so as to carry out the intent for which it was adopted." In other words, substantial compliance is achieved if the purpose of the statute is served, said the court. Looking to the facts of this case, the court found that the express condi- tions of SDCL 7-18A-17 were intended to "ensure that the face of the refer- endum petition readily informs a prospective signatory of the nature of the challenged ordinance, the date of its passage, and that the voter's signature corresponds to the actual ordinance being challenged." The court determined that to excuse compliance with those requirements would "frustrate the stat- ute's purposes." Because Petition 3 failed to substantially comply with the requirements of SDCL 7-18A-17, the court concluded that Petitioners' peti- tion for writ of mandamus, challenging the rejection of Petition 3 was proper. See also: Baker v. Atkinson, 2001 SD 49, 625 N.W.2d 265 (S.D. 2001). 6 ©2018 Thomson Reuters