Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thompson v. Lynde

Supreme Court of South Dakota

September 26, 2018

DOYLE THOMPSON, DEBRA HUBER, ALLEN SKATVOLD and DENNIS D. EVENSON, Petitioners and Appellants,
v.
PAM L. LYNDE, in her capacity as Deuel County Auditor; and LYNN PEDERSON, STEVE RHODY, GARY JAEGER, DEANNE DUMKE, and GARY DEJONG, in their capacities as Deuel County Commissioners, Respondents and Appellees.

          CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS ON AUGUST 27, 2018

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT DEUEL COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA THE HONORABLE CARMEN MEANS Judge

          THOMAS F. BURNS Watertown, South Dakota Attorney for petitioners and appellants.

          DANNY R. SMEINS Britton, South Dakota Attorney for respondents and appellees.

          JENSEN, JUSTICE.

         [¶1.] The Appellants submitted three petitions to the Deuel County Auditor seeking referendum on an ordinance amending the Wind Energy System (WES) Requirements of the Deuel County Zoning Ordinance. The Auditor rejected two of the petitions, leaving an insufficient number of valid signatures to trigger a referendum election. The Appellants appeal the circuit court's denial of an application for a writ of mandamus. We affirm.

         Background

         [¶2.] On May 23, 2017, the County Commissioners of Deuel County, South Dakota passed Ordinance B2004-01-23B. The title of the ordinance read:

Ordinance B2004-01-23B
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED, An Ordinance to amend Section 1215 Wind Energy System (WES) Requirements Adopted by Ordinance B2004-01, July 6, 2004, as amended, of the Zoning Ordinance of Deuel County.

         The Auditor's notice of adoption of the ordinance was published on May 31, 2017.

         [¶3.] After the notice was published, the Appellants began circulating petitions to obtain the necessary signatures to refer the ordinance for a special election. The Appellants circulated three different petitions (Petition 1, Petition 2, and Petition 3). All three petitions were timely submitted to the Auditor.

         [¶4.] On July 11, 2017, the Auditor informed the Appellants that only Petition 1, containing 19 signatures, was accepted. The Auditor rejected Petitions 2 and 3 for failing to comply with SDCL 7-18A-17. The Auditor noted that Petition 2, containing 51 signatures, was missing the title of the ordinance, and Petition 3, containing 252 signatures, was missing the words "Wind Energy Systems (WES) Requirements" from the title of the ordinance as well as the date the ordinance was passed.[1] After rejecting Petitions 2 and 3, the Auditor determined that the Appellants had collected only 19 of the 145 signatures needed for a referendum on the ordinance.

         [¶5.] The Appellants sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Auditor to accept the rejected petitions and schedule a special election on the ordinance. The issue was submitted to the circuit court on affidavits and written arguments. The court denied the application for writ of mandamus determining 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 Appellants appeal the circuit ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.