In re the Request of Governor Dennis Daugaard For An Advisory Opinion In the Matter of The Interpretation of South Dakota Constitution Article v. §§ 2

801 N.W.2d 438

2011 S.D. 44

In re the Request of Governor Dennis DAUGAARD for an Advisory Opinion in the Matter of the Interpretation of South Dakota Constitution Article V, §§ 2 and 6.

No. 26089.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Original Proceeding.

Decided July 26, 2011.

ADVISORY OPINION

TO HIS EXCELLENCY, DENNIS DAUGAARD, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

[¶ 1.] Pursuant to South Dakota Constitution article V, § 5 you have requested an advisory opinion from the Supreme Court on two important questions of law dealing with the eligibility requirements for individuals seeking appointment to the South Dakota Supreme Court. You ask:

1. What actions or intent are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Article V, §§ 2 and 6 that justices of the Supreme Court be voting residents within the district from which they are appointed?

2. At what point in time, relative to the appointment or the assumption of the position on the Supreme Court, must these actions be undertaken or intentions be formed?

[¶ 2.] In 2009 Governor M. Michael Rounds posed questions relating to Supreme Court eligibility to this Court in his request for an advisory opinion. In re Request of Governor M. Michael Rounds for an Advisory Opinion in the Matter of the Interpretation of South Dakota Constitution Article V, Section 5, # 25467, December 3, 2009 (unpublished). The Court declined to answer the request because there was no vacancy on the Supreme Court that the Governor was required to fill. We noted:

At this time there is no vacancy on the Supreme Court that you are required to fill. Accordingly, there is no contemplated exercise of your executive power as required by Article V, § 5. In addition, this matter does not present a solemn occasion because there is little likelihood of the circumstances surrounding your questions arising during the time remaining in your term. Any opinion offered by this Court at this time would be based merely upon speculation. Such an opinion may not be conclusive on the rights of future parties and thus may not be binding on anyone. Although we realize your question is primarily one of law, the factual circumstances presented in the course of an actual vacancy, application, or proposed appointment may better inform our decision. An opinion at this time could unwittingly hamper your successor in a manner unforeseeable at this juncture. We decline to do this.

Id.

[¶ 3.] Currently, however, there is a vacancy as of June 8, 2011 on the Supreme Court created by the retirement of Justice Judith K. Meierhenry. SDCL 3–4–1(2) (“Every office shall become vacant on the happening of ... resignation[.]”).

A vacancy, as defined by law, in the office of a Supreme Court justice or circuit court judge, shall be filled by appointment of the Governor from one of two or more persons nominated by the judicial qualifications commission.

S.D. Const. art. V, § 7; SDCL 3–4–3(1). In accordance with Article V, § 7, the Judicial Qualifications Commission has provided you with a list of nominees for the position vacated by Justice Meierhenry's retirement. Justice Meierhenry served from the Fourth Supreme Court District ¹ and the person you appoint will as well. Several of the people that the Judicial Qualifications Commission nominated for that position, however, are not residents of the Fourth Supreme Court District as of the date of your letter. The crux of your request is the timing of when a nominee for appointment to the vacant Supreme Court position serving the Fourth District must establish voting residency in that district.

[¶ 4.] Pursuant to Article V, § 5, “The Governor has authority to require opinions of the Supreme Court upon important questions of law involved in the exercise of his executive power and upon solemn occasions.” This provision is disjunctive. In re Opinion of Supreme Court Relative to the Constitutionality of Chapter 239, Session Laws of 1977, 257 N.W.2d 442 (S.D.1977). It presents two situations in which an opinion can be given. Id. [¶ 5.] In this case, you are required to exercise your executive power and appoint a nominee to the Supreme Court vacancy. S.D. Const. art. V, § 7. The action that you take will be affected by our answer to the questions you pose. To His Excellency Wollman, 268 N.W.2d 820, 822 (S.D.1978). “The power which the people of this state have entrusted to a [Supreme Court justice] affects the people's lives, welfare and property to no small extent.” In re Fuller, 2011 S.D. 22, ¶ 38, 798 N.W.2d 408, 419 (quoting Cummings v. Mickelson, 495 N.W.2d 493, 496 (S.D.1993) (plurality)). Because you raise important questions of law involved in the exercise of your executive power, we will answer those questions.

ANALYSIS

[¶ 6.] “The language used in a constitution is of primary importance in determining when the qualification to office must exist.” Cummings, 495 N.W.2d at 498. The words used in a constitutional provision “cannot be analyzed in isolation to the exclusion of the rest of the provision.” Id. at 500. Additionally, in construing a constitutional provision, we “must give regard to the whole instrument, must seek to harmonize the various provisions, and must, if possible, give effect to all the provisions.” S.D. Auto. Club v. Volk, 305 N.W.2d 693, 696 (S.D.1981).

South Dakota Constitution Article V, § 2

[¶ 7.] Your inquiry suggests that Article V, §§ 2 and 6 each require justices of the Supreme Court to be voting residents of the district from which they are appointed. Article V, § 2, however, makes no mention of voting resident or voting residence. It provides:

The Supreme Court is the highest court of the state. It consists of a chief justice and four associate justices. Upon request by the Supreme Court the Legislature may increase the number of justices to seven. All justices shall be selected from compact districts established by the Legislature, and each district shall have one justice.

[¶ 8.] The language key to your inquiry is that “[a]ll justices shall be selected from compact districts established by the Legislature, and each district shall have one justice.” Id. “Initially, it should be noted that words such as ‘from,’ when used with respect to measurement of time, have no fixed or specific meaning. ‘Standing alone they are ambiguous and equivocal.’ ” Cummings, 495 N.W.2d at 500 (citing Fetters v. City of Des Moines, 260 Iowa 490, 149 N.W.2d 815, 818 (1967)). However, the historical background of this provision provides guidance in determining its meaning and intent. City of Sioux Falls v. Sioux Falls Firefighters, Local 814, 89 S.D. 455, 234 N.W.2d 35, 37 (1975).

[¶ 9.] “Usually amendments [to the Constitution] are adopted for the express purpose of making a change in the existing system.” Volk, 305 N.W.2d at 697. The 1972 revision of Article V that was approved by the electorate “reorganized the article, established a unified judicial system and made numerous changes throughout.” S.D. Const. art. V, Historical Note. Article V, § 2, combined the former provisions of Article V, §§ 5, 6, and 11 of the 1889 South Dakota Constitution. While changes were made, see S.D. Const. art. V, § 2 Historical Note, significant to our analysis is that the 1972 amendment retained the 1889 requirement that justices be chosen from “districts.” ²

[¶ 10.] To determine the significance of the selection of justices from districts we resort to the view of the drafting body of that provision. Cummings, 495 N.W.2d at 499. The minutes of the Constitutional Revision Commission reveal that its members debated whether there was a need for the geographical distribution of justices or whether justices should be selected at large.³ It was the Commission's consensus that justices should be geographically distributed. The electorate in 1972 concurred in this view.

South Dakota Constitution Article V, § 6

[¶ 11.] Article V, § 6 provides:

Justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the circuit courts and persons presiding over courts of limited jurisdiction must be citizens of the United States, residents of the state of South Dakota and voting residents within the district, circuit or jurisdiction from which they are elected or appointed. No Supreme Court justice shall be deemed to have lost his voting residence in a district by reason of his removal to the seat of government in the discharge of his official duties. Justices of the Supreme Court and judges of circuit courts must be licensed to practice law in the state of South Dakota.

It is this provision, and not Article V, § 2, that requires Supreme Court justices to be “voting residents within the district ... from which they are elected or appointed.”

[¶ 12.] We thoroughly analyzed the historical background, legislative history and language of Article V, § 6 in Cummings, 495 N.W.2d at 498–502. The plurality of the Court concluded: “We hold that a person appointed to the office of circuit court judge must establish residency in that circuit prior to assuming said office.” Id. at 502. Based on the plurality opinion's analysis of § 6, we adhere to that holding in responding to today's inquiry. The text of § 2 establishes the same requirement applies to persons selected by the Governor to become Supreme Court justices. They must establish voting residency prior to taking the oath of office which vests them with the office of justice.⁴

The Juxtaposition of South Dakota Constitution Article V, §§ 2 and 6

[¶ 13.] At first blush it appears that Article V, § 2's directive that “[a]ll justices shall be selected from compact districts ... and each district shall have one justice” is at odds with Article V, § 6's requirement that “justices ... must be ... voting residents within the district ... from which they are elected or appointed.” The members of the Constitutional Revision Commission, however, were acutely aware of the inconsistencies caused throughout the years by heavily amending the 1889 Constitution. See State v. Wilson, 2000 S.D....