In Re Janklow

2000 SD 106
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 9, 2000
DocketNone
StatusPublished

This text of 2000 SD 106 (In Re Janklow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Janklow, 2000 SD 106 (S.D. 2000).

Opinion

Unified Judicial System

Formatting provided courtesy of State Bar of South Dakota
and South Dakota Continuing Legal Education, Inc.
222 East Capitol Ave.
Pierre, SD 57501-2596
HTML Code © State Bar of South Dakota, 1999


IN RE REQUEST OF GOVERNOR WILLIAM J. JANKLOW
FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION CONCERNING THE FURTHER INTERPRETATION
OF SOUTH DAKOTA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4
[2000 SD 106]

South Dakota Supreme Court
Original Proceeding
#21535

Request Received May 30, 2000; Opinion Filed Aug 9, 2000

TO HIS EXCELLENCY, WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

[¶1] Pursuant to Article V, § 5 of the South Dakota Constitution, you have requested an opinion of the Supreme Court on important questions of law concerning provisions in Article IV, § 4 of the South Dakota Constitution as it relates to the delivery of gubernatorial vetoes. In In Re Janklow, 1999 SD 27, ¶1, 589 NW2d 624, 625, we found a request for an advisory opinion on the time limits in this same section constituted a "solemn occasion" warranting issuance of the opinion. We reach a like conclusion here.

[¶2] Article IV, § 4 provides in pertinent part:

Whenever the Legislature is in session, any bill presented to the Governor for signature shall become law when the Governor signs the bill or fails to veto the bill within five days of presentation. A vetoed bill shall be returned by the Governor to the Legislature together with his objections within five days of presentation if the Legislature is in session or upon the reconvening of the Legislature from a recess ...

Whenever a bill has been presented to the Governor and the Legislature has adjourned or recessed within five days from presentation, the bill shall become law when the Governor signs the bill or fails to veto it within fifteen days after such adjournment or recess.

In Janklow, 1999 SD 27 at ¶7, 589 NW2d at 627, we held:

that the five-day time period provided in Article IV, § 4 of the South Dakota Constitution means five calendar days, and does not provide for the exclusion of Sundays or legal holidays from the computation of this time period. [The Court further joined] the jurisdictions holding with the general rule, that the day of presentment is to be excluded from computation while the last day is to be included.

[¶3] In view of our holding in Janklow, you have now asked the following questions regarding the further interpretation of Article IV, § 4:

1. Because the Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, uses specific words and phrases regarding when vetoes can be delivered, what do the following words and phrases mean:

a) "in session"
b) "recess"
c) "adjourned or recessed"
d) "adjournment"

2. Because the Constitution, Article IV, § 4, requires delivery of a veto message and bill to the Legislature, when and how can the Governor deliver veto messages and bills to the Legislature during recesses and adjournments, at night, over weekends, during national holidays, and during the fifteen day break before the final legislative day?

3. Because the Constitution, Article IV, § 4, requires delivery of a veto message and bill to the Legislature, who should receive the veto message and bill from the Governor to satisfy this requirement during recesses and adjournments, at night, over weekends, during national holidays, and during the fifteen day break before the final legislative day?

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶4] "'When words in a constitutional provision are clear and unambiguous, they are to be given their natural, usual meaning and are to be understood in the sense in which they are popularly employed.'" Janklow, 1999 SD 27 at ¶5, 589 NW2d at 626 (quoting Poppen v. Walker, 520 NW2d 238, 242 (SD 1994)). However, a constitutional provision is ambiguous when its language is reasonably capable of being understood in more than one sense. See Zoss v. Schaefers, 1999 SD 105, ¶6, 598 NW2d 550, 552 (statute is ambiguous when it is reasonably capable of being understood in more than one sense); State v. Hagerty, 580 NW2d 139, 143 (ND 1998) (in interpreting constitutional sections, courts apply general principles of statutory construction); Hagerty, 580 NW2d at 145 (ambiguity exists when good arguments can be made for two contrary positions about the meaning of language in state constitution).

AMBIQUITIES IN ARTICLE IV, § 4

[¶5] The first two paragraphs of Article IV, § 4 do contain some facial ambiguities that lead to the questions that have been presented. The plain language of the first paragraph gives the Governor five days from the presentation of a bill to veto it; otherwise, it becomes law whether the Governor signs it or not. To veto the bill, the Governor must return it to the Legislature within five days of presentation "if the Legislature is in session or upon the reconvening of the Legislature from a recess." Under paragraph two, however, if the Legislature has "adjourned or recessed" within five days of a bill's presentation, the Governor has fifteen days after the "adjournment or recess" to veto the bill or it becomes law whether the Governor signs it or not. The use of the term "recess" in both paragraphs one and two leads to obvious confusion over the precise number of days the Governor has to veto a bill if the Legislature adjourns or recesses after presenting it to the Governor, e.g., if the Legislature presents the Governor with a bill and then recesses for more than five days, but less than fifteen days, must the Governor return the bill immediately when the Legislature reconvenes or can the Governor wait until the fifteenth day after the recess?

CLARIFICATION OF AMBIQUITIES IN ARTICLE IV, § 4

[¶6] Some of the confusion in Article IV, § 4 can be alleviated with a careful reading of its first two paragraphs and with resort to other provisions of the constitution impacting on the meaning of terms such as "in session" and "recess." See South Dakota Auto. Club, Inc. v. Volk, 305 NW2d 693, 696 (SD 1981) (in construing a constitutional provision the court must give regard to the whole instrument, must seek to harmonize the various provisions, and must, if possible, give effect to all the provisions).

[¶7] Pursuant to South Dakota Constitution Article III, § 7, the Legislature must convene at "12 o'clock m." on "the second Tuesday of January." Under Article III, § 6, "regular session[s]" in odd-numbered years then continue for a period not to exceed forty legislative days which exclude Sundays, holidays and legislative recesses. "[R]egular session[s]" in even-numbered years may not exceed thirty-five legislative days which, again, exclude Sundays, holidays and legislative recesses. The constitution itself does not prescribe the duration or hours of a "legislative day." However, it is generally held that a "legislative day can be terminated only by an adjournment or some actual dispersing of the assembled membership amounting to the same thing." 81A CJS States § 50 (1977). (fn1)  While authorities appear to refer to breaks between legislative days as both "adjournments" or "recesses" (see id), the more appropriate term in this context is a "recess." As explained in 81A CJS States § 50 (1977):

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Hagerty
1998 ND 122 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1998)
Zoss v. Schaefers
1999 SD 105 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1999)
Poppen v. Walker
520 N.W.2d 238 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1994)
In Re Request of Governor Janklow
2000 SD 106 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2000)
In Re Request of Janklow
1999 SD 27 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1999)
South Dakota Automobile Club, Inc. v. Volk
305 N.W.2d 693 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2000 SD 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-janklow-sd-2000.