Opinion of Justices

1999 SD 27
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 25, 1999
DocketNone
StatusPublished

This text of 1999 SD 27 (Opinion of Justices) 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
Opinion of Justices, 1999 SD 27 (S.D. 1999).

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


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

South Dakota Supreme Court
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
#20920

Request Received February 22, 1999; Opinion File Feb 25, 1999

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

[¶1] Pursuant to the authority vested in the Governor under Article V, §5 of the South Dakota Constitution, you have requested an opinion of the Supreme Court on an important question of law concerning Article IV, §4 of the constitution and the computation of time for the Governor to act to either sign a bill or fail to veto a bill. We believe this request constitutes a solemn occasion in which we should provide an advisory opinion, In re Janklow, 530 NW2d 367, 369 (SD 1995), and that the matter has a degree of urgency as the state legislature is currently in session.

[¶2] Article IV, §4 of the South Dakota Constitution provides in part that:

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.(fn1) 

Your specific question regarding interpretation of this provision is:

Does the phrase 'within five days of presentation' as found in Article IV, §4, mean five consecutive twenty-four hour periods starting the minute my office receives the enrolled bill or the calculation of time found at SDCL 15-6-6(a) or some other combination of days or hours?

[¶3]This question is one of first impression in this state; however, similar issues have been addressed in other jurisdictions. See Annotation, Computation of time allowed for approval or disapproval of bill by governor, 54 ALR 339 (1928). The general consensus of the jurisdictions having addressed the question is that, absent express provision to the contrary, the days are counted as calendar days of twenty-four hours each. Redmond v. Ray, 268 NW2d 849, 854 (Iowa 1978); In re Opinion of the Justices, 42 So2d 27, 29 (Ala 1949); McAlester v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 50 P2d 647, 649 (Okla 1935). The leading case in support of this rule is Okanogan Indian Tribes v. United States, 279 US 655, 49 SCt 463, 73 LEd 894 (1929), commonly referred to as "The Pocket Veto Case." Therein, the United States Supreme Court, interpreting a Constitutional provision similar to the one at issue here, declined to adopt counsel's suggestion to construe "days" as days the legislature is in session rather than "calendar days." The Court stated:

The words used in the Constitution are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and are to be given the meaning they have in common use unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary. The word 'days,' when not qualified, means in ordinary and common usage calendar days. This is obviously the meaning in which it is used in the constitutional provision, and is emphasized by 'Sundays' are excepted. There is nothing whatever to justify changing this meaning by inserting the word 'legislative' as a qualifying adjective.

279 US at 679, 49 SCt at 466, 73 LEd at 898 (internal citations omitted).

[¶4] In computing the five-day period, the day of presentment, regardless of time of day, is universally excluded from computation and the last day of the time period is included. Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 131 So2d 196, 197 (Fla 1961); State ex rel. Hebert v. Hall, 308 SW2d 828, 829 (Ark 1958); McAlester, 50 P2d at 649; Lewis v. Cozine, 29 SW2d 34, 36 (Ky 1930). "A 'day,' in this sense, begins at 12 o'clock midnight, and extends through 24 hours to the next 12 o'clock midnight." State ex rel. State Pharmaceutical Ass'n v. Michel, 27 So 565, 567 (La 1900); Black's Law Dictionary 396 (6th ed 1990). Although most states' constitutional provisions expressly exclude Sundays, where the question was raised as to legal holidays, courts have declined to exclude holidays, concluding their constitutions should not be expanded beyond what the plain language provides. State ex rel. Putnam v. Holm, 215 NW 200, 202 (Minn 1927).

[¶5] When interpreting a constitutional provision, we are guided by the following rules of construction:

First and foremost, the object of construing a constitution is to give effect to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. Schomer v. Scott, 65 SD 353, 274 NW 556, 559 (1937); State v. Jorgenson, 81 SD 447, 136 NW2d 870, 875 (1965). The Supreme Court has the right to construe a constitutional provision in accordance with what it perceives to be its plain meaning. State v. Neville, 346 NW2d 425, 428 (SD 1984). 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. Kneip v. Herseth, 87 SD 642, 214 NW2d 93, 102 (1974). If the meaning of a term is unclear, the Court may look to the intent of the drafting body. Cummings v. Mickelson, 495 NW2d 493, 499 (SD 1993).

Poppen v. Walker, 520 NW2d 238, 242 (SD 1994).

[¶6] Article IV, §4 was amended in 1972. The amendment is instructive and directly relates to the issue before us as it, inter alia, extended the time allowed for vetoing a bill from three days (Sundays excepted) to five days whenever the Legislature is in session and extended the time period from ten to fifteen days after the Legislature has recessed or adjourned. The drafters of the amendment struck the Sunday exception entirely but elected not to modify the word "days" with "legislative." The electors of this state approved the amendment on November 7, 1972. Our duty is to construe the amendment giving effect to the intent of the drafters and the people adopting it. Id.; see Opinion of the Justices, 673 A2d 1291, 1297 (Me 1996) ("In construing the Constitution, we seek the meaning that the words would convey to an intelligent, careful voter.").

[¶7] We also construe terms in a constitutional provision in pari materia. "That rule of construction supposes that all enactments are intended to be harmonious in their several provisions." Poppen, 520 NW2d at 247 (citing Sales Tax Liability of Valley Queen Cheese, 387 NW2d 39, 41 (SD 1986)). Applying this rule of construction, we note that Article III, §6, setting forth the number of days in a session of the Legislature, refers specifically to "legislative days." See generally 1963-64 Report of Attorney General at 6 (concluding the word "legislative" in Article III, §6 was surplusage because otherwise the phrase "excluding Sundays, holidays and legislative recess" in the provision would not be necessary). Again, the drafters of the amendment to Article IV, §4 could have added the word "legislative" to modify "days" if that was their intent or they could have expressly excluded any other day. "The framers of the Constitution use words in their natural sense and fully intend what they say." Kneip, 87 SD 642, 214 NW2d at 102 (citing Schomer v.

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

Related

The Pocket Veto Case
279 U.S. 655 (Supreme Court, 1929)
In Re Janklow
530 N.W.2d 367 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1995)
Sudbeck v. Dale Electronics, Inc.
519 N.W.2d 63 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1994)
Kneip v. Herseth
214 N.W.2d 93 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1974)
Poppen v. Walker
520 N.W.2d 238 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1994)
Redmond v. Ray
268 N.W.2d 849 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1978)
In Re the Sales Tax Liability of Valley Queen Cheese
387 N.W.2d 39 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1986)
State v. Neville
346 N.W.2d 425 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1984)
State Ex Rel. Oster v. Jorgenson
136 N.W.2d 870 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1965)
Cummings v. Mickelson
495 N.W.2d 493 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1993)
State Ex Rel. Hebert v. Hall
308 S.W.2d 828 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1958)
Lewis, Secretary of State v. Cozine
29 S.W.2d 34 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1930)
State Ex Rel. Putnam v. Holm
215 N.W. 200 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1927)
McAlester v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
50 P.2d 647 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1935)
Schomer v. Scott
274 N.W. 556 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1937)
Opinion of the Justices to the Governor
229 N.E.2d 715 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1999 SD 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opinion-of-justices-sd-1999.