Schlichenmayer v. Johnson

141 N.W.2d 408, 82 S.D. 73, 1966 S.D. LEXIS 77
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 31, 1966
DocketFile 10243
StatusPublished

This text of 141 N.W.2d 408 (Schlichenmayer v. Johnson) 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
Schlichenmayer v. Johnson, 141 N.W.2d 408, 82 S.D. 73, 1966 S.D. LEXIS 77 (S.D. 1966).

Opinion

HOMEYER, Judge.

The narrow question presented by this appeal is the sufficiency of the designation of polling places in the published notice of special election on a proposed school district reorganization. The trial court refused to enjoin the election and the appeal was taken pursuant to SDC 1960 Supp. 33.0704.

A petition requesting that part of the master plan for school reorganization in Brown County be submitted to a vote was filed with the county superintendent pursuant to SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2014 as amended. The petition seeks to have included in the Aberdeen Independent School District No. 32 a part of the area of Bath Independent School District No. 19. 1 The Aberdeen dis *75 trict is comprised oí the city of Aberdeen and portions of nearby Aberdeen, Highland and Warner townships. The Bath district is comprised of all area within Bath township.

SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2015, as amended, prescribes the procedure to be followed upon filing of the petition:

"After the filing of a petition calling for a vote for approval or disapproval of a proposed school district as hereinbefore provided, the county superintendent shall cause a notice of a special election to be published at least once each week for two consecutive weeks preceding the special election. Such notice shall clearly state and contain the purpose of the election, a description of the boundaries of the proposed new district, and the time and place, or places, at which the election will be held. The election shall be held at the place or places within the proposed district which have been determined by the county superintendent concerned to be convenient for the voters."

The part of the notice of special election here pertinent caused to be published by the county superintendent provides:

"Polling is to take place at the following specified location within the proposed district area:
"Portion of Bath No. 19 — Harold Beckler Garage, SE 1/4 23- 123-63, 4 miles east and 1/2 mile south of Aberdeen, S. D.
"Precinct No. 1 — Monrose School
Precinct No. 2 — Tiffany School
Precinct No. 3 — Howard & Hedger School
Precinct No. 4 — Roosevelt School
Precinct No. 5 — Garfield School
Precinct No. 6 — Henry Nell School
*76 Precinct No. 7 — First National Bank
Precinct No. 8 — Lincoln School
Precinct No. 9 — Simmons Elementary School"

As we understand it, appellants 2 contend: (1) Since Bath township and each of the other townships, parts of which are in the Aberdeen district as presently constituted, are civil townships and each is a separate election precinct with a separate polling place under general election laws, 3 and possibly under general school election laws, 4 and (2) since SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2014, as amended, requires the proposition to be submitted "to a vote of the electors of the proposed district(s)", and (3) since the constitution defines an elector, 5 and he says an elector can only vote in his precinct, a failure to designate a separate polling place in each of the three civil townships comprising a part of the Aberdeen district makes the notice insufficient.

We do not believe either the constitution or the statutes require the construction contended for by appellants. General election statutes and school election statutes as such do not control the form and manner in which school district reorganization elections are to be conducted in this state. The legislature has seen fit to enact a special statute prescribing the procedure to be followed in such elections. This, statute empowers the county superintendent to designate the place or places at which the election will be held within the proposed district convenient for the voters and requires the notice to clearly state such place or places. Consequently, other statutes which appear to be in conflict with such reorganization election statute are inapplicable.

*77 The proposition was required to be submitted "to a vote of the electors of the proposed district(s) for their approval or disapproval." 6 The qualifications of an elector of a school district are prescribed by SDC 1960 Supp. 15.2307 which states in part:

"Any person, qualified under the Constitution, a resident of the United States for five years, of the state one year, of the county ninety days, and of the district thirty days, shall be entitled to vote at school elections * *

An elector of a school district is one who possesses the constitutional and statutory qualifications which entitle him to vote at any school district election in the state where he resides. 7 Residents of the Bath district living within the area sought to be included in the Aberdeen district were electors of that portion of the Bath district and also of the proposed district and were qualified to vote at the special election called by the county superintendent and she fixed the polling place for such electors at the Harold Beckler garage. Electors of the Aberdeen district were also entitled to vote and they could cast their ballots at any of the nine polling places within the existing Aberdeen district which was also a part of the proposed district. Precincts as such do not exist in school reorganization elections. Of paramount importance is ascertainment of the wishes of the voters in the respective areas which may comprise the new district. We find nothing in the statute which requires the county superintendent to advise persons qualified to vote as electors of their respective districts or portions of district at which polling place they can or must vote. In our opinion the designation of the places of election in the Aberdeen district by precinct numbers, even if such numbers coincide with precincts and polling places for other elections is surplusage and does not render the notice given pursuant to the statute inadequate.

A somewhat similar 'constitutional argument was made in a school district consolidation case under a statute which pro *78 vided that the determining election be held in one place within the area of the proposed district. 8 Nelson v. Lembcke, 43 S.D. 207, 178 N.W. 981. In answering this contention the court said:

"Manifestly in case two or more districts are sought to be consolidated the electors in one or more of the districts must vote outside their former school voting precincts, and perhaps outside their general election precincts.

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

Related

Nelson v. Lembcke
178 N.W. 981 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
141 N.W.2d 408, 82 S.D. 73, 1966 S.D. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlichenmayer-v-johnson-sd-1966.