Title: In Re Opinion of Supreme Court Rel. to Exec. Order 73-1
Citation: 204 N.W.2d 184
Docket Number: 11262
State: south-dakota
Issuer: south-dakota Supreme Court
Date: February 12, 1973

204 N.W.2d 184 (1973) In re OPINION OF the SUPREME COURT RELATIVE TO EXECUTIVE ORDER 73-1. No. 11262. Supreme Court of South Dakota. February 12, 1973. TO HIS EXCELLENCY, RICHARD F. KNEIP, THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. Your letter of February 8, 1973, requests the opinion of the Justices of the Supreme *185 Court upon important questions of law involving the exercise of your executive powers as Governor and upon matters which you state are of utmost solemn occasion relating to Section 8 of Article IV of the South Dakota Constitution adopted at the general election on November 7, 1972. Pursuant to Section 5 of Article V of the Constitution your request is now addressed to the "Supreme Court". The second paragraph of Section 8, Article IV of the Constitution of South Dakota provides: You state that on January 22, 1973, the fifth legislative day of the current session, you submitted in accordance with that section Executive Order 73-1 to change the current organization of the executive branch into a structure of 16 principal departments. You request our opinion on two questions as follows: It was stated in Opinion of the Judges, Re Legislative Reapportionment, 61 S.D. 107, 246 N.W. 295, with reference to the answering of such inquiries that: Giving that statement consideration, we have concluded that your inquiry should be answered; if the Order is invalid you may deem it your duty to recommend reorganization by the legislature, but if the Order is valid that would be unnecessary. On January 11, 1973, you asked the following question: In answer to that question in a January 15, 1973 opinion we stated that as Governor you had and could exercise the power and authority granted in the second paragraph of Section 8, Article IV, and the exercise of those powers was separate and independent of the power of the legislature referred to in the first paragraph of that section. It will be noted that your question concerned your action "by executive order or orders", and, consistent with the affirmative answer we gave, we believe that your action in connection with the exercise of this power may be by a single order or more than one order. Accordingly, we conclude that your action promulgating Executive Order 73-1 insofar as it was a single order, as opposed to being submitted in several orders, was a constitutional and valid exercise of your executive power. Our answer to question 1 obviates the necessity of answering question 2. Respectfully submitted this 12th day of February, 1973. In a recent advisory opinion on the subject of reorganization my position was summarized as follows: (1) Paragraph 1 of § 8, Art. IV of our Constitution is addressed solely to the legislature and commands that body, by law, to effectuate a complete plan of reorganization of the executive branch not later than July 1, 1974; (2) After the legislature has enacted its reorganization plan, Par. 2 of § 8 authorizes the governor, by executive order or orders, to "MAKE SUCH CHANGES" in the organization. In my opinion this contemplates isolated changes in the future as experience proves necessary or desirable for efficient administration. Consistent with legislative practice such proposed "Changes" in existing law should be embodied in separate executive orders. Otherwise, the legislature is not given a selective choice to approve or disapprove when two or more unrelated subjects are contained in a single rule. I adhere to my former opinion. Accordingly, in response to your present request it is my opinion that Executive Order 73-1 is an unconstitutional and invalid exercise of executive power. See In Re Opinion of the Justices, filed January 15, 1973, and reported in S.D., 203 N.W.2d 526. Respectfully submitted this 12th day of February, 1973. Because I adhere to my opinion set forth in In Re Opinion of the Justices, S.D., 203 N.W.2d 526, dated January 15, 1973, that the initial reorganization of the executive branch contemplated by Section 8, Article IV of the Constitution is a matter of legislative rather than executive duty and authority, any answer by me to the questions propounded in your letter of February 8, 1973, would be academic. Accordingly, I must respectfully decline to answer those questions. Respectfully submitted this 12th day of February, 1973.