Opinion ID: 1906367
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: improper circulation

Text: The first challenge under this objection deals with sections of the petition that were not signed by the circulators. A committee in Huron, South Dakota, coordinated the petition drive. Twenty-six sections of the petition containing 896 signatures were returned to the committee without the required notarized verification affidavits. Various members of the committee signed the verification affidavits, and another member notarized these signatures. These affiants did not see any of the alleged petitioners sign. One of them admitted that to her knowledge the names could have been taken from grave stones. Therefore, the verification oaths were knowingly false. In addressing the matter of fraudulent affidavits we said in Jensen v. Wells, 66 S.D. 236, 281 N.W. 99: It must also appear that there was an intent to deceive. The intent to deceive is the essential element of fraud. 66 S.D. at 243, 281 N.W. at 103. In Helgerson v. Riiff, 73 S.D. 467, 44 N.W.2d 126, we expanded upon this rule, saying: [I]ntent to deceive is not ordinarily susceptible of direct proof and in the absence of evidence to the contrary may be presumed where the falsity was necessarily known to the affiant. The effect of such presumption is to cast upon the party seeking to sustain the validity of a petition the burden of producing evidence to show that affiant acted in good faith. 73 S.D. at 474, 44 N.W.2d at 129-30. Defendant makes no attempt to meet this burden and concedes that these 896 signatures may not be counted. We agree. As we said in O'Brien v. Pyle, 51 S.D. 385, 393, 214 N.W. 623, 626, [N]o one is authorized by law to doctor up a sick petition. The second challenge under this objection concerns sections of the petition that contain signatures that the person who signed as circulator did not personally observe being made, either because more than one person circulated the section, or because the section was left unattended in commercial establishments by the circulator. It has long been the rule in this state that a circulator must personally witness each signature on a petition. Morford v. Pyle, 53 S.D. 356, 220 N.W. 907; Jensen v. Wells, 66 S.D. 236, 281 N.W. 99; Jensen v. Wells, 66 S.D. 269, 281 N.W. 357. SDCL 2-1-7 provides: Every petition proposing a measure must contain the substance of the law desired and must be signed in person by the petitioners, and every petition to submit a law to a vote of the electors must be signed in person by the petitioners . . . . (Emphasis supplied) The emphasized portion of the statute means that a person may sign only his own name. For this to be meaningful, it follows that each person must sign in the presence of the one who must ultimately attest to the legality of the signatures. This conclusion is buttressed by the words of the affidavit each circulator must sign: I, being first duly sworn, on oath depose and say that I circulated the above petition, and I hereby attest the legality of the signatures. [2] (Signed) _______________________ Subscribed and sworn to before me the ____ day of ___, 19____ (SEAL) ___________________________ (Officer Administering Oath) The purpose of the required affidavit is to establish the genuineness of the signatures on the petition. Morford v. Pyle, supra . To say that a person could attest to the legality of the signatures without having seen those signatures made is to make the words of the oath empty of meaning. Accordingly, we hold that only those signatures obtained in the presence of the circulator may be counted. [3] We find that in twelve sections of the petition containing 381 signatures, the circulator did not see any of the petitioners sign the petition. Accordingly, these signatures may not be counted. In thirteen sections of the petition containing 760 signatures, the circulators did not personally obtain all of the signatures on the section and were unable to identify which signatures they did obtain. In these instances, the circulators made a percentage estimate of the number of signatures they personally obtained. We may not arbitrarily decide which signatures were signed in the presence of the circulator and which were not. Accordingly, these sections must fail. Admittedly, as a result of this ruling some valid signatures will not be counted; however, as we said in Morford v. Pyle, supra , The person who circulates the petition is the agent of the petitioners, and they are bound by his acts. 53 S.D. at 362, 220 N.W. at 910. We also find that thirty-eight sections of the petition were circulated by persons other than the person who signed as circulator. As a result, 1,315 signatures were not personally obtained by the verifying circulator. These signatures may not be counted.