Opinion ID: 900924
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Recount Board Invalidly Convened

Text: [¶ 7.] We begin our analysis with SDCL 13-7-19.3, which provides in relevant part: A recount shall be conducted when, within five days after completion of the official canvass of a school district regular or special election at which a question is approved or disapproved by a margin not exceeding two percent of the total votes cast in the election, any three registered voters of the school district file a petition duly verified by them, setting forth that they believe a recount will change the outcome. A recount board shall be appointed by the business manager who shall appoint one person on each side of the question and one person who shall be mutually agreed upon by the other two appointed.... (Emphasis added). It is undisputed that the margin of approval was less than two percent of the total votes cast and that four registered voters signed a notarized petition setting forth their belief that a recount would change the outcome. However, it is also undisputed that none of the signatories swore, under oath, that the content of the petition was true. Thus, one of the three statutory conditions for investing the business manager with the authority to appoint a recount board remained unmet. [¶ 8.] The concept of verification has a special meaning in the law. The first definition assigned to the word verify by Black's Law Dictionary is [t]o confirm or substantiate by oath or affidavit. 1561 (7th ed 1999). Thus, a verification is a [c]onfirmation of correctness, truth, or authenticity, by affidavit, oath, or deposition; [or][an][a]ffidavit of [the] truth of [the] matter stated[;] ... the object of verification is to assure good faith in averments or statements of parties. Id. Here, no oath or affidavit verified the petition for recount. Verification is important, particularly when, as here, the petition impugned the result of an election. [¶ 9.] We faced the verification requirement in a recent case. See In the Matter of the Election Contest as to Watertown Special Referendum Election of October 26, 1999, Pertaining to Referred Ballot Issues No. 1 and 2, 2000 SD 43, 607 N.W.2d 920. There, both the majority and dissenters agreed that no verification resulted unless the signatories took an oath to affirm the truth of the matter asserted, the majority holding that an oral verification sufficed, the dissenters believing that a written verification was required. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 14, 21, 607 N.W.2d at 923, 924, 926. [¶ 10.] Being unverified, the petition presented to the business manager was invalid. Thus, the trial court correctly reasoned that SDCL 13-7-19.3 did not vest the business manager with the authority to appoint a recount board. [5] Without that authority, as the court ruled, the recount board had no jurisdiction to take any action at all. [¶ 11.] Nonetheless, Luetzow argues that courts have no authority to review the recount board's decision. See SDCL 12-21-6 (certiorari proceedings are excluded in school and municipal elections). He quotes footnote 3 from Becker: Except for allegations of a corrupt election and procedures provided for their resolution under SDCL ch 12-22, the [L]egislature has determined the recount board is the final arbiter of any question arising out of a municipal election recount dispute. 1999 SD 17 at ¶ 11 n. 3, 588 N.W.2d at 917 n. 3. Luetzow insists that school district election recounts fall under the same category. However, in Becker, we also wrote: Under certiorari, this Court may consider only whether the recount board had jurisdiction to recount the ballots and whether it regularly pursued its authority in doing so.    The test of jurisdiction is whether there was power to enter upon the inquiry and not whether the determination by the court [or in this case, a board] of a question of law or fact involved is correct. Janssen v. Tusha, 68 S.D. 639, 5 N.W.2d 684, 685 (1942) (internal citations omitted). Id. at ¶ 15, 588 N.W.2d at 917-18. [¶ 12.] We have never regarded as unreviewable a decision of a recount board called into existence invalidly. On the contrary, SDCL 21-31-1 specifically empowers courts to invoke writs of certiorari when boards ... have exceeded their jurisdiction[.] As the board was invalidly convened, it acted without jurisdiction.