Court Opinion

ID: 9703257
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:47:35.526722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:46.930242
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur with most of the major premises of the well-reasoned majority opinion; however, I write specially to set forth my somewhat narrower basis for determination that the legislation, S.B. 225, meets the test for support of state government and its existing public institutions. I believe that the exceptions to the referendum provision of the constitution, Article III, § 1, should be strictly construed.1
I do not consider the 1978 Legislature’s enactment of the measures to improve branch line railroad services (SDCL 49-17-22 through SDCL 49-17-29) or the Regional Railroad Authority Act (SDCL 49-17A) sufficient foundation to say that state-owned railroads constitute an existing public institution. I believe, however, that they demonstrate a legislative recognition and reaction to what was perceived as a very real problem which I shall comment on later.
The key enactment of that legislature upon which I rely is codified as SDCL 49-17-19 and specifically authorizes the Board of Transportation to “contract for the acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance or operation of railroads or railroad facilities.” This provision was passed as part of Chapter 343 of the Laws of 1978 and did not contain an emergency clause. No one sought to attack the concept of state-owned railroads or railroad facilities embodied in that statute. Indeed, in the present action, petitioner’s attack is solely with respect to the one cent sales tax provision in S.B. 225. She has no interest in disputing the state purchase of the rail lines. She makes no attack against the other bills, S.B. 249 and S.B. 252, both of which are described in the majority opinion. As pointed out by her counsel in the responsive pleading filed herein: “S.B. 249 . is in no way the subject matter of this litigation which relates only to S.B. 225. . . Obviously revenue bonds for the funding of the activities authorized by S.B. 249 . . . and that which the legisla*761ture authorized by 225 are not interdependent even though they are in a generic sense related.”2 It is not a function of the court to expand a lawsuit beyond the perimeters of the pleadings and most certainly not into an area in which petitioner disclaims interest. The facet of the rail package which petitioner attacks falls clearly within the exception for support of an existing public institution.
I return for a moment to the enactments of the 1978 legislative session. As the majority opinion points out, this railroad emergency first became apparent when the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific took bankruptcy in 1977, and it rose to a crescendo with the action of the bankruptcy court in February of this year. I think that the 1978 legislation demonstrates a restrained but deliberate attempt of that legislature to meet the situation as it then existed and to plan for future contingencies which unfortunately have come to pass. The Governor and the legislature in the 1980 Session appear to have responded as they felt best to attempt to save the railroads at least in a limited way. That it was accomplished on the closing day of the session is accounted for by the desire of the legislators to go home and talk to the people before acting. I do not share the feeling of rancor of the petitioner who attributes to our legislature only base motives in appending the emergency clause to the disputed legislation. On the contrary, as pointed out in the majority opinion, even without the emergency clause S.B. 225 could not have been referred.
I concur in quashing the alternative writ of prohibition and dismissing the application for a permanent writ of prohibition in # 13079, and in quashing the alternative writ of mandamus and dismissing the application for a permanent writ of mandamus in # 13080.

. “This exception constitutes an additional grant of power to the Legislature, and, if any part of the grant is to be strictly construed, it is tes exception.” State ex rel. Wegner v. Pyle, 55 S.D. 269, 272, 226 N.W. 280, 281 (1929).

. The title of Senate Bill 249 states as follows:
“AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to authorize the state railroad authorities to acquire, construct, improve, equip and finance railroad facilities by issuing revenue bonds and to declare an emergency.”