Court Opinion

ID: 9718256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:19:38.549055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:58.212719
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 38.] I join Judge Anderson’s dissent because these statutes wholly fail to establish an (1) objective (2) standard (3) set by the legislature.
[¶ 39.] To pass constitutional muster concerning delegation of legislative authority, statutes must provide an (1) objective (2) standard (3) established by the legislature. A failure in any one respect is fatally defective to their constitutionality and these statutes fail in all three respects.
[¶ 40.] Instead of an objective standard set by the legislature, these statutes merely provide for “quality review” by a board to “produce such satisfactory results as the board may specify.” The three defects are obvious.
[¶ 41.] First, the statute merely provides for “quality review,” which is a process, not a standard. Second, instead of an objective test, the statutes call for “satisfactory results as the board may specify,” which is a subjective test. Finally, this legislation provides that the improper subjective test is to be performed by the board rather than set by the legislature as required.
[¶42.] Compare Cary v. City of Rapid City, 1997 SD 18, ¶ 23, 559 N.W.2d 891, where we recently stated:
The ultimate determination of the public’s best interest is for the legislative body, not a minority of neighboring property owners. Delegations of legislative authority which allow this ultimate decision to be made by a minority of property owners without an opportunity for review are unlawful.
(Citation omitted). Likewise, delegations of legislative authority which allow this ultimate decision to be made by a “quality review” board without objective standards, are unlawful. We should reverse.