Court Opinion

ID: 9528883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:44:57.834675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:26.436654
License: Public Domain

Utter, J.
(concurring) — I concur on the ground stated by the majority that our constitution, as interpreted by our earlier cases, states that a law providing for the support of state government and its existing institutions is not subject to referendum. Our previous cases hold appropriations for salary increases 'are properly part of the state budget. As *321the majority notes, the only authority in this country dealing with the issue of whether appropriations for salaries for state officers and employees are for the support of state government, holds affirmatively on that issue. State ex rel. Flanagan v. Taylor, 43 S.D. 264, 178 N.W. 985 (1920). There is no case in our country where constitutional provisions similar to ours have been held to permit a referendum under the circumstances present in this case.