Court Opinion

ID: 9685581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:50:12.151481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:08.001982
License: Public Domain

HOMEYER, Judge
(dissenting).
I would reverse. SDCL 13-6-50 and SDCL 13-6-51 clearly, definitely and unambiguously require .more than just a majority vote. These statutes pertaining to creation of superimposed high school districts or county high school districts repeatedly say a “majority of the electors” of the school districts is required. If the legislature had intended as sufficient a “majority of the electors voting at the election” it could easily have said so. It is obvious something more was intended.
With reference to reorganization elections generally, SDCL 13-6-47 and SDCL 13-6-49, the legislature required only “a majority of the [total] votes cast.” When language of a statute is clear, certain, and unambiguous, as I believe it here is, there is no need for construction. Kalmbach v. City of Mobridge, 81 S.D. 158, 132 N.W.2d 293; National College of Business v. Pennington County, 82 S.D. 391, 146 N.W.2d 731.
I do not agree that determining the number of electors in a school district prior to a special election creates any great problem or justifies a disregard of express legislative direction.