[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

News Watch Home

Supreme Court says Deuel County auditor was right when she refused to hold election  

Credit:  By Bob Mercer, Public Opinion Capitol Bureau | Watertown Public Opinion | September 27, 2018 | www.thepublicopinion.com ~~

PIERRE – Deuel County Auditor Pam Lynde followed state law when she found there weren’t sufficient valid signatures on petitions seeking a special election on changes made in 2017 to the county wind-farm ordinance, the South Dakota Supreme Court said.

Four citizens asked Circuit Judge Carmen Means to order Lynde and the Deuel County Commission to hold the election. Judge Means turned down the request.

Justice Steven Jensen wrote the unanimous decision of the court upholding the circuit judge and the county auditor that was publicly released Thursday.

The county commission changed the wind ordinance May 23, 2017. The citizens submitted three petitions with 322 signatures to Auditor Lynde asking the issue be put to a county-wide vote.

Lynde found two petitions failed to meet standards set in state law. She said the third was valid but the 19 signatures fell short of the 145 needed for the referendum.

Circuit Judge Means agreed the auditor had reached the correct legal conclusion.

Citizens Doyle Thompson, Debra Huber, Allen Skatvold and Dennis D. Evenson asked the Supreme Court to review the judge’s decision, arguing the defects on the petition with 252 signatures were “mere technicalities presenting no reasonable risk of confusion, fraud, or corruption.”

Justice Jensen said the petition didn’t meet the legal requirements because the petition failed to identify the full title of the ordinance and didn’t provide the date of passage.

“To excuse compliance with these requirements would frustrate the statute’s purposes,” Jensen wrote.

Source:  By Bob Mercer, Public Opinion Capitol Bureau | Watertown Public Opinion | September 27, 2018 | www.thepublicopinion.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on Facebook

Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

National Wind Watch