Gov. Rhoden Requests Advisory Opinion of Supreme Court
PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Larry Rhoden requested an advisory opinion of the Supreme Court of South Dakota, asking whether the South Dakota Constitution grants the Lieutenant Governor, while serving as the President of the Senate, the authority to cast a vote in the event of a tie. You can find the Governor’s request for an advisory opinion here.
“If a tie-breaking vote cannot be cast for final passage, it will be impossible for any such piece of legislation to pass the legislature and be presented to the Governor for signature or veto. An advisory opinion from the Court is the only realistic way to resolve this question,” wrote Governor Larry Rhoden. “This is a matter of great public importance, and of significant impact on state government. Judicial interpretation would bring clarity and certainty to this matter going forward.”
Last week, a vote on the final passage of Senate Bill 25 resulted in a tie, leading the Lt. Governor to cast a tie-breaking vote. Senator Chris Karr challenged his action, and the Senate sustained that challenge. That entire exchange can be viewed here, beginning at 34:40.
With a Senator on extended absence due to illness, a tie vote could occur regularly in the coming weeks.
According to Article 5, Section 5, of the South Dakota Constitution, the Governor may request opinions of the state Supreme Court upon:
- Important questions of law involved in the exercise of the Governor’s executive powers; and
- Solemn occasions, such as this.
“As President of the Senate, my priority is to preside according to the Constitution and Senate rules and precedents,” said Lt. Governor Tony Venhuizen. “I would welcome clarity from the Court so there is no question in the future about the constitutional rule in this area.”
###
Doesn’t a tie vote result in a failed result?
He voted to break the tie, and that’s the action that Karr objected to.
Why is the executive branch running the senate? Shouldn’t Karr hold the gavel like the speaker does on the house side, that doesn’t make any sense.
It seemed to make sense to James Madison and those other 54 Framers of the U.S. Constitution over 250 years ago. It also seemed to make sense to the delegates of the 1889 Constitutional Convention drafting the SD Constitution to establish its statehood.
The VP presides over the U.S. Senate and casts tie-breaking votes as needed. It makes sense that SD would parallel that structure.
This must have been an uncomfortable setback for Tony.
Didn’t the last Democratic Lt. Gov break the tie in the state senate on whether or not South Dakota would initiate a state income tax? The President of the Senate had a vote in breaking ties back then. I’m not sure anything has changed in the senate rules regarding this matter since the 70s, but I’d curious to know if anyone knows otherwise.
The Senate President has always broken ties, at least back to the 36 years I’ve been around the process.
The Senate President isn’t required to vote in a tie, but can. There are times when they don’t, and just declare tied bills as lost.
On the income tax vote, that was Lt Gov Bill Dougherty. His son Tim could confirm, but I think Senate President Dougherty bucked his Governor, Kniep, and didn’t vote – letting it die
Bill Dougherty was one of the great ones.
Former Senator Mel Olson had a great trick on this rule, when we had 19 GOP and there were 16 Dems in 95-96 and staggers voted with the Dems a lot. It’s too long to explain here
Yes, the most famous tie vote. I believe the question is whether they can vote on a tie if it’s just members present and not elected.
Actually, there are always appointed members too, who weren’t elected
But it’s about reconciling two provisions in the constitution