8th Circuit holds SD's statutes unconstitutional for both initiation of statutes and amendment of the state constitution

 

In Heidelberger v Noem, handed down this morning, the 8^th Circuit has ruled on the constitutional challenges to SD’s regulations regarding the opportunity to initiate new statutes and to initiate constitutional amendments.  The trial court had held that the provisions of SDCL § 2-1-1.2 (initiation of new statutes) were too restrictive and in violation of the 1^st Amendment.  With respect to SDCL § 2-1-1.1 (amending the state constitution), the trial court upheld its provisions.  The 8^th Circuit, considering cross-appeals, upheld the trial court’s ruling as to unconstitutionality of SDCL § 2-1-1.2 (initiation of new statutes), but reversed as to SDCL § 2-1-1.1 (amending the state constitution).  As per this decision, the 8^th Circuit holds that BOTH  SDCL § 2-1-1.2 (initiation of new statutes) and SDCL § 2-1-1.1 (amending the state constitution) are unconstitutional, in violation of the 1^st Amendment. 

 

The 8^th Circuit further held that the trial court’s creation of a “a new deadline of six months before the general election” for SDCL § 2-1-1.2 was inappropriate and remanded for its removal.