STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 13, 1970

Miss Alma Larson
Secretary of State
Pierre, South Dakota 57501

OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 70-20

Interpretation of Section 8 of House Bill No. 847, 1970 Legislative Session. (Ch. 86 Laws of 1970)

Dear Miss Larson:

This office, and you, have received so many inquiries relative to the purposes and legislative intent expressed in Section 8 of House Bill No. 847, enacted as an emergency measure in the 1970 Legislative Assembly, that I am issuing this opinion to you in hopes of clarifying such enactment.

All of House Bill No. 847 acted to either amend or supplement SDCL 12-4 which embodies the South Dakota Single Registration Law, which originated in Chapter 92 of the Session Laws of 1961. Such law has been subject to prior amendments since enactment.

The Single Registration Law has as its purpose the regulation of registering as a qualified elector for any municipal, primary, general or independent school board election in the state. Such registration is a condition precedent to qualifying as an elector in a primary or general election, or a municipal, or school election. As it now exists, registration at the polls is abolished. Electors moving from one precinct in the same county, or from without the state, or from county to county in the state, who have resided in the election precinct for the proper time are required either, in cases of moving from county to county, or into the state, to register as an elector in a particular precinct, the same as an elector reaching the qualified age to vote. A person changing his party affiliation is required to make known his change of party affiliation. An elector moving from one election precinct to another within a county, rather than register, is required to follow the provisions relative to a "removal notice," in order to be registered in the proper election precinct.

All county registrants are alphabetically listed on the "master registration list," and, by virtue of other sections of said House Bill No. 847, the county auditor has fifteen full days prior to the date of the election in question to prepare the precinct registration lists from such master registration list, which precinct list must be delivered to the proper election officials at least one day prior to such election.

Because of prior amendments, each registrant since July 1, 1969 is required to receive a duplicate registration card showing he is a registered voter living at a designated place and, therefore, a qualified voter in a particular election, municipal, or independent school district precinct.

Under the present election laws, if a person appearing at the polls is listed on the precinct registration list, he is entitled to vote. If he appears but is not on such registration list, he may vote if he presents his duplicate registration card showing he is a voter in such precinct, and there is no showing that he was lawfully removed from such precinct registration list since July 1, 1969. The laws also provide that if such person is not in possession of such duplicate registration card he may request one of the election officials to communicate by telephone with the county auditor, and if the auditor or his deputy confirms that such person is a registered elector of such precinct, but his name was erroneously omitted from the precinct registration list, such elector, upon completion of an emergency voting card (see SDCL 12-18-7.2) may vote at such election.

We must presume that the Legislature, when it enacted Section 8 of House Bill 847 was well acquainted with the status of the law. I may advise that some of the provisions above outlined were amended by other sections of such House Bill. With this general background, said Section 8 was enacted. It reads as follows:

Section 8. That SDCL 12 be, and the same is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section to read as follows:

Any voter who has changed his address or voting residence, within or without a county, or who has been placed in a new voting precinct or district by virtue of a precinct or district boundary change, or who has lost his duplicate registration card in the precinct or district in which he is an elector, and who is registered on the master list in the auditor's office and otherwise entitled to such a card, may obtain such card at any time, other than on the day of election, that the county auditor's office is required to be open upon application from the county auditor and upon completing and signing the original and duplicate cards under oath as provided in section 12-4-6 for original registration, regardless of whether such application is within any period of time fixed by statute restricting registration or change of registration prior to any election and regardless of whether the name of such person shall appear on the precinct or district registration list; provided, however, that such elector may not within any such restricted time period prior to a primary election obtain a new duplicate registration card which shows a change in party affiliation from that shown on the master list at the close of registration for such election. However, as soon as practicable the county auditor shall correct the master list and such precinct or district registration list to show the name and other relevant voting information required upon registration for such person.

This office, and perhaps your office, has received the suggestions of the draftsman and individual members of the Legislature as to the intent of the Legislature in this enactment. We must remember, as our court pointed out in State ex rel Cooperative Wool Growers of South Dakota vs. Bushfieid, 69 S.D. 172, 8 N.W. 2d 1, that evidence of a member of the Legislature, or of a draftsman of legislation, is not competent to aid a. court in the construction of a particular statute. The statute can be interpreted only from the legislative intent as therein expressed and not from what an individual, be he the scrivner thereof, or a member of the Legislature enacting such legislation thought the legislation expressed.

As I have previously stated, other portions of the single registration act were amended in said House Bill No. 847. Section 3 of such Act amended the law concerning the removal notices. It is established, and sound statutory interpretaton, that when two statutes are enacted at the same time that each such statute must be construed as being operative. While a study of House Bill No. 847 reveals apparent irreconciliable conflict between sections therein and said Section 8, it is my opinion that such may be construed so as to dispel any alleged conflict, and in a manner as to make each of its sections operative.

Initially, irrespective of the language used, there can be no question that only persons whose names appear on the County Master Registration List, may take advantage of the provisions of such Section 8 of the Bill, and only for the purpose of obtaining a duplicate registration card in the event he has never received such card, or has lost such previously issued duplicate registration card. (In previous opinions I have held that persons who were registered as electors prior to July 1, 1969 were not required to re-register and would remain on the master registration lists. This ruling, of course, would prevent any such registrants from receiving such duplicate registration card which was unknown prior to the effective date of Section 3 of Chapter 83 of the Session Laws of 1969.)

In order to avoid any question of repugnancy, it is my opinion that Section 8 has nothing to do with, and in no manner affects the duty to register, the duty to change party affiliation, the duty to properly effect a removal from precinct to precinct within a county by the use of removal notices. These acts must be performed fifteen days prior to any election involved to be effective.

Section 8 deals with only a specific problem. It provides that persons whose names appear on the county master registration list but who for some reason or another are not in possession of a duplicate registration card may obtain a copy of such duplicate registration card, showing their voting residence and thereby the election precinct in which they may vote, at any time up to and excluding the day of such election.

If such applicant's name appears on the registration list of the precinct where he appears to vote, such duplicate registration card is of no practical value. However, if his name does not appear upon such precinct registration list the production of such duplicate registration card will authorize him to vote, and result in his name appearing on such precinct registration list in future elections.

Respectfully submitted,

Gordon Mydland
Attorney General