Gov. Larry Rhoden is asking the state Supreme Court for an opinion regarding the lieutenant governor’s authority breaking a tie vote in the Senate.
In South Dakota, the lieutenant governor serves as President of the state Senate — but does not vote unless there’s a tie. This can happen if a member is absent. That’s in the state Constitution.
But the Constitution also says a bill can only pass with a majority of members elect. In the Senate, that means at least 18 of 35 members.
These two rules recently came to a head. A bill came out to a 17-17 tie, with one Senator absent. Lt. Gov. Tony Venhuizen cast a vote in favor, breaking the tie.
But Senate Pro Tem Chris Karr challenged that move. He argued the original 17 votes the bill received doesn’t constitute a majority of members elect.
Acting as Senate President, Venhuizen ruled against Karr. In explaining his decision to the Senate, he said there’s no case law on this discrepancy. But he noted how the body is modeled after the U.S. Senate — which allows the President of the Senate to make tie-breaking votes — and cited a concept arguing every word in the Constitution should have meaning.
"If the language saying the lieutenant governor votes in the case of a tie does not apply because of the requirements of the members elect, it raises the question — why is there at all?" Venhuizen said. "Why did they put it there? What was it meant to do?”
In response, Karr appealed the ruling. He argued the tie-breaking vote only applies to procedural votes that only require a majority of members present.
"But when it comes to final passage of a bill from this chamber of Senators that were elected, it requires a majority of members-elect," Karr said. "And I think the Constitution is clear on that.”
The Senate backed Karr’s objection in a 24 to 10 vote.
After all that, the Senate later reconsidered the bill, which updates the permit application process for utilities building energy facilities. It received an amendment and the Senate overwhelmingly approved it.
However, the question of the Senate President’s constitutional power remains. That’s what the governor wants the state’s highest court to clarify.
“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,” Rhoden said. “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.”
In a statement, Venhuizen said he welcomes clarity from the court "so there is no question in the future about the constitutional rule in this area.”
Debate on the matter begins in the video below at 34:30
