South Dakota State Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO v. Jackley
South Dakota Supreme Court
786 N.W.2d 372 (2010)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
Within South Dakota, a proposed constitutional amendment vote was to be accompanied by a ballot explanation prepared by the state attorney general. That explanation, originally designed simply to identify the amendment to the electorate, was, after statutory amendments, deemed necessary to educate voters as to the purpose and effect of the proposed state constitutional amendment. The attorney general was directed to include the legal consequences of the proposed amendment, including likely state exposure to liability, despite the explanation being limited to 200 words. Proposed Constitutional Amendment K was sent in 2010 to the attorney general for crafting of the explanation. The amendment would require any state or federal election for public office, referendum or ballot initiative, and designation of employee representation to use a guaranteed secret-ballot system. The AFL-CIO (plaintiff) took issue with the explanation provided and sued Attorney General Marty Jackley (defendant) to have the amendment removed from the ballot. Specifically at issue were contentions that the attorney general (1) had failed to provide a clear and simple summary as to the amendment’s effects and purpose and (2) had failed to include any description of the amendment’s legal consequences, including any information regarding potential state liability. At the trial-court level, the court ruled that the summary was proper, and the AFL-CIO appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gilbertson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.