SD VOICE v. Kristi Noem, No. 21-3195 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Appellees raised a First Amendment challenge to South Dakota’s statutory deadlines to submit petitions to initiate South Dakota statutes and to amend the South Dakota Constitution. After a bench trial, the district court agreed the filing deadline for petitions to initiate statutes violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, but the filing deadline for petitions to amend the state Constitution does not. The district court then permanently enjoined three South Dakota officials from enforcing the unconstitutional deadline and crafted a new filing deadline.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the filing deadline in South Dakota Codified Laws Section 2-1-1.2 violates the First Amendment, reversed the holding that the filing deadline in South Dakota Codified Laws Section 2-1-1.1 does not violate the First Amendment, and remanded with instructions to modify the permanent injunction. Further, the court denied the dueling motions to strike party submissions. The court explained that South Dakota’s filing deadline of one year before a general election “imposes a burden on political expression that the State has failed to justify.” In other words, South Dakota failed to provide evidence connecting the one-year deadline to its asserted interests. Further, in applying the same legal framework and record available for the filing deadline under South Dakota Codified Laws Section 2-1-1.2, the court concluded that the filing deadline under South Dakota Codified Laws Section 2-1- -15- 1.1 also violates the First Amendment. Finally, the court found that prescribing a new filing deadline is outside the scope of the district court’s authority.
Court Description: [Grasz, Author, with Loken and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Ballot Initiatives. The district court found that South Dakota's deadline to submit petitions to initiate state statutes violates the First Amendment but that the deadline to submit petitions to amend the state constitution does not. Both plaintiffs and the state appeal. South Dakota's petition filing deadline under South Dakota Codified Law Sec. 2-1-1.2 implicates plaintiffs' First Amendment rights; the court need not reach the question of whether the district court erred in applying an exacting scrutiny standard to the statute as it failed lesser scrutiny standards, as well, and the district court did not err in concluding that the filing deadline was unconstitutional under the First Amendment; the district court erred in determining that the deadline for petitions to amend the state constitution survived strict scrutiny as there is no legal basis for distinguishing the two types of initiatives, and the filing deadline under South Dakota Codified Laws Sec. 2.1-1.1 is unconstitutional under the First Amendment; the district court erred in creating a new filing deadline for Sec. 2-1-1.2, and the district court is directed to modify the permanent injunction and remove the new filing deadline.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.