If a person elected to the board of trustees of a South Dakota sanitary district moves outside the district during her term, must she give up her seat? Does state law require board members to live inside the district?
Plain-English summary
A trustee on the Keystone/Mount Rushmore Sanitary District Board moved out of the city of Keystone, taking her residence outside the boundaries of the district she helped govern. The question put to AG Bill Janklow by Mr. Klauck: did she have to step down, or could she finish her term from the new address?
Janklow's answer was that nothing in South Dakota law forced her off the board. He reviewed SDCL chapter 34-17 (the sanitary districts chapter at the time) and found no provision requiring a board member to be a resident of the district. SDCL 37-14-18 was the closest related provision: it required certificates of nomination for sanitary-district elections to be signed by at least five percent of the qualified electors of the district. That requirement reaches the petition signers, not the candidate. Nothing in the statute said the candidate had to be a qualified elector, which would have meant resident.
The opinion applied a general principle of public-officer law: residency within the district or political unit is not a default eligibility requirement. The legislature, the constitution, or a local ordinance has to expressly impose residency. Janklow cited Bigney v. Secretary of Commonwealth (Mass. 1938) as authority for the rule. Because none of those express provisions existed for South Dakota sanitary district trustees, the trustee could keep her seat.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1975. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. South Dakota's sanitary district statutes have been reorganized and amended over the decades; the chapter Janklow cited (then SDCL 34-17) has been replaced or substantially revised. Modern sanitary district enabling legislation may include residency requirements that did not exist in 1975. Anyone deciding eligibility for a current sanitary-district trustee should look directly at the present-day chapter, not rely on this opinion.
What the opinion meant at the time
For sanitary-district boards across the state, the opinion was a quiet but important confirmation that the boundary line of the district was not also the boundary of board membership. A trustee who moved a mile outside the district lost neither her vote nor her seat. The opinion meant that boards could keep functioning without forcing mid-term resignations every time a member relocated.
For county auditors administering sanitary-district elections, the opinion clarified that candidate eligibility was a question of statute, not of common-sense local geography. If the district's statute did not require residency, the auditor could not refuse to put a non-resident's name on the ballot.
For the broader law of special districts, the opinion is a reminder of the default eligibility rule: in the absence of an express residency requirement, you do not have to live where you serve. That rule is sometimes counterintuitive (most voters assume that of course a sanitary-district trustee must live in the district), but it reflects the legislative-supremacy approach to officer qualifications.
Background and statutory framework
A sanitary district is a special-purpose local government formed to provide sewer and water service in unincorporated areas, often around lake communities, recreational sites, and small clusters of homes outside a city's boundaries. The Keystone/Mount Rushmore Sanitary District served the area around Mount Rushmore National Memorial and the town of Keystone.
The 1975 statutory framework for sanitary districts was organized into two chapters. SDCL chapter 34-17 (now reorganized) handled the formation and governance of the district. SDCL chapter 37-14 dealt with elections for officers of various special-purpose entities, including sanitary districts. The interplay between the two chapters meant that you had to read chapter 34-17 for the powers and duties of the board, but chapter 37-14 for the election mechanics.
The general rule on residency Janklow cited reflects long-standing American election-law doctrine. From early common law forward, the rule has been that a person is eligible to hold any public office unless an enacted law (constitutional, statutory, or local-charter level) imposes a disqualification. Residency is one of the most common eligibility limits, but it is a creature of express enactment, not an implied default. The Bigney case from Massachusetts is one of many state cases that articulated this rule.
Citations
- SDCL chapter 34-17 (sanitary districts framework, 1975)
- SDCL 37-14-18 (nominating petitions)
- Bigney v. Secretary of Commonwealth, 301 Mass. 107, 16 N.E.2d 573, 120 ALR 669 (1938)
Source
Original opinion text
Must a member of a sanitary district board of trustees be a resident of the district?
Dear Mr. Klauck:
You have asked for an official opinion based upon the following factual situation:
A member of the Keystone/Mount Rushmore Sanitary District Board of Trustees recently moved her residence from the city of Keystone to outside of the sanitary district area.
You have asked the following question:
Must a member of a sanitary district board of trustees reside within the area of the district?
You stated in your request for an opinion that you were unable to determine if residency requirements specify that members of the board of trustees must reside within the district. I have reviewed chapter 34-17 and I cannot find a specific provision requiring a member of the board of trustees to be a resident of the district. SDCL 37-14-18 does speak of the certificates of nomination and requires that they be signed by at least five per cent of the qualified electors of the district. However, this provision does not require the candidate for the board of trustees to be a qualified elector of the district, of course, meaning a resident of the district.
A candidate for election or appointment to an office of a district or other political subdivision or unit may be required by provision of the constitution, statutes, or ordinances to be a resident or inhabitant thereof. But where residence within the district or political unit is not made a condition of eligibility to holding office therein by express provisions of the law, such residence is generally considered not necessary. See Bigney v. Secretary of Commonwealth, 301 Mass. 107, 16 N.E.2d 573, 120 ALR 669.
Therefore, the answer to your question is NO. There are no constitutional, statutory, or other provisions requiring a member of the board of trustees of a sanitary district to be a resident of the district.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. Janklow
Attorney General
WJJ:RVJ:rw