Does the student member of the South Dakota Board of Regents have to satisfy the rule that no two regents may reside in the same county, where student regents typically register to vote in the college town like other students?
Plain-English summary
The South Dakota Board of Regents oversees the state's public universities. Of its members, eight are "regular" regents appointed under SDCL 13-49-2, and one is a student regent appointed under SDCL 13-49-6.1. The regular-regents statute imposes a one-regent-per-county residency limit (residency being determined by where the regent is registered to vote). The Board's concern in 1993 was practical: students at, say, the University of South Dakota tend to register to vote in Clay County, where Vermillion is located. If the regular-regents residency rule applied to student regents, the Board would routinely run into county-conflict problems because student regents would always be voter-registered in college towns that often already have a regular regent.
The 1993 AG concluded that the student regent is not subject to the residency rule. SDCL 13-49-6.1, the specific statute creating the student regent position, sets out the student regent's qualifications: must be a student of a regental institution, two-year term, voting member, subject to removal under SDCL 3-17-1 or by loss of enrollment. Residency was not on that list. Under settled SD canons of statutory construction, a specific statute controls over a general statute, and what is left out of a list is presumed to be intentionally excluded.
The AG also leaned on legislative purpose. The whole point of the student regent role is to bring a current student's perspective into the Board's deliberations. Imposing a voter-registration-based residency restriction on that role would frequently disqualify the very students the Legislature wanted to involve, producing the "absurd or unreasonable result" that the courts presume the Legislature does not intend.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1993. 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. SDCL chapter 13-49 has been amended several times since 1993, and the student regent structure has been adjusted (terms, voting rules). Check the current statutes before relying on this opinion for any modern appointment decision.
What the opinion meant at the time
For the Governor's Office, the opinion cleared the path to appoint student regents from any campus regardless of which county already had a regular regent. The county-conflict concern was off the table for the student seat.
For the Board of Regents, the opinion confirmed that the student member's qualifications run from SDCL 13-49-6.1 only, simplifying compliance review for new appointments.
For students considering applying for a student regent appointment, the opinion meant their voter registration county did not need to be checked against the residences of existing regents.
For the Senate, which confirms the Governor's regent appointments, the opinion reduced one category of objection to a student-regent nominee.
For higher education observers tracking governance, the opinion stood for the broader principle that special-purpose board members (here, the student member) are governed by their own specific qualification statutes, not by the catch-all rules for the general membership.
Common questions
Q: How many members does the SD Board of Regents have?
A: Nine: eight regular regents (limited to one per county and partisan-balanced) and one student regent.
Q: How is a student regent appointed?
A: Per SDCL 13-49-6.1, the Governor appoints with Senate consent. The student regent must be enrolled at a regental institution and serves a two-year term ending July 1 of even-numbered years.
Q: Does a student regent vote?
A: Yes. SDCL 13-49-6.1 makes the student regent a "formal member of the board" who "shall vote."
Q: What happens if the student stops being a student during the term?
A: SDCL 13-49-6.1 ends the term if the student no longer remains enrolled in a board-controlled institution. The student regent is also subject to removal under SDCL 3-17-1 (general officer-removal procedure).
Q: Could the student regent share a home county with a sitting regular regent?
A: Per this opinion, yes. The one-per-county rule in SDCL 13-49-2 applies only to the eight regular regents, not to the student regent.
Q: Does the same logic apply to other state boards that have special-class seats?
A: The reasoning would extend to any other board where a specific statute sets qualifications for a particular seat. Whether it applies turns on the precise wording of the other board's statutes.
Background and statutory framework
The student regent seat was added to give South Dakota's university system a student voice in governance. The position is unusual because it is created with the explicit understanding that the seat-holder will rotate as students graduate. The two-year term ending on July 1 of an even year matches the academic calendar.
SDCL 13-49-2 governs the regular regents. It imposes three structural rules: residence in different parts of the state, no more than one regent per county, and not more than six regents from the same political party. Residency is determined by voter registration.
SDCL 13-49-6.1 governs the student regent. Its qualifications are narrower: enrollment at a regental institution and (by reference to SDCL 3-17-1) general good standing. There is no county-distribution rule, no partisan balance rule, no voter-registration tie.
The 1993 AG's analysis is a clean illustration of the "specific over general" canon. When two statutes address overlapping subjects, the more specific one governs. The student-regent qualifications are spelled out in their own statute. That statute is the controlling word on student-regent qualifications.
The supporting canon, expression of one thing is exclusion of another, also points the same way. SDCL 13-49-6.1 sets out the things a student regent must be. Residency is not on that list. The natural reading is that the Legislature did not intend a residency rule for the student seat.
The final element is the absurd-result canon. SDCL 13-49-2 ties residency to voter registration. Student regents are by design enrolled at a particular campus and often register to vote there. Reading the one-per-county rule into the student seat would disqualify many potentially appointable students whenever a regular regent already lived in the same college-town county. That was not what the Legislature could have meant in creating the student seat.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- SDCL 13-49-2 (regents general qualifications, residency rule)
- SDCL 13-49-6.1 (student regent qualifications and term)
- SDCL 3-17-1 (removal of officers)
- SDCL 2-14-2 (liberal construction)
Cases:
- Simpson v. Tobin, 367 N.W.2d 757 (S.D. 1985)
- Appeal of AT&T Information Systems, 405 N.W.2d 24 (S.D. 1987)
- Valandra v. Dept. of Commerce & Reg., 425 N.W.2d 400 (S.D. 1988)
- Meyerink v. Northwestern Public Service Co., 391 N.W.2d 180 (S.D. 1986)
- Aman v. Edmunds Central School District No. 22-5, 494 N.W.2d 198 (S.D. 1992)
Source
Original opinion text
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 93-11
Application of residency requirements to student regents
Dear Dr. Todd:
You have requested an official opinion from this Office regarding the following factual situation:
FACTS:
SDCL 13-49-2 provides, in material part, that no two regents who are regular members may reside in the same county and that a regent's residence is determined by where the regent is registered to vote. The application of this section to student regents is of concern because it is common to find that students whose involvement in the affairs of the university qualifies them for the post of student regent also are involved in the political life of the communities where universities are located. Such individuals often register to vote in the community in which their university is located.
Based on the foregoing facts, you have asked the following question:
QUESTION:
Are student regents subject to the residency requirements set forth in SDCL 13-49-2?
IN RE QUESTION:
Two statutes bear directly on the issue you raise:
SDCL 13-49-2 provides:
The regents who are regular members shall be persons of probity and wisdom and selected from among the best known citizens, residents of different portions of the state, no two of whom may be residents in the same county and not more than six shall be members of the same political party. One regent shall be the student regent as provided in § 13-49-6.1. A regent's residence is determined by where the regent is registered to vote.
SDCL 13-49-6.1 states:
The Governor shall appoint a student regent, by and with the consent of the senate, who shall participate in all board meetings open and closed and be compensated in the same manner as board members. The student regent shall be a student of one of the public postsecondary educational institutions under the control of the board. The student regent shall be appointed for a term of two years which term shall expire on the first day of July of every even-numbered year, unless removed under the provisions of § 3-17-1 or if such student does not remain enrolled in a postsecondary institution controlled by the board. The student regent shall be a formal member of the board and shall vote.
Several rules of statutory construction are of use here. Code provisions are to be liberally construed with a view to effect their objectives and to promote justice. SDCL 2-14-2. They are to be construed according to their manifest intent as gathered from the statute as a whole, together with other enactments relating to the same subject. Simpson v. Tobin, 367 N.W.2d 757, 763 (S.D. 1985). In construing statutes together, it is presumed that the Legislature did not intend an absurd or unreasonable result. Appeal of AT&T Information Systems, 405 N.W.2d 24, 27-28 (S.D. 1987). Statutes should be given a sensible, practical and workable construction. Valandra v. Dept. of Commerce & Reg., 425 N.W.2d 400, 402 (S.D. 1988). Where conflicting statutes appear, both should be given a reasonable construction in order, if possible, to construe them together to make them harmonious and workable. Meyerink v. Northwestern Public Service Co., 391 N.W.2d 180, 184 (S.D. 1986). Terms of a statute on a particular subject will prevail over general terms of another statute. Id.
Obviously, SDCL 13-49-2 outlines general qualifications for those regents who are "regular" regents. The statute further mandates that one regent must be the student regent provided for under SDCL 13-49-6.1, but does not state whether such individual would be subject to the requirements otherwise set out in the provision. On the other hand, SDCL 13-49-6.1 does state specific qualifications for the student regent. That statute also dictates that this special regent nonetheless is a formal regent with voting rights. Clearly, SDCL §§ 13-49-2 and 13-49-6.1 must be construed together and, as noted above, in the event of conflict between the general qualifications set out in SDCL 13-49-2 and the particular qualifications for the student regent outlined in SDCL 13-49-6.1, the provisions of SDCL 13-49-6.1 are deemed to control. Consequently, a reading of all relevant law indicates that the student regent is a special regent with distinct qualifications.
I further note that the qualifications stated in SDCL 13-49-6.1 limit and displace one of the qualifications established under SDCL 13-49-2 in that they define a separate class of persons eligible for the office. SDCL 13-49-6.1 requires that student regents be drawn from a different group of citizens from that stated in SDCL 13-49-2; that specified group under SDCL 13-49-6.1 is the class of students enrolled in regental institutions of higher education. Again, the student regent is separate and distinct.
SDCL 13-49-6.1 thus appears to state all necessary qualifications for the office of student regent. Hence, the legislative decision not to there reiterate the residency requirement provides evidence that the Legislature does not intend this requirement to govern eligibility for the office. Aman v. Edmunds Central School District No. 22-5, 494 N.W.2d 198, 200 (S.D. 1992).
It also appears undebatable that the statutory enrollment requirement exists to assure that the perspectives of persons enrolled in the institutions will be included in the regents' deliberations. Because voting residence is immaterial to membership in the class of students, the residency requirement should not be interpreted to interfere with the enrollment requirement. Again, the statute in question, SDCL 13-49-6.1, should be read as operating independently of the residency requirement set out in the general statute, SDCL 13-49-2. Meyerink, 391 N.W.2d at 184.
The answer to your question is "no," the student regent is not subject to the residency requirement set forth in SDCL 13-49-2.
MWB:JFS:do