In a joint school and city election in South Dakota, can a school board candidate withdraw from the ballot after the filing deadline has passed?
Plain-English summary
In 1994, a candidate for school board in Kimball, South Dakota wanted to withdraw her nomination after the filing deadline had passed. Kimball School District and the City of Kimball were holding a joint election under SDCL 13-7-10.1. The election officials weren't sure whether the withdrawal was permitted, given that Chapter 13-7 (school elections) and Chapter 9-13 (municipal elections) have somewhat different withdrawal rules.
AG Mark Barnett gave a structured answer.
First, the joint-election rule controls. When a school district holds its election jointly with a municipal election under the municipal election dates of Chapter 9-13, SDCL 9-13-1.1 applies the municipal election procedures to the entire joint election. The result: school election withdrawal rules in SDCL 13-7-7 and 13-7-9.1 don't apply. Chapter 9-13 governs.
Second, Chapter 9-13's withdrawal rule is restrictive. Under SDCL 9-13-7.1, a candidate can withdraw only "if it is withdrawn no later than 5:00 p.m. on the second Friday in March," which is the same day as the filing deadline. Once the filing deadline passes, the candidate's name stays on the ballot unless a specific exception applies.
Third, there is one narrow exception. SDCL 9-13-5.1 allows withdrawal after the deadline only when the withdrawal would leave the race uncontested (one candidate for one seat, no longer a contest) or eliminate the only contest entirely (triggering cancellation of the election under SDCL 9-13-5).
Fourth, the exception didn't apply here. The AG's staff called the Kimball superintendent, who confirmed there were at least three contests on the ballot and that the withdrawal wouldn't eliminate any of them. So the exception didn't open, and the candidate had to stay on the ballot.
The AG also explained the policy reason: election officials need to finalize ballots and prepare poll materials in an orderly way after the filing deadline. Late withdrawals would create "chaos." By aligning the withdrawal deadline with the filing deadline, the Legislature gave officials certainty.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994. 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 election statutes have been amended many times since 1994, including substantial changes to election dates and joint-election rules. Notably, 2025 HB 1130 changed when municipal and school elections happen (now June primary or November general date); that change affects which chapter's deadlines apply but may not change the underlying withdrawal-deadline-equals-filing-deadline rule. Verify current SDCL Chapters 9-13 and 13-7 before relying on a 1994 reading.
What the opinion meant at the time
For 1994 school board candidates in joint elections, the opinion meant: once filing closed, the candidate name stayed on the ballot in any contested race. Voters then voted for whichever candidate they preferred, and the withdrawing candidate could simply choose not to serve if elected (declining election is a separate question with its own procedures).
For school business managers and city finance officers, the opinion gave clear administrative guidance: don't accept late withdrawals; finalize the ballot on the established schedule; communicate the rule to candidates so they understood their commitment when they filed.
For election officials, the opinion confirmed that the joint-election framework was a single procedural system, not a hybrid. Applying municipal rules to the school portion meant one set of deadlines and one set of procedures.
For candidates considering filing, the opinion was a reminder that the filing-deadline decision was binding. The candidate who filed and then changed her mind didn't have an escape hatch.
Common questions
Q: Could the candidate decline to serve if elected?
A: That's a separate question from withdrawing from the ballot. The opinion only addressed withdrawal of the nomination. Declining to serve after being elected typically involves resignation procedures, not ballot withdrawal.
Q: What's the exception under SDCL 9-13-5.1 in practical terms?
A: If a withdrawal would leave only one candidate for the one available seat (no contest), the election for that seat is cancelled and the remaining candidate is declared elected by default. If a withdrawal would eliminate the only race on the ballot, the entire election may be cancelled. Those situations are the narrow window for post-deadline withdrawal.
Q: Why doesn't Chapter 13-7's more permissive withdrawal rule apply?
A: Because the joint election is held under Chapter 9-13 dates. SDCL 9-13-1.1 makes municipal election procedures apply to the entire joint election. Chapter 13-7 procedures are displaced for the joint event.
Q: Could the school district have held its election separately under Chapter 13-7 to preserve the more permissive withdrawal rules?
A: Yes, in theory, but that would defeat the cost and convenience advantages of joint elections. Once the school district agreed to a joint election with the city, it accepted the Chapter 9-13 procedural framework.
Q: Does this affect the candidate's reasons for wanting to withdraw?
A: Reasons don't matter under the statute. The withdrawal procedure is procedural; it doesn't ask why the candidate wants out. The exception kicks in based on the impact on the ballot (eliminating a contest), not the candidate's motivation.
Q: What if a candidate becomes ineligible (moves out of district, etc.) after the filing deadline?
A: That's a different question from voluntary withdrawal. Loss of eligibility may have its own procedures. The opinion addressed voluntary withdrawal only.
Background and statutory framework
South Dakota election law is layered. Different election types (municipal, school, county, special district, primary, general) have their own procedural rules in different SDCL chapters. When elections are combined for efficiency, the question of which chapter's rules control is recurring.
SDCL 13-7-10.1 explicitly authorizes school districts and municipalities to combine elections. SDCL 9-13-1.1 specifies that when they do, the municipal election rules apply. The Legislature made the choice to have one set of rules govern the combined event rather than try to layer two sets.
The withdrawal-deadline-equals-filing-deadline rule in SDCL 9-13-7.1 is the structural choice that gives election administrators certainty. Once filing closes, the ballot can be designed, printed, and distributed without further changes (unless the SDCL 9-13-5.1 exception is triggered).
The Mark Barnett opinion is one of many 1990s opinions interpreting the joint-election framework. The basic principle (one set of procedures for the combined event) has held up; the specific deadline rules have been amended over the years as the Legislature has tinkered with election timing.
Citations and references
Statutes (1994 references):
- SDCL Chapter 9-13 (municipal elections; controls joint elections)
- SDCL 9-13-1.1 (joint election application)
- SDCL 9-13-5, 9-13-5.1, 9-13-7, 9-13-7.1 (no contest, withdrawal, filing)
- SDCL 9-13-12, 9-13-13, 9-13-23 (ballot preparation)
- SDCL Chapter 13-7 (school board elections)
- SDCL 13-7-7, 13-7-9.1, 13-7-10.1 (school candidate withdrawal, cancellation, joint elections)
Source
Original opinion text
OFFICIAL OPINION NO. 94-03
Withdrawal of school board candidate from ballot
Dear Mr. Sebastian:
You have requested an official opinion from this Office regarding the following factual situation:
FACTS:
A candidate for the school board in Kimball, South Dakota, has indicated that she wishes to withdraw her nominating petition.
Kimball School District has agreed to hold a joint election with Kimball City as authorized in SDCL 13-7-10.1, so the deadline for filing petitions has passed.
SDCL 13-7-7 provides a procedure for a candidate to withdraw from nomination prior to the filing deadline. SDCL 13-7-9.1 authorizes cancellation of an election if a candidate dies or withdraws at any time prior to forty-eight hours preceding the opening of the polls and there is no remaining contest to be decided.
Based on these facts, you have asked the following question:
QUESTION:
In light of the statutes, is it possible to withdraw from nomination after the filing deadline and, if so, what procedure should be followed?
IN RE QUESTION:
Given the time frame set forth in your fact statement, I presume that the school district and the municipality have agreed to hold a joint election pursuant to the dates set forth in SDCL ch. 9-13 (municipal elections). Since they are holding a joint election pursuant to that chapter, it is my opinion, based on SDCL 9-13-1.1, that the relevant filing deadlines, withdrawal dates and provisions for withdrawal are those contained in SDCL ch. 9-13 and that those contained in SDCL ch. 13-7 have no application.
SDCL ch. 9-13 is clear in its provisions. Any candidate is permitted to withdraw prior to the date set out in SDCL 9-13-7.1, which is the same date as the deadline for filing. SDCL 9-13-7. Please note that the section governing withdrawal (SDCL 9-13-7.1) provides that any candidate may withdraw and that the candidate's name will not be printed on the ballot "if it is withdrawn no later than 5:00 p.m. on the second Friday in March." Thus, SDCL 9-13-7.1 allows withdrawal of the candidate at any time prior to the filing deadline. It does not, even in combination with SDCL 9-13-5 (no contest) and 9-13-5.1 (death or withdrawal), allow actual withdrawal after that date. In the absence of the SDCL 9-13-5.1 exception discussed below, no withdrawal of any kind would be permitted after the filing deadline.
As a practical matter, the business manager and other election officials must prepare ballots and carry out their other functions in an orderly manner after the filing deadline. SDCL §§ 9-13-12, 9-13-13, 9-13-23, etc. If candidates were permitted to withdraw after the filing deadline, a certain amount of chaos would be inevitable. By making the filing deadline simultaneous with the withdrawal deadline, the Legislature has made certain that the election officials can be assured that the ballot can be finalized and other procedures carried out without unnecessary and disruptive changes in the ballot.
This leads to an examination of SDCL 9-13-5.1. In my opinion, this statute is a limited exception to the prohibition on withdrawals after the filing date has passed. Under SDCL 9-13-5.1, withdrawal after the filing deadline would be permitted if the withdrawal would cause there to be no contest for placement on the ballot, or cancellation of the election if that single contest constituted the only question to be voted upon.
My staff has taken the liberty of inquiring of the school superintendent whether this, in fact, would be the case. The superintendent has informed us that there are at least three contests on the ballot and that the contemplated withdrawal would not lead to an uncontested election. Under those circumstances, it is my opinion that the candidate involved thus may not withdraw after the filing deadline; her name should remain on the ballot. I emphasize, however, that if the contest had been the only contest or if the withdrawal would result in no election contest whatsoever, the result would be different.
Based on the above analysis, the answer to the first part of your question is, "No." The second portion of your question, therefore, does not require an answer.
MWB:CME:mjj