Feb. 18, 2026:
The South Dakota Supreme Court has determined that the Lieutenant Governor does have the constitutional authority to cast a tie-breaking vote on final passage of a bill or joint resolution while serving as President of the Senate.
The state’s high court issued the advisory opinion today (Feb. 18, 2026).
The question came about after a situation last month (Jan. 22, 2026) in the state Senate where Lt. Governor Tony Venhuizen cast a tie-breaking vote. The following day, Senator Chris Karr from Sioux Falls questioned whether or not Venhuizen is allowed to vote in case of a tie.
A few days later (Jan. 26, 2026), Governor Larry Rhoden asked the state Supreme Court for an advisory opinion in the matter of the interpretation of the South Dakota Constitution and state law. The Justices asked the Governor and Senate Leadership to submit briefs to assist them in making a ruling.
Collectively, the Supreme Court Justices said, “We answer the question submitted by the Governor in the affirmative—the South Dakota Constitution empowers the Lieutenant Governor, while serving as President of the Senate, to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate on any matter.”
Additionally……
Governor Larry Rhoden is thanking the South Dakota Supreme Court for its promptness in issuing an advisory opinion on whether the state Constitution grants the Lieutenant Governor the authority to cast a vote in the event of a tie when presiding over the Senate.
In a ruling released today (Feb. 18, 2026), the Justices said the does empower the Lieutenant Governor, while serving as President of the Senate, to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate on any matter.”
Rhoden said elected officials have a duty to respect and uphold the state Constitution. He said this opinion brings clarity to the process going forward.
Lt. Governor Tony Venhuizen said as President of the Senate, his priority is to apply the rules fairly. He thanked Senator Chris Karr from Sioux Falls for raising the question and thanked the Court for quickly providing an answer to bring clarity to the situation.
The Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the two Constitutional provisions at issue can be harmonized and reasoned:
- “Implicit in the text of Article III, § 18 is the general principle that only members of the Senate may ordinarily vote on the passage of a law. Although the Lieutenant Governor is not an elected member of the Senate, Article IV, § 5 directs that the Lieutenant Governor shall be the President of the Senate and explicitly authorizes the Lieutenant Governor to vote when necessary to break a tie. Article IV, § 5 and Article III, § 18 do not stand in conflict. Instead, the two provisions complement one another.
- “Article III, § 18 describes what is required before a law may be passed—‘assent of a majority of all members elected to each house of the Legislature.’ Article IV, § 5 is more specific and expressly addresses a discrete situation in which a majority vote in the Senate is not obtained due to a tie. Article IV, § 5 resolves this impasse by allowing the Lieutenant Governor to cast a vote, thereby providing a method by which a majority can be obtained. Construing the text of the two relevant constitutional provisions together, we conclude that the Lieutenant Governor may cast a tie-breaking vote on the final passage of a bill. This interpretation gives both provisions effect and meaning.”
Read the complete advisory opinion here, https://ujs.sd.gov/media/ws5nzcel/31355.pdf.
Jan. 26, 2026:
Governor Larry Rhoden has requested (Jan. 26, 2026) an advisory opinion of the Supreme Court of South Dakota, asking whether the South Dakota Constitution grants the Lieutenant Governor, while serving as the President of the Senate, the authority to cast a vote in the event of a tie. You can find the Governor’s request for an advisory opinion here.
“If a tie-breaking vote cannot be cast for final passage, it will be impossible for any such piece of legislation to pass the legislature and be presented to the Governor for signature or veto. An advisory opinion from the Court is the only realistic way to resolve this question,” wrote Rhoden. “This is a matter of great public importance, and of significant impact on state government. Judicial interpretation would bring clarity and certainty to this matter going forward.”
Last week, a vote on the final passage of Senate Bill 25 resulted in a tie, leading the Lt. Governor to cast a tie-breaking vote. Senator Chris Karr challenged his action, and the Senate sustained that challenge. That entire exchange can be viewed here, beginning at 34:40.
With a Senator on extended absence due to illness, a tie vote could occur regularly in the coming weeks.
According to Article 5, Section 5, of the South Dakota Constitution, the Governor may request opinions of the state Supreme Court upon:
- Important questions of law involved in the exercise of the Governor’s executive powers; and
- Solemn occasions, such as this.
“As President of the Senate, my priority is to preside according to the Constitution and Senate rules and precedents,” said Lt. Governor Tony Venhuizen. “I would welcome clarity from the Court so there is no question in the future about the constitutional rule in this area.”
Comments