court entertained an interlocutory appeal from a pending inverse condemnation case initiated by SDDS in Fall River County seeking money damages as a result of the Referendum and Initiated Measure. Id. at 853-54. The court held in its opinion that Hughes County was the only appropriate venue for SDDS’s action. Id. at 854, 857. Presumably, SDDS’s suit for money damages is still pending at this time, but the case appears to have no bearing on the suit presently pending before this Court. 5 . In addition, the Court notes that S.B. 169 never became effective because, although passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, S.B. 169 was properly referred to a vote of the electorate and the electorate effectively vetoed the bill. See SDDS, Inc. v. State, 481 N.W.2d 270, 272 (S.D. 1992) (<HOLDING>). However, because the Referendum is precisely
holding that the governor did not have to obtain the consent of the senate for the appointment of a candidate when the first candidate had been rejected by the senate the senate was not in session at the time that the second candidate was appointed and because the legislature which created and therefore controlled the office did not require by statute that the governor seek the senates approval in those circumstances holding that an order in a criminal matter drafted by the prosecutor and signed by the circuit judge was in compliance with requirements of the law holding that the governor erred in considering evidence that was not before the board holding that even if the doctrine applies to option contracts no conversion would take place until the option were exercised by the party having the right of election holding that in south dakota a law does not become effective until passed by the legislature signed by the governor and if properly referred until approved by a majority vote of the electorate in the next general election