Mitchell council votes 5–3 to declare referendum petition invalid, will not place transfer of redevelopment agreement on June ballot

The Mitchell City Council voted 5–3 to declare a referral petition challenging a redevelopment agreement for the East 1st Avenue project invalid and to not place the measure on the June ballot, citing use of an older, incorrect petition form.

Justin Johnson, representing city staff, summarized the procedural issue: the petition filed after the council’s Feb. 1 vote appeared to use an older version of the prescribed form. "It really was just a terminology change... those got updated to say voter registration address," Johnson said, adding that the law requires signatures to be collected on the correct form and that signatures on a wrong form may not be counted.

One council member said they consulted the Secretary of State and outside counsel and concluded the petition did not comply with state rules. That member argued the city could face a lawsuit if it accepted an invalid petition and moved to deny it. "I'm gonna be against these petitions because I gotta look out for the city and myself on this because it was an illegal petition by 3 different laws by the state of South Dakota," the member said.

Public commenters urged the council to place the question on the ballot despite the form problem. Jeremy Jensen, who identified himself during public comment, said the community's concerns about housing in Mitchell should be heard and recommended putting the petition on the ballot so voters could decide. Dwight Stadler, who said he was representing Ward 4, noted the petition had substantial support and urged the council to consider the content rather than the formatting. "You've had over 600 citizens support this... I think you're ignoring the citizens of Mitchell if you decide not to put it on a ballot," Stadler said.

Steve Simpson, another speaker, invoked constitutional protections for petitioning government and urged liberal construction of referendum petitions under state law.

After public comment and discussion, the council took a roll-call vote and approved a motion to declare the petition invalid and not place it on the ballot by a 5–3 margin. Councilmembers said they would put the issue back on a future agenda so the petitioners and council could address the matters raised.

Next steps: the council will re-discuss the matter at its next meeting and staff will bring any clarifications or options for moving forward.