Patricia DeVaney
Non-Partisan | South Dakota
Candidate Profile*
Moderate
*Additional information appears below for educational purposes; however, only data received prior to the candidate deadline was considered during Panel Evaluation.
BIOGRAPHY
Name
Patricia DeVaney
Party
Non-Partisan
Election Year
2022
Election
General
Race
3rd Supreme Court District (retention)
Incumbent
Yes
Links
EDUCATION
Candidate did not provide
WORK & MILITARY
Candidate did not provide
AFFILIATIONS
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES HELD
Candidate did not provide
POLITICAL OFFICES SOUGHT
Candidate did not provide
Race
ENDORSEMENTS*
*These endorsements were received after the deadline and were not considered in the Panel Evaluations and are for additional educational purposes only.
CONSERVATIVE (1)
*Judge Voter Guide
OTHER INFORMATION
Justice Patricia DeVaney has served on the South Dakota Supreme Court since 2019, after being appointed by Governor Kristi Noem (R). She previously served as a judge on the South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit since 2012, and she worked in the SD Attorney General's office from 1993 to 2012.
Notable Cases:
- Thom v. Barnett (2021): Signed Justice Jensen's majority opinion. Held that a voter initiative legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana and hemp was invalid for violating the state's single-subject rule (SD Const. Article XXIII, Section 1). Held that the circuit court properly dismissed a challenge to the petition as an election contest because that must be a challenge to the "election process itself" and plaintiffs must show "must show voting irregularities ‘so egregious that the will of the voters was suppressed" (7). Held (2) the government officials did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of Amendment A relying on Edgemont School Dist. 23-1 v. South Dakota Department of Revenue which found that “’creations of the legislature [,]’ did not have ‘standing to challenge the constitutionality’ of a statute.” Additionally, neither plaintiff identified any “actual or threatened injury” nor can they “suffer [any] injury by carrying out [its] mandate. However, held (3) that Thom and Millers standing was cured because the Governor had authorized the action and its continuation under Article IV section 3 by “ratif[ying] commencement of th[e] lawsuit through an executive order” and agreeing to be bound by its result. Found that the initiative violated the single-subject rule by encompassing the subjects of: (1) developing a comprehensive plan for the legalization and regulation of marijuana for 21 + years. (2) To adopt laws for medical use (3) Mandated legislature to regulate sale distribution of hemp, and the Court found that these subjects were not connected to each other. Found that a violation of Article XXIII section 1 “occurs when the proposed amendment contains more than one subject, with different objects or purposes, that are not dependent upon or connected with each other.”
- In the Matter of the Order Regarding Custer County Courthouse (2021): Signed Justice Jensen's order affirming a Seventh Circuit Judge's decision that all proceedings in the Custer County Courthouse ought to be held via audiovisual means pursuant to SDCL 16-6-7, due to a local ordinance allowing firearms to be carried in the courthouse (2). The lower court said that the ordinance made the courthouse "unsuitable and insufficient due to safety concerns for court proceedings" (2).
- In re Interpretation Of South Dakota Constitution and State Laws Regarding Eligibility For CRF Grant Programs (2020): Signed majority advisory opinion, holding that Article III, Section 12 of the South Dakota Constitution's provision that current members of the legislature shall not be "directly or indirectly interested" in any contract with the state barred state legislators from receiving funds from Coronavirus Relief Fund Grant Programs (6). Article V, Section 5 of the South Dakota Constitution enables to issue advisory opinions on the governor's request on "important questions of law" on "solemn occasions," and the Court held that this question qualified (4-5).
- State v. Buffalo Chip (2020): Wrote the second half of the majority opinion and signed Justice Kern's majority opinion as to the first half. Affirmed a lower court's decision to dissolve Buffalo Chip's municipal incorporation as a city and holding that Buffalo Chip failed to satisfy the residency requirements in SDCL 9-3-1 (2). The relevant law required that a municipality not have "less than one hundred residents *or* less than thirty voters" in order to be incorporated (emphasis added) (16). Buffalo Chip had thirty or more voters at the time, but it did not have one hundred residents (16). It argued that, since it fulfilled one of the requirements, that it ought to have been able to incorporate. The Court held that since the provision was listing prohibitions, rather than affirmative requirements, Buffalo Chip's failure to fulfill both criteria prevented it from incorporating (17). "As used in this sentence, 'or' means 'or.' Under either scenario, a municipality is not allowed to incorporate (18). Said that "and" ought to have been used if Buffalo Chip's preferred meaning were intended (19). Rejected Buffalo Chip's argument that the legislature's later amendment of the statute to make the Court's interpretation explicitly clear indicated that the interpretation had changed because the Court held that the text of SCDL 9-3-1 was clear as written (19).
Other Information:
- Ballotpedia's partisanship study rated Justice DeVaney's pre-judicial political activities as being that of a "Strong Republican"
QUESTIONNAIRE
VALUES
I agree with Critical Race Theory (CRT) which asserts that the institutions in the United States are fundamentally racist.
Did not answer
Judeo-Christian values established a framework of morality that is necessary for our system of limited government.
Did not answer
Briefly describe your spiritual beliefs and values.
Did not answer
What types of pro bono work have you done?
Did not answer
ABOUT YOU
Have you ever been convicted of a felony or been penalized in either civil or criminal court for sexual misconduct? If so, please explain.
Did not answer
What education or experience qualifies you to hold the office for which you seek election?
Did not answer
Why should the voters choose you?
Did not answer
I voted in these primaries and general elections:
Did not answer
JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY
Justices should not interpret the federal and state constitutions as living documents, but should use a textualist and originalist approach to interpretation.
Did not answer
What is the proper use of legislative history in interpreting statutory law?
Did not answer
Which current or past U.S. Supreme Court justice best reflects your judicial philosophy?
Did not answer
How should a court address the balance between public health and individual freedoms in the time of a pandemic?
Did not answer
In light of the case Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include a prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination, which justice’s opinion most closely aligns with your own opinion?
Did not answer
What role (if any) does a judge have in maintaining the separation of church and state?
Did not answer
Religious liberty is at risk in the United States and deserves the highest level of protection in the law.
Did not answer
When should a judge overturn past court decisions?
Did not answer
How should a judge determine which rights are protected by the Constitution even though they are not specifically mentioned?
Did not answer
What legal principles should a court consider when evaluating parents’ objection to their child obtaining medical procedures or drugs designed to affirm the child’s desired gender?
Did not answer
What principles should guide a court’s analysis of whether your state’s constitution gives terminally ill patients a right to assisted suicide?
Did not answer
Would you describe your judicial philosophy as originalist, living constitutionalist, or something else?
Did not answer
