In the 1922 case of Hodges et al. v. Snyder et al., parents and taxpayers in Kingsbury County, South Dakota sued their local school board over a bond issue that was intended to fund the construction of a new high school building. The plaintiffs argued that the election approving this bond issue had been improperly conducted because it did not comply with state laws requiring public notice and voter registration procedures. They also claimed that there were irregularities in how votes were counted, which could have affected the outcome of the election. The Supreme Court ruled against these claims, finding no evidence of fraud or misconduct on part of those conducting the election. It held that minor procedural errors did not invalidate an otherwise lawful vote if they didn't affect its result or infringe upon voters' rights. Furthermore, it found no basis for allegations about improper vote counting since all ballots had been preserved as required by law and could be examined for any discrepancies if necessary. This decision affirmed principles such as presumption of regularity in official acts unless proven otherwise; importance given to substance rather than form when assessing legal compliance; and reluctance to interfere with democratic processes based on technicalities unless substantial harm is demonstrated.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hodges et al. v. Snyder et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a South Dakota law mandating compulsory education in public schools infringed upon parental rights and religious freedoms. The dissenters believed that parents should have the right to choose where their children are educated, including private or parochial schools, without interference from state laws requiring attendance at public institutions only. They also expressed concern about potential violations of religious freedom, as some families may prefer faith-based education for their children which might not be available within public school systems. This perspective emphasized individual liberties and cautioned against overreach by state governments into personal decisions regarding child rearing and education.