I am hearing early reports from a good source that Amendment A legalizing recreational marijuana has been declared unconstitutional, and is being considered a Constitutional revision and not an amendment by the circuit court.
I’m hearing the election contest was thrown out as not a proper challenge.. and Amendment A violates single subject rule.
More to come, as the decision is just being digested now by all parties concerned.
This will be big news for the next few days.
How does this play in Noem’s reelection?
It is similar to IM22 being overthrown.
I did not support marijuana but I can’t imagine those who did are happy right now.
I imagine we’ll be hearing more about it in the legislature.
Oh yea. Explaining how a Constitutional Amendment that was easily passed by South Dakota voters is somehow “unconstitutional”… now that will be fun to watch.
Why anyone even challenged it is… let me say this delicately… all frenched up.
If those promoting the Amendment had simply followed the single subject rule, this wouldn’t have been an issue.
Personally, I think they wanted a controversy, rather than an actual Amendment.
If our elected officials listened to their constituents, it would have been legal and never on the ballot. This will be like hemp 2.0. It will drive even more voters in 2022 to legalize marijuana and to remove Noem. I look forward to it along with the rest of my Republican friends.
I haven’t seen the ruling, so honest question: how is “legalizing marijuana” not a single subject? Did the judge rule rule that every detail of legalizing it counts as a different subject? I don’t know how that makes sense except as arbitrary goalpoast-moving to unfairly invalidate amendments (and is why I voted against the single-subject rule amendment).
Marijuana and Hemp were both in the measure for one. The argument for legalizing hemp was that it was different from Marijuana. The Amendment itself defined them as two distinct subject.
The argus has a copy of the ruling here.
https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2021/02/08/south-dakota-marijuana-court-strikes-down-recreational-pot-measure/4442883001/
Well. I don’t like it, but thanks for the explanation and link to the ruling.
Breaking: Gov. Noem just lost her 2022 race to Billie Sutton.
I’m no political scientist, but it seems to me that when more people vote for a constitutional amendment than for a governor, that governor should probably lay low on said amendment. Perhaps the GOP should primary her to save the embarrassment of losing to the Democrats.
Exactly. She was vulnerable BEFORE she ignored the will of a clear majority of South Dakotans. Billie Sutton is the happiest man in South Dakota right now.
If the will of the voters was “clear” , an out of state group wouldn’t have had to spend a million , hired a Minneapolis firm and made the strategic decision to violate the constitution to try and get enough votes.
Suspect Gov Noem is on right side of electorate, in a fair setting, without this thumb on the scale stunt that the out of staters got called on.
I see Lee is anti-democracy too. Shocker.
Interesting perspective on disrespecting our South Dakota Constitution. Thankfully, our Constitution provides an arbitrator fir such disagreements
Overturning elections… it’s what we do.
Kristi outspent her opponent, as I recall. Is it Sutton that is on the “right side of the electorate”, Lee?
The people voted.
Guess who got almost a million from the out-of-state trough last quarter? I suppose that’s all fine and dandy when it pushes your agenda.
Gideon,
As a libertarian inclined Republican, I’m very disappointed with your clear cavalier attitude toward the Constitution. More than any political group, Libertarians should understand it is the Constitution which protects minority rights and fundamental liberties from the vagaries of the majority.
Make your bed with the majority today and throw out the Constitution, what will be your position when they come for you?
There’s no constitutionally recognized minority right at issue here Troy. That’s a blatant red herring.
Red Herring? It is clear you have no understanding of the word, unless you are using it as a rehearing.
When one thinks the Constitution doesn’t matter in the face of “something passed easily by the South Dakota voters” or people who swear an oath to the Constitution should not protect the Constitution and “lay low,” there is no minority rights protections on anything.
It is clear, for you, the Constitution is valuable when it serves your purposes and not of value when it doesn’t. In other words, you have no concern for civil liberties for others but you are just a tyrant.
I know exactly what a red herring is — something that is intended to mislead or distract. Your reference to minority rights is exactly that, because it’s completely irrelevant to this issue. There is no constitutionally recognized minority right to retain the criminal prohibition of marijuana in the face of a clear vote otherwise.
I’m not sure if you really understand how the constitution works as it pertains to minority rights.
I’m also deeply skeptical that your position on this isn’t motivated almost entirely by your personal opposition to legal marijuana, and really has nothing to do with a principled stand in support of the constitution — yes, another red herring.
I’m afraid you’re the tyrant here, Troy, masquerading as a constitutional scholar.
Let me speak slowly:
You said: “There is no constitutionally recognized minority right to retain the criminal prohibition of marijuana in the face of a clear vote otherwise.”
I never said anything about the merits of marijuana or the matter at hand. And, your attempt to make it about that is the red herring.
The Constitution is clear: The Constitution can only be amended so long as it doesn’t violate the single issue rule. This amendment had multiple issues beyond legalization of marijuana, including regulation, taxation, and enforcement. Further, it creates super agencies (Department of Revenue) no longer subject to legislative or executive control.
As I just asked on another blog, has the proponents of this Amendment ever asked themselves why the normal opponents didn’t spend any time or money fighting this Amendment at the ballot box?
The reason is it was so clearly written in violation of the Constitution on multiple levels, they didn’t have to fight it. On its face it was Unconstitutional. Period. End of Story.
So, to close the loop, we have a Constitution which all public servants swear to uphold because it is the Constitution which protects all of us, especially the minority.
If the Legislature or by ballot can do anything they want by a majority, the concept of minority protections is a lie.
“It is clear, for you, the Constitution is valuable when it serves your purposes and not of value when it doesn’t.”
Pot. Kettle. Black. Good lord.
Just to be clear, Troy, that wasn’t me responding. Have been busy at work, but I’ll delve into your comment once I can do more than just skim.
Steve asks “how is “legalizing marijuana” not a single subject?”
Good question. I’ll take the easiest examples of the amendment being about more than “legalizing marijuana.”
Taxing and Spending Tax Revenue is more than just legalizing marijuana. The amendment not only imposes a tax, sets the amount, and it mandates how the tax revenue is spent. As I’m sure you know, the Legislature can impose taxes, raise taxes, cut taxes, and separately decide how to spend tax revenues.
Determining who enforces and administers a law is more than legalizing marijuana. The amendment also gives to the Department of Revenue all authority to administer and enforce all marijuana regulations (an usurpation of what is normal legislative power to allocate administrative enforcement powers as they see fit or the Governor to reorganize responsibilities within the Executive Branch).
Ok, that explanation of how Amendment A violates the single-siubject rule makes sense. Why that’s a good reason it shouldn’t be a valid amendment does not make sense to me. Which is why I voted against Amendment Z.