Top Political Stories of 2019: #6 – Marijuana measure pushers regroup with out of state allies, and put two marijuana legalization ballot measures up for 2020.
Drug legalization efforts in South Dakota have a history of staying true to the state’s conservative roots, in that they’ve been rejected time and again. But, after over a decade of rejection by South Dakota voters, the issue has once again bubbled to the top.
A ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana first appeared on the 2006 ballot, losing 52%-47%, which was followed with another measure in 2010, which lost by an even greater margin of 63%-36%. These efforts had backing from the out of state Marijuana Policy Project which helped to fund the petitioning process, and put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the measures. By 2015, another group of people were there was an effort to place yet another ballot initiative on the 2016 election to legalize medical marijuana, but unlike the previous ballot drives, the Marijuana Policy Project appeared to largely take a pass on the South Dakota effort, largely due to strong marijuana campaigns in larger states for the 2016 election.
The South Dakotans Against Prohibition group began circulating petitions to put decriminalization of marijuana on the November 2016 ballot, but failed to gather the 13,871 signatures necessary to place the measure on the ballot, forcing the group to withdraw its petition. The same group went back to the drawing board in the next election, and turned in over 15,000 signatures, barely meeting valid signature requirements, in an attempt to place medical marijuana on the 2018 ballot. But similarly to their attempt for the 2016, the group failed to make the ballot due to an insufficient number of valid signatures.
Moving forward to 2019, various parties had an interest in adding South Dakota to the list of states that would legally permit the sale of marijuana, which currently remains illegal on a federal basis.
John Dale of Spearfish submitted a ballot measure early on that would let people age 21 and older possess, grow, sell and distribute marijuana in South Dakota has taken the first steps toward the 2020 election ballot. The Dale measure would also allow someone younger than 21 use marijuana with a doctor’s recommendation.
Melissa Mentele, who had led the measures which failed to achieve the ballot for the 2016 and 2018 elections, submitted a medical marijuana measure that according to the Attorney General’s opinion declares that “Cardholders may possess 3 ounces of marijuana and additional amounts of marijuana products.” The Attorney General’s on this measure opinion also notes that if passed, the measure “will likely require judicial or legislative clarification.”
In addition to the two initiated measures, a third measure, a Constitutional Amendment, was proposed by a group represented by former United States Attorney Brendan Johnson. The Constitutional Amendment proposes in part legalizing “the possession, use, transport, and distribution of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia by people age 21 and older. Individuals may possess or distribute one ounce or less of marijuana.”
After petition circulation approval in 2019, The initiated measures seemed on track for the same level of success they had in the prior two elections. Dale sought people to sign via facebook an effort which ultimately was unsuccessful – and Mentele’s group exhibited the same lackluster organization they had in two prior elections when they failed to achieve the ballot.
Early on, there were reports of the Mentele backed Medical Marijuana group lacking funds, to the point they were asking circulators to print their own petitions, and making facebook appeals for donations to rent booth space. Early reports had them far off of necessary goals into the process, and far off from the numbers that would be required to successfully turn in.
And then something changed – The Brendan Johnson sponsored Constitutional Amendment was approved for circulation, and the world changed overnight, as floodgates of cash were broken free.
Quickly after approval for circulation, a new political action committee was formed affiliated with the national “New Approach PAC,” and there was a major push by an out of state petition firm, Fieldworks, hiring petition circulators who were aid to be aggressive in the pursuit of signatures.
While the financial reports won’t be forthcoming for another month, what appears to have happened is that the national Marijuana Policy Project returned to support the state’s pot related ballot measures after nearly a decade hiatus – setting up the “South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws” as the umbrella organization under which they are operating.
The Constitutional Amendment seems to have been the trigger for the heightened activity, as the petition circulators gathered the Constitutional measure primarily.
Although, it appears that the mega-bucks that the out of state groups brought in may have also provided some cash up for the initiated measure to hire petition circulators, as at the time petitions were turned in, the initiated measure backers appeared arm in arm at the petition turn-in with paid petition circulator Jordan Mason of Rapid City, who had previously been paid to circulate petitions for unsuccessful Congressional candidate and former Secretary of State Shantel Krebs.
With the return of the Marijuana Policy Project, it’s already been exhibited that South Dakota voters should expect deeper pockets of out of state cash.
Versus the previous two failed petition drives, the two measured backed by the group actually made it to the ballot, arguably from their heavy reliance of the use of paid circulators.
The Marijuana Initiated Measure turned in 25,524 signatures that were deemed valid by the Secretary of State’s office, providing it clearance to appear on the state’s 2020 election ballot (16,961 valid signatures required). Having submitted over 50,000 signatures, absent a significantly high error rate, the Marijuana Constitutional Amendment is likely to be validated for the ballot early in 2020 (33,921 valid signatures required).
While 2019 was all about petitions, 2020 will see the battle over legalization of marijuana in South Dakota move from signature gathering phase to the ballot box where based on history, it still faces an uphill battle.
Medical marijuana is wrong for South Dakota. Too much of a change. Besides, so many people make a living when potheads get arrested. The ingestion law alone supports cops, guards, bondsmen, clerks, jailers, technicians, and more. Even if medical passes ingestion will still be a felony! VNOE
Yeah – ingestion of marijuana is not a felony.
Ingestion is only a felony for controlled substances and aligns with its place in state statute. Since marijuana is a Class 1 misdemeanor, ingestion is the same. Ingestion of meth, cocaine, heroine, etc. is a class 6 felony. Its that type of misinformation that really does a disservice to the public.
Hi Pat;
I appreciate the tact you took in this piece. It’s not partisan, doesn’t needle, and lays-out some very interesting facts.
1 – in 2016 and 2018 was that NOT still New Approach South Dakota who turned-in the signatures to be invalidated?
2 – I circulated petitions for this cycle and the last, but did not have the support of the cannabis legalization community in SD, who prefer a “realistic and practical” road to legalization that puts up half-measures, gets a foot in the door, and subsequently marches to full legalization in the next cycle, baiting-and-switching medical for recreational.
3 – Because the clarification is important to maintain good standing of the Cannabis Consumers for Liberty (our organization for legalization, no half measures, transparent, honest), we did not take signatures on FaceBook. I built a system to quantify support prior to getting official signatures. If 18k people signed-up for our database, it triggers fundraising and formal, legal signature campaign. Although, we did take signatures locally, we never got off the launch pad regionally because of lack of support for transparent full legalization. Our system accredits a voter’s registration status via text message, so that we have a good shot at having 100% valid signatures and saving everybody a lot of time and money, and giving more incentive to go through the effort and difficulty of authentic, grassroots signature collection.
You should also note that, during their first cycle, New Approach South Dakota, in addition to Marijuana, wanted to push assisted suicide and other traditionally non-conservative proposals. This is why I have trouble supporting them in good faith .. in my opinion they don’t want to legalize cannabis as much as they want to wrestle control of our state from the current leadership.
In my opinion, the initiatives put forward by New Approach South Dakota circulators will create cash flows that will empower adjuncts and supporters of New Approach South Dakota, MPP, and Soros to pursue the gentrification and “blue-ening” of our beautifully wild, deeply red state.
If New Approach South Dakota circulators were told before hand that the amendment would pay-out, does that not create an untenable legal position with respect to the efficacy of New Approach South Dakota’s fundraising/signature collection?
In closing, for the record, the Cannabis Consumers for Liberty creates no such leverage for out of state groups to gentrify South Dakota. Perhaps the legislature will do something clever in the next session.
Thanks again for the great write-up and for exposing the Soros-funded MPP as the purveyors of this initiative.
John Dale
Cannabis Consumers for Liberty (among other things)
Yes indeed John, what says “non partisan” and not “needling” like calling the proponents of the measures “pushers.”
You’re blind if you don’t see Pat’s well known bias in this article.
What is Noem going to do when SD votes to legalize marijuana but bans Hemp?
Both hemp and marijuana are included in the proposed amendment, if I’m not mistaken.
It is, but the primary goal is instituting the legalization of pot into the state constitution.
Tangentially, referring to it as “Cannabis spp” gets the whole kit-n-kaboodle – hemp, sativa, indica, marijuana, etc etc.
Wouldn’t that be sad because the government would lose all their funding. There’s is big money to be made on the war on drugs and the government is the biggest addict.
If any Marijuana initiative passes, the sound money is on the legislature “tuning” it.
Hemp already passed.
It’s a big “if”, but Noem might likely be faced with one of two options. Sign a whittled down Hemp bill or veto it and let the legalization stand.
From the way it’s setting-up, Noem will be given a CYA option to legalize hemp. She’ll be able to tell her constituents, “it was either hemp or that dirty marijuana”.
Crazy town.