From Facebook:
“Pennington County, SD – Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Col. Rick Miller are pleased by the decision of Circuit Judge Christina Klinger on the legal challenge to Amendment A. Today the Hughes County judge agreed with Sheriff Thom, Col. Miller, and South Dakota citizens who overwhelmingly voted to pass Amendment Z in 2018 to protect our state constitution.
“The judge’s ruling today solidifies the protections that were sought in the previous passing of Amendment Z.” Sheriff Thom continues, “It is an honor to defend our state constitution, and I appreciate the judge ruling in our favor today.”
Additionally, the judge ruled that the process to modify the constitution was improper as it was a revision to the constitution rather than an amendment.
“I am pleased with the court’s decision today, though I realize that the Supreme Court will likely have the opportunity to address our constitutional concerns on their merits,” says Col. Miller.
The plaintiffs’ arguments focus on the unconstitutional drafting and proposal of this issue as a constitutional amendment. First, they cite this clause in Article XXIII Sec. 1. of the South Dakota Constitution: “A proposed amendment may amend one or more articles and related subject matter in other articles as necessary to accomplish the objectives of the amendment; however, no proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject.”
Second, the pleadings emphasize that Amendment A is a Constitutional Revision rather than a Constitutional Amendment, and thus was passed via an unconstitutional process.
Given that this matter faces additional litigation given the likelihood of an appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court, neither Sheriff Thom nor Col. Miller will be making further comment.”
The people of Pennington County hired Sheriff Thom to enforce laws, not to spend his time working to overturn laws expressly passed by a majority of the electorate. The ethics of using taxpayer resources in this manner are questionable at best, and at worst, smack of Chicago-style dirty politics.
But if the law passed by the people (actually a constitutional amendment) was done so by unconstitutional means then I say ‘thank you Sheriff Thom’.
But you’re forgetting that the voters passed amendment z in 2018 too. The blame goes directly back to the writers of Amendment A.
This is just wrong on so many levels.
And yet again, South Dakota is a national embarrassment. This time because we don’t respect democracy. Regardless of how you feel about marijuana, this is a tragic day for the state.
Under God, The People rule
Did our state motto get retired and I just missed it somehow?
Anything Marijuana related politically has a long history of having a very high error rates in South Dakota from numerous election cycles of failed attempts to get Marijuana on the ballot to those pushing and drafting Amendment A that did not perform due diligence. It’s why employers and business owners have drug testing along with prohibiting THC (Marijuana) use to protect their business and the employees at their businesses. A good day for South Dakota!
The state you don’t even live in. Go away you lunatic.
The legislature has a duty to take this issue up now and make it happen, if they truly want to represent the will of their constituents.
Exactly. The people spoke. I suggest our elected officials get ahead of the game because federal legalization is going to happen with Biden.
Vote Noem out! She does not represent Republican values- her government overreach has been unbelievable and disappointing. This lifelong Republican will not. vote for her again.
Then you’re not a republican.
We all knew SD wasn’t ready .. this is an interesting outcome, though. I figured the legislature would save us.
Medical cannabis tyranny incoming ..
This ruling is a disrespect to democracy.
Not a fan of marijuana usage myself, but the people of South Dakota voted for legalization and our state government needs to respect the will of the people.
No, it is a respect for the rule of law.
If an organization is not smart to put forth a proper referral, then maybe they aren’t smart enough to begin with.
They probably regularly use weed…..hence the reason they aren’t smart enough.
Shouldn’t this have been challenged BEFORE the election, to have merit?
that isn’t how it works, Elk. Fools who don’t know how to write legislation and refuse to follow the advice of the pros can still put stupid stuff on the ballot. Ballot access is kind of a big deal, you know?
No as you can’t currently challenge it before the election. Courts will not consider it before it passes
A few on here need to review history. This is not the 1st time a constitutional amendment has been passed by the voters and later ruled that it violated the constitution and declared unconstitutional.
Regardless of one’s view on the objective of legal marijuana, I’m shocked by the cavalier attitude toward our Constitution.
It is our Constitution which preserves democracy, the will of the people, minority rights, and personal freedoms. Furthermore, the oath of office almost every public servant is to serve and protect the Constitution.
Such reverence for the Constitution, Troy.
Did the President uphold his oath to preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution when he called the Georgia Secretary of State and demanded that he “find 11,780 votes”? How about when he demanded that the Vice President magically overturn the election?
Or should I be shocked by your cavalier attitude toward such things?
Troy, if you think this lawsuit is a principled stand in defense of the constitution I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Most of that constitution was written before I moved here. Since I moved here, amendments I voted against have passed and amendments I voted for have failed. Why shouldn’t I have a cavalier attitude towards a constitution I have so little ownership of?
Stop the steal!
I read the entire amendment and the judge’s ruling.
This is just a stop along the way to the State Supreme Court. As the ruling is sure to be appealed
More troubling to me is the idea of revising the State Constitution. This has not been done since the State Constitution has been ratified. Once we open the Constitution to be revised, edited, or rewritten, it can have a dramatic effect on the State Government as a whole. One of the purposes of the Constitution is to limit the power of the Government, to protect our freedoms. To remove these protections, in the name of progression, is extremely dangerous.
I would be very wary of opening this Pandora’s box. There may not be any hope left inside.
Out of state Big Marijuana aka Big Tobacco 2.0 came in to South Dakota, paid for out of state petitioners some wearing ankle monitors who used high pressure shady tactics chasing some folks into stores, with widespread complaints resulting by those who signed thinking they were signing to get hemp legalized. Like other states these out of state actors with millions to spend along with their paid instate shills thought they could legally push through to the finish line after a very deceptive and false advertising campaign. Good for our law enforcement officers, attorneys, legal system and Governor who helped uphold the South Dakota constitution! Great day for South Dakota!
Miranda writes that Big Marijuana, “…came in to South Dakota, paid for out of state petitioners some wearing ankle monitors”
OK. Now you’ve got me doubling over in laughter. That is too funny. But, I suppose you are serious.
Can you go out of state while wearing one of those ankle bracelets? OMG. I am still laughing.
Who knows where they got them but it really does not surprise me knowing how shady this industry’s track record has been in other states and their conduct in South Dakota. A very good day for South Dakota families, businesses, communities, taxpayers and our most vulnerable populations especially our youth!