In 2018 as part of a package of bills to make South Dakota’s initiated process better and in hopes of decluttering the ballot, Amendment Z was brought to establish “that a proposed constitutional amendment may embrace only one subject” and required that “proposed amendments to be presented and voted on separately.”
The Constitutional Amendment passed in a landslide with over 62% of the vote.
But now, the backers of measures to legalize recreational pot are threatening to undo this law after their measure ran afoul of the single subject requirements of measures, despite prior warnings that their measure was a mish-mash.
According to an Associated Press Story, in the run up to the court making a decision on the legality of a recreational pot measure which failed a court challenge because of the requirements of amendment Z, the group behind Amendment A is threatening a repeal challenge to that amendment if the Supreme court does not rule in their favor:
Over the July Fourth weekend, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws announced they’d sent five new ballot measures — all related to defanging criminal laws and civil penalties for marijuana possession — to a legislative research team in Pierre.
But the team behind the push, who also have proposed removing a single-subject test for constitutional amendments, say they won’t bring the measures forward if the five justices in Pierre uphold Amendment A, which legalizes recreational cannabis in the state and voters approved with 54% majority last November.
Interestingly, the single subject problem the recreational pot measure had and which may have ultimately broken the ballot measure’s back in court should not have come as a shock to the measure’s sponsors. Because they were given a warning from the onset before they collected signature 1 by the State Legislative Research Council pointing out that “The Constitution is not a compilation of policy statutes and as such, should not be amended to incorporate what ought to be statutory material.”
They went ahead and did it anyway. Which also earned them this note on the ballot by the attorney general about the measure’s problems:
Judicial clarification of the amendment may be necessary. The amendment legalizes some substances that are considered felony controlled substances under current State law. Marijuana remains illegal under Federal law.
One thing the measure’s sponsors may wish to consider is that while a majority of South Dakotans did pass the recreational marijuana measure with a 54% majority last year, as noted over 62% of state residents were tired of confusing omnibus measures being dumped on voters in the immediately preceding election.
If recreational pot proponents want to bring back the bad old days of ballot measures after they were warned their own measure was a mess, they might not find themselves as successful as they were in 2020.
The people running this Amendment are obstinate, exclusive, and selfish (greedy). Many good folks got caught up in this, and I am not mad at them.
However, there will most certainly not have the same level of support after this latest series of RAPEY moves.
I was one of the people trying to warn them.
Cannabis advocates deserve better than a frankenstein-ian anti-SD weapon.
I have zero faith in the initiative process at this point (duh) to support the right approach.
I will trust the legislature, and do my best to survive as a cannabis advocate.
Sad times .. could have been so different.
https://PlainsTribune.com/cc4l
Thanks for the link to your site. Some useful ideas to think about as we mull over legislation for next session.
The SD Legislature now knows, in no uncertain terms, the majority of South Dakotans want marijuana legalized for all purposes.
If they just did their job all of this would be moot.
I can’t speak for any other legislator, but I support medical marijuana for those who honestly need it, don’t support it for those who don’t, and don’t support recreational under any circumstance.
Well we had a vote on that, and you lost. Amendment A might not prevail, but the will of the people on this issue is clear.
I disagree. The will of the people is not clear. How could it be with multiple items we were voting for? How many voted for Hemp? How many voted for rec? How many voted for medical? Not trying to be disagreeable, I just don’t believe the will of the people is clear due to the multiple issues on the Amendment.
THat is BS!— And it is insulting, of course you don’t understand that ..The arrogant, self absorbed claim “The will of the people is not clear. “– and try to justify that insult by basically saying “the people are too d— stupid to know what they were voting on is another anti- Democracy attempt to trash the will of “the people” as you banana republicans did with IM22 and I assume other votes….
I don’t know if Fred’s voters knew who they were voting in, was there really another choice, or did they just vote whoever had an (R) next to their name?
This is an important idea that South Dakota elected officials should take to heart. Well said, Anon.
This is an issue of personal responsibility.
We are being told to get an experimental shot that is killing and maiming people:
https://plainstribune.com/podcast/?service=podcast.PodCastDetail&streamId=635edeacc63e6dd400f42bf2f65e0cb2
Marijuana/Cannabis does not have anywhere near that kind of negative impact (quite the opposite).
At this point, it’s just a lame-brained power struggle that needs to end.
NOW.
We have better things to do than fight over Cannabis.
Amendment A was recreational marijuana, AND medical marijuana, AND industrial hemp. They did that so that they could lead with the latter two, which are more popular, and carry recreational marijuana along with them.
Good people can differ as to if that’s more than one subject. It could all just be “marijuana.” I personally think industrial hemp makes it at least two subjects; the proponents of hemp go to great lengths to explain why it is NOT marijuana. But it’s subjective.
At this point, though, the legislature has enacted industrial hemp, and the voters have approved medical marijuana. The only subject left is recreational marijuana, and it should be really easy to draft a recreational marijuana measure that meets the current one-subject rule.
There’s one other problem with this approach, and that is that Amendment A was challenged for two reasons. The one-subject rule was one of them. The other was that, because Amendment A created a new constitutional article on a new topic, it was argued that it is a “revision” rather than an “amendment” and therefore has to come through a constitutional convention.
I’m sure it is embarrassing for the lawyers who worked on Amendment A that they botched the drafting. If they had read the SD Constitution beforehand they could have easily drafted A in a way that would have avoided these problems, but apparently they didn’t. (Or, they chose to ignore it, which given the LRC warning may be more likely).
In any case, stop trying to re-fight the last election and just draft something that avoids the same problems. It’s not that hard.
Out of state Marijuana industry has plenty of cash to burn for another run at this. They have a few instate shills on the payroll as it is. Question is will there be an organized opposition this time? Better organized?
Let’s not oppose it. Let’s legalize it the right way.
https://PlainsTribune.com/cc4l
In my view, we are grown-up enough to make our own decisions on Marijuana/Cannabis, and we can make our own decisions.
This is a personal responsibility issue.
BUT, if they draft a recreational marijuana measure that does not include medical, then they also will not be able to lie to the voters that you have to pass A to get medical marijuana. That lie is what put A over the top and will be removed from their strategy.
It was the will of even more people not to have multiple subjects in a ballot measure.
Actually 225,000 people voted for Amendment A. 195,000 voted for Amendment Z. So it’s actually the opposite of what you stated.
The people of South Dakota are not stupid and unlike what some here might think we can read. Everyone knew what the main purpose of Amendment A was. It passed with 225,000 votes. Now people upset with the outcome would rather have the courts decide instead of the voters. That is their right to do so. But the will of the people is clear.
The majority voted to legalize marijuana for all adults.
These legislators want you to know that they are on your side… as long as you have a qualifying condition, beg your doctor for a permission slip and then plead with the state to give you their blessing. And… you wait and wait until they decide to actually do it.
Then, if you ever try that Constitutional Amendment thing again, they will increase the signature requirement and the vote thresholds. If that doesn’t work, they’ll challenge you in court.
The only elections that they recognize are the ones that empower them.
Amendment Z was a mess. Proponents openly admitted that they wouldn’t define what “single-subject” meant effectively guaranteeing endless paydays for the trial lawyers making their cases just as we have seen with A. It was a vague measure wrapped up in pretty, simple language that made people think they were getting one thing when in reality they would be getting the opposite. Amendment A legalized Marijuana. Full stop. In order to legalize Marijuana, you have to also create a tax system, a punishment scale, etc. The proponents of A did their due diligence in making sure all of the t’s were crossed and i’s dotted. But GADZOOKS I guess that makes it more than a single subject. This played out exactly as legislators intended, not to clear up the initiative process, but rather to continue to obfuscate and muddy the waters behind a legal morass. But, yeah, go off, everybody.
Well, legislators could keep their precious one subject rule if they just fulfilled the wish of the people. However, put it to a vote after you repealed A and severely limit IM26, and you’ll most likely lose it.