Release: Challenge Filed to Constitutional Amendment A

Challenge Filed to Constitutional Amendment A

Pennington County, SD – Today, Pennington County Sherriff Kevin Thom and the Superintendent of the South Dakota Highway Patrol, Colonel Rick Miller, filed two causes of action contesting the constitutionality of Amendment A. The challenges were filed in Hughes County Circuit Court.

“I’ve dedicated my life to defending and upholding the rule of law,” said Sheriff Thom. “The South Dakota Constitution is the foundation for our government and any attempt to modify it should not be taken lightly. I respect the voice of the voters in South Dakota, however In this case I believe the process was flawed and done improperly, due to no fault of the voters.”

“Our constitutional amendment procedure is very straightforward,” said Col. Rick Miller. “In this case, the group bringing Amendment A unconstitutionally abused the initiative process. We’re confident that the courts will safeguard the South Dakota Constitution and the rule of law.”

The causes of action focus on the unconstitutional drafting and proposal of this issue as a constitutional amendment. First, the causes of action 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 attempted to insert an entirely new article into the Constitution, and therefore needed to follow the revision process set out in Article XXIII Sec. 2 of the Constitution. The proponents of Amendment A failed to follow that basic textual requirement.

Given that this matter is now part of pending litigation, neither Sheriff Thom nor Col. Miller will be making further comment.  All media inquiries should be directed to legal counsel.

Click here to read the filing.


Election Contest Verified Complaint 11-20-20 by Pat Powers on Scribd

15 thoughts on “Release: Challenge Filed to Constitutional Amendment A”

    1. Because this is pending they won’t comment. Noem and Price should take their advice when it comes to Ravnsborg.

  1. Thank you Sherriff Thoms and Colonel Rick Miller for doing this! The issue before us is: “Is Constitutional Amendment A constitutional?”, NOT that the voice of the people is meaningless! In my opinion, this had no business being put in the SD Constitution! This is a policy issue, not a constitutional matter.

    Secondly, this was not a well-wriiten amendment; and as a policy matter, it was also not vetted. If the people wanted recreational use, it should have also been an Inititiated Measure as was the medical.

    As an elected official, the onus is on those that brought this, not the ones who have taken an oath to actually uphold the Constitution! And for all those who are elected and either haven’t taken that oath yet or have, shame on you if you supported it! The Constitution should mean something to us as a Representative Republic…

    If you want this, bring a bill or a inititiated measure. Don’t do it as a political stunt!

    1. “If you want this, bring a bill or a inititiated measure. Don’t do it as a political stunt!”

      With all due respect Senator, it’s your job to represent the majority. Why wouldn’t the legislature just take initiative and address this directly? You now know what the majority wants on this issue. Do your job.

    2. Rep Otten. So you place “shame“ on your newly elected legislators for voting for or supporting this? Did you call them and talk about what it means for the state constitution? Did you just assume that they understood?

      Shaming someone is not productive. If you have ideas and are any type of leader you would educate and not shame. Do you know how they personally voted? Will you shame 1/2 of S.D. for voting yes on this?

      It’s shameful that you shame on your constituents and coworkers….

  2. So, Senator Otten, what is your policy position on marijuana? I’m guessing I know the answer. The reason the proponents took this route is because the SD legislature does NOT reflect the will of the citizens of this great state. Marijuana will never be legal if left up to the “ policymakers” in Pierre. Yet, the voters overwhelmingly approved it the first chance they had? Wonder why?

    1. One of the reasons that our brilliant and divinely inspired forefathers gave us a representative republic was to avoid the tyranny of the majority. When we elect our representatives, we should choose men and women of moral principle and wisdom who will take care to make wise choices.

      1. Tyranny of the majority? You don’t really understand how the constitution works, do you Ed.

        The constitution enumerates the specific rights that are protected from majority oppression. Not wanting to smoke marijuana is not one of them. Your reference to tyranny is an irrelevant red herring.

        1. I’m really weary of you anonymous cowards that don’t have the courage to come out of your safe space. It’s okay, you can write your opinions. Pat won’t dox you. My Dad taught me that if you can’t sign it, don’t write it. That’s good advice that you should heed as well. If you want to learn more about the Founders’ checks and balances and worries regarding the tyranny of the majority, consult the Federalist Papers or even The Heritage Foundation’s archives.

  3. You are a funny guy, Ed. Whatever helps you sleep at night big guy. Cannabis policy is apparently the “tyranny of the majority.” Grow the hell up dude.

    1. I’m really weary of you anonymous cowards that don’t have the courage to come out of your safe space. It’s okay, you can write your opinions. Pat won’t dox you, dude.

Comments are closed.