Release: Second Ballot Question Validated for 2020 General Election

@SoDakCampaigns

SECOND BALLOT QUESTION VALIDATED FOR 2020 GENERAL ELECTION 

PIERRE – Secretary of State Steve Barnett announced a petition submitted for an amendment to the South Dakota Constitution was validated and filed by his office today. This ballot measure would legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana and require the Legislature to pass laws regarding hemp, including laws to ensure access to marijuana for medical use. The measure will be titled Constitutional Amendment A and will appear on the 2020 General Election ballot on November 3, 2020.

A constitutional amendment currently requires 33,921 valid signatures in order to qualify for the ballot. “As outlined in South Dakota Codified Law § 2-1-16, our office conducted a random sample of the petition signatures and found 68.74 percent to be valid,” stated Secretary Barnett. Based on the results of the random sample, 36,707 signatures were deemed valid.

Upon the filing of a ballot measure, any citizen may challenge the Secretary of State’s validation of the measure under South Dakota Codified Law § 2-1-17.1. Citizens challenging the validation shall submit an original, signed affidavit to the Office of the Secretary of State no more than 30 days after validation. Electronic submissions of affidavits will not be accepted. For this measure, the deadline to file a challenge is Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. central time.

This measure was the final ballot question submitted by the November 4, 2019 deadline. The South Dakota Legislature has the ability to include constitutional amendments on the 2020 Ballot and South Dakota citizens have the ability to submit a referendum petition concerning laws passed during the 2020 Legislative Session.

Detailed information on specific 2020 Ballot Questions may be found on the Secretary of State’s website at https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/upcoming-elections/general-information/2020-ballot- questions.aspx.

-30-

19 thoughts on “Release: Second Ballot Question Validated for 2020 General Election”

    1. Yes it does, Springer, when you know with certainty, as we do in this case, that the legislature and governor will refuse to honor the will of the people.

      1. Medical (really recreational) marijuana has been rejected on the ballot each time it has been brought up, so how are the legislature and governor ignoring the will of the people? Seems to me they are upholding it!

        1. You think medical will fail this time Springer? I’ll take that bet…

          And just wait and see what the legislature does in response.

          1. I would support medical marijuana if it was treated like a narcotic. Available from a regular pharmacy with a physician’s prescription. Otherwise it is just recreational in disguise.

            1. “I would support medical marijuana if it was treated like a narcotic. Available from a regular pharmacy with a physician’s prescription. Otherwise it is just recreational in disguise.”

              Let’s treat it like what it is .. a plant that can be easily grown at home the flowers of which when heated to 325 degrees and consumed create a mild intoxication.

              It is statistically safer than aspirin, codeine, tobacco, and alcohol.

              It also enhances one’s experience when listening to The Doors, Pure Prairie League, and Hank Williams Jr.

              Prohibitionists already have egg on their faces with this issue. No more egg will fit on their faces. It’s over.

              #legalize

          2. “just wait and see what the legislature does in response”

            We’ll see how this information pans-out, but a very credible insider told me two things that have bearing on this issue.

            To find-out what I’m talking about, you’ll need an attention span longer than 5 minutes (24 minutes to be precise).

            It’s like deer hunting or fishing or gardening or many other worthwhile things. You have to invest more than 5 minutes to reap the reward (I wish American CEO’s would figure this out).

            One of the most difficult thing I have to teach my kids is not to give-up too early.

        2. “Medical (really recreational) marijuana has been rejected on the ballot each time it has been brought up, so how are the legislature and governor ignoring the will of the people”

          I’m trying to restrain my arrogance in making a prediction on this issue.

          All I can say is .. 2020 in politics is going to be lit.

          Smoke ’em if you got ’em.

    1. I gave it about 5 minutes, but between the music, the disorganized rambling, the admission that you did no preparation, and the fact that you didn’t say a single interesting thing about the topic in all that time, I bailed.

        1. Yeah man 25%. If you haven’t interested me by then it’s not worth any more of my time. I might be anonymous but I might also be right. Use this as an opportunity to improve your product.

      2. PS – congratulations. You just made the next hate mail segment, anon. 😀

        https://plainstribune.com/podcast?service=podcast.PodCastDetail&streamId=7356eecec63e6dd43ab72659dfe41f6b

        But seriously, every time you listen to one of my online broadcasts, two things happen.

        1 – you make me happy because you’re listening using software I wrote: capture -> encode -> packetize -> store -> cache -> distribute. I didn’t “install” this software, I “wrote” this software.

        2 – a kitten cries.

    1. That’s because those of us who have worked in the trenches of criminal justice know that marijuana shouldn’t be illegal.

      1. “those of us who have worked in the trenches of criminal justice know that marijuana shouldn’t be illegal”

        Mic drop.

        #legalize

        #legalizeagain

  5. All of the previous IMs and referendums that didnt make the ballot were mocked for obviously being against the will of the people. Will these unimpeachable numbers on BOTH cannabis petitions open your eyes to the shift that has happened in SD?
    Doubtful, but the result will be a saner drug policy so it all works out.

  6. Regardless of how one feels about the issue, Springer is right- This is a policy question and has no business as a Constitutional Amendment.

    The argument “legislature and governor will refuse to honor the will of the people” is a red herring.

    1) Our nation is a constitutional representative democracy which means to exert the will of the people is in who we select as our representatives. Granted, sometimes it takes multiple elections to discern the “will of the people” but such a process allows for the protection of the minority. Our form of government inherently protects the minority from the whims of the majority.

    2) We have the initiative/referendum as an “accelerator” of expressing will of the people. At the same time, because it is a Constitutional Amendment, it allows for our republican-democracy representatives to adjust the law as circumstances change, protect the minority, or address unintended consequences. We have to go no further than look at Marcy’s Law (used the Constitutional Amendment mechanism) as an example of violating all three (no flexibility to have exceptions when disclosure is necessary to protect the public or denial of other rights and privileges not intended).

    3) If this were a normal initiative and the Legislature overtly subverts the “will of the people” by giving passage no credence, the people have the power to remove these legislators at the next election. When the advocates are unwilling to accommodate both future change, ability to protect the minority, address unintended consequences, etc., they are acting as a mob to get their way. And, will always get opposition from people who might otherwise support their view. I for one, always vote against Constitutional Amendments which should be laws, either passed by the Legislature or People (via initiative or referendum), even if I support the policy.

Comments are closed.