There’s a story in the Dakota Scout today noting that the Secretary of State isn’t saying much about their approval of a ballot measure for circulation that would not appear to follow guidelines, including state law for the language required on petitions:
The Secretary of State’s Office recently approved petitions for circulation for a proposed ballot measure aimed at abolishing South Dakota’s medical marijuana program and repealing a law passed by voters in 2020 that legalized cannabis for medically-qualifying patients.
However, the petitions do not list the 90-plus sections of statutes that the petitioner hopes to get removed from the state’s books.
and..
Schweich’s letter references South Dakota Codified Law 2-1-2.1, which states, “The petition filing must… (c)ontain the full text of the initiated measure in fourteen-point font.”
The petition just refers to “Exhibit A” for the 95 sections that must be repealed. One of the things that might have tipped it off is that the legislative research council pointed this out back in May. As linked to on the Secretary of State Website.
That part on the Legislative Research Council Comments (LRC Comments 05/11/23 LRC Comments 05/31/23) on the Secretary of State’s own website might have been a great place to start as to whether there were any problems with the style and form of the petitions.
Oops.
You could see this train wreck coming, months ago. We will often see Ismay in court…..clueless but energetic.
When we did our two petitions for Cannabis legalization for our home school (covered various aspects of botany, medicine, horticulture, chemistry, biology, morality, ethics, and law), I was shocked at the behavior of the LRC and AG.
From what you hear, they are corrupt incompetent obstructionist zealots.
I found the opposite.
The staff and reps within the SOS, AG, and LRC were incredible.
Words defy my admiration for them for how they helped us learn and understand the process especially given our youngsters were working on such a controversial topic.
One of the most successful home school lessons we have ever had, and my entire family is more prepared to participate in civic engagement responsibly because of their help.
One small point, though .. it is Cannabis sp or cannabis, not Marijuana.
😀
Toodles.
Sincerely,
John Dale
Exhibit A
Kids perfect example. Don’t do drugs and that includes using Marijuana. Thank you Mr. Dale so that kids do not to make the same mistake you did.
Now, let’s get to this issue.
It should not be necessary to reference every section.
Something like cannabis has so much on the books after so many years of misinformed persecution, it is unreasonably prohibitively expensive to produce the petitions. This was one of the most important lessons we learned.
“Beach Blanket Petition”:
https://dakotafreepress.com/2017/07/06/marijuana-petitioners-work-hard-on-july-4-spearfish-petitioner-builds-custom-petition-station-in-home/
Next, anything approved by the people will be met by the legislature before it becomes law – a good check and balance.
Our next try was more functional with a section that stated something like, “this supersedes all legislation relating to the regulation of cannabis”. Our plan was, if the people were able to see through the “op” (C annabis I ndustry A ssociation) and unite behind our petition, we would enlist the help of the legislature to tune it up and back out all of the nonsense spaghetti code in our codified law and find the compromises that were appropriate for the time.
This approach allowed us to produce a very short petition that was understandable by our audience, although it was rejected in favor of the big money initiative that blind-sided the state. In a politically rapey fashion, the medical program was foist upon the people of SD while money flooded in (we took none) and the strategy was to write the law for the legislature; absurd and wasteful and disrespectful.
We have nothing to do with the present legislation.
As the state’s #1 cannabis advocate (anybody else take the real risk we did with our home school and make such a huge impression on everyone within the SOS, AG, and Legislature?), I’m disgusted with the result, but I accept it and I’m advocating for our original approach (even right now).
Get rid of this state sponsored sham medical monopoly and let us have our cannabis without making a bunch of LARPing farmer-thugs rich.
I realize that many good people went along with it, but I’m sure they have a bad taste in their mouths at having to pay over $300 for the “right” to grow a plant that would take around $5 in water, a good sense of agricultural timing, and a good bay window.
Please. For the love of God. Let’s do something sensible and worthy of the freedom we say exists here.
And for the record, I never claimed that the medical program would get rid of the black market. Full deregulation does that .. anything that goes through a state agency, collects fees, and has authority to oversee what happens in a private residence or business will attract the black market to the legal and technological control mechanisms that will allow the creation maintenance of a state sponsored monopoly, after which all manner of bad things is done to the supply chain.
As always, thanks for considering my thoughts and opinions.
Have a super day everyone,
John Dale
To clarify : “rejected” by SD cannabis advocates, not the SOS/AG.
Don’t blame me, I voted for Barnett.