Shocker (or not) – Supreme Court Rules Amendment A violated single-subject rule

I’m pretty sure the State’s Legislative Research Council warned the Amendment A proponents that it would probably have constitutional issues, and after a multi-million dollar campaign, shocker, the Supreme Court has ruled Amendment A violated the single-subject rule.

29 thoughts on “Shocker (or not) – Supreme Court Rules Amendment A violated single-subject rule”

  1. I “assume” the LRC didn’t tell them it had problems. That is why they put it on the ballot. Once again the ‘Publicans are trying to make themselves look good

    1. Has nothing to do with party, and that’s a fairly misleading statement. The LRC provides an advisory role for ballot measures. It’s up to the sponsors whether to follow their advice. Obviously, they didn’t.

      1. They were never given advice “not to”, most South Dakotan’s agree, medical marijuana, recreational marijuana, and hemp, are not multiple subjects (we actually aren’t as stupid as you think). The ruling inner party will be surprised again in 2022, this is not a partisan issue. I know both Dems and Repubs that are for legalization. The people have spoken, we don’t want this as a crime any longer and the cost benefit of keeping it a crime does not make sense.

  2. We are not talking about guns, abortion and the death penalty combined into one measure.

    The Supreme Court ruled that hemp, marijuana and medical marijuana are so different that they cannot be voted on together? I think that is a real stretch.

    The single subject rule’s purpose is to prevent largely unrelated subjects from being slipped into these ballot measures.

    I would like to see a poll on it. Average South Dakotans know better. And have already voted that way.

    1. Do not sign on to ballot measures or vote for them when the writers were told of potential problems with them..maybe the writers’ motives were to get people all stirred up by going ahead anyway. That way it appears that the “people’s will” is being rejected, thus making them the victims.

      1. Regardless of the technicality you want to cite, the majority of South Dakotan’s want something. It is a slap in the face to suddenly reverse a vote, then try to make future votes 60% to pass. When 60% hits, will you change it to 70%?

  3. This is why businesses should have robust drug testing for THC and other drugs and have a zero tolerance policy prohibiting THC (Marijuana) users. Out of state Big Marijuana aka Big Tobacco 2.0 and their instate paid shills could not follow instructions. No surprise there.

  4. The Delta 8 and higher loop hole should be addressed by our legislature. Minors are getting easy access to it too which technically should be illegal to all being a highly potent intoxicant. Once they opened the door to this shady industry they will exploit every opportunity they can in their addiction for profit scheme. Aubree Adams from Every Brain Matters is a great resource for more info.

    1. Good for you for following the issue, Miranda. Not many understand how Delta-8 or other isomers like THC-0 are manufactured or the harm they (or solvents used in processing) can cause. As you note, they are unregulated drugs developed due to a “loophole” in the federal hemp law. This session legislation will be introduced to ban them, similar to bills that have passed other states.

      1. Which kills more people, Fred – cigarettes or marijuana? And by what multiple? 1000 to one? 10,000 to one? Then try the same with liquor.

        What is it with some of you and marijuana?

        1. For those wanted to learn more about the issue, below is a brief explanation copied from leafy.com, a pro-marijuana site:

          In recent months, a synthetic compound derived from hemp called THC-O acetate—often referred to simply as THC-O (pronounced “THC oh”)—has quickly gained popularity among Americans who don’t have access to legal cannabis.

          THC-O’s appeal lies in its potency and its legal status. Research has found that it’s roughly three times stronger than conventional THC. It has been called “the psychedelic cannabinoid” for its borderline hallucinatory effects. Because it’s derived from federally legal hemp, THC-O products are becoming increasingly popular in the states where consumers don’t have access to legal, state-licensed delta-9 THC products.

          And now that delta-8 THC, its trendy cousin, has been outlawed in some states across the country and flagged by the DEA, THC-O’s star may rise even faster.

          Although many of us only recently heard about THC-O, the US military began studying its effects as long ago as 1949; they observed it eroded dogs’ muscle coordination twice as much as conventional delta-9 THC.

          Today the production of THC-O acetate is raising concern among some in the state-licensed cannabis industry. To generate the molecule, a highly-flammable compound called acetic anhydride is added to THC molecules. The process involves a series of extractions that begin with hemp, the low-THC cannabis plant that was made federally legal by Congress in the 2018 farm bill. First, CBD is extracted from raw hemp. Then delta-8 THC is extracted from the CBD. Finally, acetic anhydride is added to the delta-8 THC molecules to make THC-O acetate.

          Is THC-O actually legal? Well, it depends who you ask.

          1. Did you answer the question, Fred? No, you did not.

            Maybe you can run down all of the chemicals found in cigarettes. You know… just for balance.

            1. Asking Fred to accept facts is like asking him to provide evidence that cracking your back will improve your health.

          2. This my be naive on my part, but isn’t this just another important reason to get some sort of recreational legalization passed? Then you ban all these potentially unsafe and incredibly opportunistic products off the shelves.The state utilizes video lottery to sustain itself. So the argument of social costs to legalization goes out the window. In a state where raising taxes is greatly frowned upon, you guys have a chance to increase revenues with support of the population through marijuana.

  5. Congratulations to Team Noem and Team Pat, you just secured the most pyrrhic victory in the history of pyrrhic victories.

    Lightbulb emoticon x1000

    Happy Thanksgiving 🙂

  6. Covid kills about 20 South Dakotans a week lately. But your focus is on marijuana, Fred. Now, try to tell us how many were known to have died from marijuana over the last entire year? One? Two? None?

    You won’t encourage vaccines… but you so strongly oppose marijuana? Those are whacky priorities.

      1. Well then have at it, Fred.

        He reads these comments. He could go right ahead and push for those safe and effective vaccines. And if the rest of you would join him in that, a lot of lives could be saved. Most of them conservative.

        I will await his comments.

  7. I don’t think there’s any good reason for the single subject rule, and the court opinion’s attempt at explaining it on page 32 to 34 is thoroughly unconvincing (yes, the court is right that someone who supports legalizing medical but not recreational marijuana had to decide whether to stomach legalizing recreational to get medical, and vote yes, or forgo getting medical to keep out recreational. But so what? The court just assumes having to make that choice is obviously a bad thing, but if it actually is a bad thing it certainly isn’t obvious why). So I’m not pleased about this outcome.

        1. There’s a very good reason for the single subject rule. Without it I could circulate petitions for several pages of something absolutely marvelous, get it on the ballot and voted for by a bunch of people who didn’t bother to read it and didn’t notice the clause in there that gives me a million dollars of the tax payers’ money every year.

          These ballot measures are so long very few people bother to read them before voting. Unfortunately they don’t bother to read the AG’s explanations either, which is how they keep voting for garbage which the legislature or the courts have to fix.
          The single subject requirement helps, but short of giving voters a quiz on each initiated measure and requiring them to answer 6/10 questions correctly before being allowed to vote on it, I don’t know what else can be done.

          1. The single subject rules was passed by the republicans with fear mongering tactics like everything else. “Californians are putting money in the state, vote yes”, or “the dems want this, don’t let them have it”. Despite these claims, I think you will see a no vote on the 60% and a yes vote on legalization in 2022, personal freedoms are not limited to the democratic party.

  8. Keep in mind, had the proponents gotten past the hurdle of “single subject”, they still wouldn’t have made it past the second ruling of the lower court that it was a Revision of the constitution, not an Amendment. The Supreme Court didn’t consider that ruling as it was a moot point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.