South Dakota Supreme Court opposes recreational cannabis legalization

A majority of South Dakota voters blessed cannabis legalization last year, but the state’s judicial system did not.

The long, drawn-out saga of Mouth Rushmore State’s flirtation with cannabis reached its coda last week when the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled the voter-approved amendment unconstitutional on technical grounds.

In a 4: 1 ruling passed on the eve of Thanksgiving, the judges said Amendment A, which would have legalized the use of cannabis for adults aged 21 and over, violated the constitution’s “one-topic” requirement for constitutional amendments.

In a letter for the majority, Presiding Judge Steven Jensen said that Amendment A clearly “contains provisions covering at least three different subjects, each with different aims or purposes”.

Amendment A, which was passed in last year’s elections with the support of 54 percent of the electorate in South Dakota, covered not only recreational plants, but also medicinal cannabis and hemp.

The constitution of the state, wrote Jensen, “not only contains a single issue requirement, but also instructs proponents of a constitutional amendment to prepare an amendment so that the various subjects can be voted on separately.”

“This constitutional guideline could not be made clearer – each issue has to be voted on separately – and the simple segregation of certain provisions may or may not reflect the real will of voters,” wrote Jensen. “Therefore we cannot accept the proponents’ suggestion that removing the provisions on medical marijuana and hemp from Amendment A in favor of maintaining the provisions regulating and legalizing recreational marijuana is an appropriate means. Amendment A is completely void. “

The ruling upholds an earlier South Dakota district court ruling that rejected Amendment A in February.

Amendment Long opposition from South Dakota leaders

The amendment was firmly denied by Republican Governor Kristi Noem, and the constitutionality lawsuit was filed on her behalf by the South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent and a county sheriff.

Jensen said in his statement last week that none of these law enforcement officers “had official authority to challenge Amendment A” and that the district court erred in its decision. But because Noem ratified the lawsuit, the “pending deficiency” was alleviated and the lawsuit was “as if it had been initiated by the real interest party,” that is, the governor.

In April the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

After the Supreme Court ruling last week, Noem, widely recognized as a potential GOP presidential candidate in 2022, turned a victory lap.

“South Dakota is a place where the rule of law and our constitution are important and that is what today’s decision is about,” the governor said in a statement. “We do things right – and how we do things is just as important as what we do. We are still subject to the rule of law. This decision does not affect my government’s implementation of the voter-approved medical cannabis program. This program started earlier this month and the first cards have already been issued to eligible South Dakotans. ”

In addition to Amendment A, voters in South Dakota also approved a separate proposal to legalize medical marijuana last year. That proposal, Measure 26, was approved with the support of 70 percent of South Dakota voters.

The state’s medical cannabis program is slowly taking off. Earlier this month, the state announced that it would begin accepting applications from eligible medical cannabis patients.

Marijuana advocates in South Dakota were dismayed by opposition from both the governor and the courts, but the road to legalization did not end last week. Activists began circulating petitions earlier this fall in hopes of receiving another proposal for a recreational pot when they vote next year.