South Dakota voters reject governor’s cannabis approach

South Dakota voters are largely on board with their governor. Large majorities are in favor of her general job performance as well as her dealings with the country’s economy and dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.

But when it comes to Kristi Noem’s handling of cannabis legalization in the state, Mount Rushmore’s first term governor and potential Republican presidential candidate gets a thumbs down.

A new poll last week found that the cannabis ban is pretty much the only bad mark on Noem’s testimonial. Of the 500 registered voters in South Dakotan who participated in the poll, 61.2 percent approved of Noem’s overall performance as governor.

Specifically, about 65 percent said they also agree to their handling of the pandemic, which was defined by a hands-free approach. 72 percent said they support their focus on issues specific to South Dakota, while about 61 percent support their maintaining the integrity of the office.

But regarding their handling of cannabis legalization, which flared up in the state’s judicial system after voters voted in last year’s election, only 39 percent said they approve of Noem, while 17.8 percent said they disapprove and 33.4 percent said they strongly dislike it.

The poll was conducted by Mason Dixon (and reported on by local television station KELO) between October 20 and 23, through telephone interviews with 500 registered voters in South Dakota. It has an error rate of 4.5 percent.

The poll results seem to confirm what last year’s election results showed: that South Dakotans are ready to legalize recreational cannabis use for adults. 54 percent of voters in the deep red state voted for Amendment A, which would have legalized cannabis for adults 21 and older.

The poll also suggests that Noem’s fearless opposition to legalization was a rare political misstep for an otherwise popular governor who is widely believed to have White House ambitions.

Noem effectively denied the constitutionality of Amendment A, with two state law enforcement officers filing a lawsuit on her behalf. A South Dakota district court judge rejected the change in February, but in April the state Supreme Court agreed to consider appealing the lower court’s decision.

After seven months of deliberation, the Supreme Court finally made its decision last month, ruling on the eve of Thanksgiving that Amendment A violated the “one-topic” requirement in the state’s constitution.

Chief Justice Steven Jensen, in his majority opinion, wrote that the proposed amendment “contains provisions that address at least three different subjects, each with different aims or purposes”.

“This constitutional directive could not be made clearer – each issue has to be voted on separately – and the simple separation 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 void in its entirety. “

Celebrating the Supreme Court decision, Noem reiterated that the state’s launch of a new medical cannabis program – which was also approved by South Dakota voters in last year’s election – was on the way.

“South Dakota is a place where the rule of law and our constitution are important, and that is what today’s decision is about,” she said in a statement at the time. “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. ”