South Dakota’s governor is requiring cannabis advocates to pay legal fees

Not content with triumphing in court, conservative South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem wants pro-cannabis to pick up the bill, too.

A spokesman for Noem said last week that the organizers behind the canceled amendment legalizing cannabis in Mount Rushmore state would have to pick up the costs stemming from the governor’s own challenge to the law.

In 2020, 54 percent of South Dakota voters approved Amendment A, which would have legalized cannabis for adults 21 and older. However, things got very complicated very quickly.

Noem was a vocal opponent of the change throughout the campaign and maintained her objections even after it was passed.

Two law enforcement officials filed a lawsuit on Noem’s behalf, challenging the constitutionality of Amendment A. In February last year, a South Dakota district judge agreed and reversed the amendment.

The state Supreme Court took up the case in April and, in late November, upheld the lower court’s ruling, which stated that Amendment A, which deals with both medical and recreational cannabis, against South Dakota’s “one-subject ‘ violated the requirement for constitutional amendments.

Noem, who is widely viewed as a potential Republican presidential nominee for 2022, celebrated the verdict.

“South Dakota is a place where the rule of law and our Constitution matter, and that’s what today’s decision is about,” the governor 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 medical cannabis program, which was approved by voters in 2020. This program launched earlier this month and the first cards have already been mailed to eligible South Dakotans.”

A poll last month found that more than 50 percent of South Dakotans disapproved of Noem’s dealings, the only area of ​​politics where she got low marks. (The same poll found her overall approval rating at 61 percent.)

A law group in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, “was awarded $142,000 in December for successfully arguing that Amendment A violated the state constitution,” according to the Argus Leader newspaper.

Ian Fury, a spokesman for Noem’s office, said the cost should be borne by the people who put Amendment A to the vote.

“Proponents of Amendment A have filed an unconstitutional amendment and should reimburse South Dakota taxpayers for the costs associated with their design errors,” Fury told the Argus Leader.

The group behind the change, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, simply said, “This isn’t going to happen.”

“Proponents of cannabis reform in South Dakota are under no obligation to pay for Governor Noem’s political crusade to overthrow the will of the people. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous,” said Matthew Schweich, campaign director for South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws.

“Amendment A was a sensible and well-crafted initiative, adopted by a majority of South Dakota voters at the ballot box, and was overturned only because of a deeply flawed court decision based on a far-fetched legal theory that lacked evidence missing. Driven by her desire to deprive the people of South Dakoto of their personal liberties when it comes to cannabis, Gov. Noem did whatever it took to pursue an unnecessary litigation over Amendment A, using taxpayer dollars to do so. As a result of their actions, South Dakotans paid to have their own votes reversed.”

Voters in South Dakota voted in 2020 to approve a separate measure specifically legalizing medicinal cannabis, and in November, qualified patients there began applying for cards.

Meanwhile, lawmakers there have prepared dozens of bills aimed at reforming the state’s marijuana laws during this year’s legislature.