Earlier this month voters in South Dakota voted in favor of passing a measure called Amendment A that legalizes marijuana in the state. The measure won with just over 54 percent of the vote on Election Day.
It seems police in South Dakota are not thrilled with the results because two law enforcement officials have asked a judge to throw out the measure. They filed a court challenge that is even backed by the state’s Governor Krisi Noem and is being paid for partially with state funds.
Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and state Highway Patrol Superintendent Col. Rick Miller filed the lawsuit this past Friday that seeks to declare all ballots cast for or against Amendment A null and void and invalidate the changes it makes to the state Constitution.
“I’ve dedicated my life to defending and upholding the rule of law,” Thom stated. “The South Dakota Constitution is the foundation for our government and any attempt to modify it should not be taken lightly. I respect the voice of the voters in South Dakota, however in this case I believe the process was flawed and done improperly, due to no fault of the voters.”
The challenge was filed in state’s Sixth Judicial Circuit Court and attempts to overturn Amendment. It claims that because the marijuana legalization question, a constitutional amendment, covers multiple issues that include the legalization and regulation of marijuana for adults 21 and older, as well as the regulation of medical cannabis and hemp, it violates a 2018 requirement that “no proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject.”
“A major purpose of the one-subject rule is to avoid requiring voters to accept part of a proposed amendment that they opposed in order to obtain a change in the Constitution that they support,” the complaint reads, “resulting in votes that do not accurately reflect the electorate’s approval of the proposed amendment.”
South Dakota has had the single-subject requirement in place since voters passed a 2018 constitutional amendment on the issue.
“Our constitutional amendment procedure is very straightforward,” said Miller of the South Dakota Highway Patrol. “In this case, the group bringing Amendment A unconstitutionally abused the initiative process. We’re confident that the courts will safeguard the South Dakota Constitution and the rule of law.”
The law enforcement officials’ complaint also says the proponents of Amendment A failed to follow that basic textual requirement.
“We are prepared to defend Amendment A against this lawsuit,” said South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws. “Our opponents should accept defeat instead of trying to overturn the will of the people. Amendment A was carefully drafted, fully vetted, and approved by a strong majority of South Dakota voters this year.”
“The complaint has nothing to do with the manner in which the election was conducted and only relates to the text of Amendment A,” the pro-legalization organization said of the single-subject dispute. “But anyone who reads Amendment A can see that every word relates to the cannabis plant.”
“The governor approved this because she took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. This is part of her duty as governor,” said Ian Fury, a spokesperson for Noem to the Rapid City Journal.
“We need to be finding ways to strengthen our families,” Noem said, “and I think we’re taking a step backward in that effort.” She told the newspaper that she is eager to see the challenge go to court.
“In South Dakota we respect our Constitution,” Noem said. “I look forward to the court addressing the serious constitutional concerns laid out in this lawsuit.”
