South Dakota judge strikes down voter-approved marijuana legalization amendment
Voters approved the constitutional amendment in November, with recreational marijuana set to become legal in July. Legalization advocates plan to appeal.
Author:
A judge in South Dakota struck down a voter-approved Constitutional amendment that would have legalized recreational marijuana in the state.
Hughes County Circuit Court Judge Christina Klinger ruled Monday that Constitutional Amendment A violates the state s single-subject requirement and said it would have far-reaching effects on the basic nature of the state s governmental system, according to the ruling posted online by the Argus Leader.
“The failure to submit Amendment A through the proper constitutional process, voids the amendment and it has no effect,” the judge wrote, arguing the amendment doesn t modify the constitution it adds a new section to it, so it needed to be submitted to voters via the constitutional convention pro
South Dakota Republican Gov. Kristi Noem issued an executive order that indicated she is behind the effort to overturn voter-approved recreational cannabis legalization.
Will South Dakota Be the First State to Overturn a Cannabis Legalization Vote?
Governor Kristi Noem has signed an executive order declaring that she called for a lawsuit challenging Amendment A, a cannabis measure that voters approved on their November ballots.
Published on Jan 11, 2021 6:53AM ESTSouth Dakota
Share this:
Voters in South Dakota made cannabis history in November 2020 as the first to pass ballot measures to legalize cannabis for medical and adult use at the same time. Now, just two months later, a lawsuit is heating up that raises the question: will the state make history again, as the first to see legal cannabis overturned?
Arielle Zionts
Rapid City Journal
Plaintiffs are arguing that an amendment legalizing marijuana violates the South Dakota Constitution in harmful ways, while the defendants say it doesnât and that the suit was brought too late and without standing.
âBy failing to follow the proper constitutional procedure, the proponents of Amendment A deprived South Dakota voters of the opportunity to have Amendment AÂ and its far-reaching and pernicious effects on our system of government properly scrutinized at a constitutional convention,â the plaintiffs argued.Â
We have âa scenario in which the state is essentially suing itself to determine whether it can avoid a law the voters passed,â a defendant wrote before asking the judge to throw out the lawsuit.Â