South Dakota Supreme Court rules against pot legalization

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — The South Dakota Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a lower court's ruling that nullified a voter-passed amendment to the state constitution that would have legalized recreational marijuana use.

Gov. Kristi Noem instigated the legal fight to strike down the amendment passed by voters in November. Though the Republican governor opposed marijuana legalization as a social ill, her administration’s arguments in court centered on technical violations to the state constitution.

The high court sided with those arguments in a 4-1 decision, ruling that the measure — Amendment A — would have violated the state’s requirement that constitutional amendments deal with just one subject.

“It is clear that Amendment A contains provisions embracing at least three separate subjects, each with distinct objects or purposes,” Chief Justice Steven Jensen wrote in the majority opinion, which found recreational marijuana, medical marijuana and hemp each to be separate issues.

About 54% of voters had approved the constitutional amendment last year. But Highway Patrol Superintendent Col. Rick Miller sued on Noem’s behalf. Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom also joined the lawsuit. The high court ruled that the law enforcement officers did not have standing to sue, but because Noem authorized Miller's suit, they treated it as if Noem brought the lawsuit herself.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-dakota-supreme-court-rules-161420915.html

[The Magistrate]

1. Pettifogging Swill, Sir

[Monohull]

10. Had to look that word up.

Thanks for that one.

[bluestarone]

2. ASSHOLES

Next election have 3 separate amendments! Start them NOW!!!!

[Squidly]

3. So much for the will of the people

But its SD so I'm not all that surprised

[mikeysnot]

4. there goes her presidential asperations....

[Mordred]

5. Yet another example of the will of American people

thwarted by the righteousness of a ruling minority. Joining the list of Florida felony voting rights, Missouri and Maine medicaid expansion and others.

[fescuerescue]

7. yea but this sounds like it was a legal issue, not a political one

Seems pretty clear that if the ballot can only contain one issue, and it contains 4, then it was improper.

That's pretty basic long before politics.

[Ms. Toad]

9. Not only is it a legal issue - but the restriction was imposed by voters a mere 3 years ago. n/t

[ZonkerHarris]

6. The pro pot people need to vote her out. 54%!

[Ms. Toad]

8. General observation, based on the responses so far: Disagreeing with the substantive outcome

Doesn't make the legal ruling incorrect.

Voters, in 2018, passed a constitutional amendment requiring separate votes on each voter initiated constitutional amendment on the ballot. That (or single subject rules) are not uncommon (and often applies to statutes passed by congress as well). 16/26 states which permit constitutional amendment by ballot limit such provisions to a single subject. The purpose is to prevent people/legislators from slipping in an unpopular provision that votors/legislators have to vote for in order to pass other very popular laws (or vice versa - deliberately killing a popular bill by inserting an unrelated poison pill).

That is a good thing. It is the people who drafted the amendment who messed up, not the court which simply enforced the constitutional provision that was passed by popular vote a mere 3 years ago.

[BlueJac]

11. So voters don't matter, bullshit!

Florida does similar antics with state legislators.

[BannonsLiver]

12. There shouldn't be two Dakotas

One is bad enough.

[d_r]

13. right wing politics are so stupid

they can drum up their giliad troopers with their anti gay and racist rhetoric.

they can drum up their haters with the anti immigrant stuff.

they can drum up their loonies with the "pro-life" stuff

they can drum up their nutsos with talk of gun control

but that leaves them hanging with the folks who just want to smoke pot.

they are all about freedom and individual liberty until you want to do something they don't like then nope.

they are all about freedom to do what they want you to do.

[maxsolomon]

14. This same technical objection has been used by the Democratic government of WA

to nullify multiple initiatives that seek to gut the State's revenue-collecting laws: limiting car tabs, funding of public transportation, etc. All filed by the same grifting RW asshole Tim Eyman.

Seems like initiative writers might want to review their language to make sure they meet the letter of the law. Our modest weed-legalization initiative was written by a lawyer trying to craft a choice appealing to frightened old people. As a result, it was too timid. No one can grow their own.

[Buckeyeblue]

15. They should make this an issue for future elections

Might be a way to pick up some Democratic seats.