Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lycanthrope" data-source="post: 487705" data-attributes="member: 562">I didnt say 'legislature', did I? Heres how SD used it to eliminate cannabis legalization:In 2020, South Dakota voters passed Constitutional Amendment A (also called the Marijuana Legalization Initiative) with about 54% approval. This was a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that would have legalized recreational marijuana use for adults 21 and older (allowing possession of up to 1 ounce), created a regulated market with taxes and licensing, and required the state legislature to enact laws for a medical marijuana program and legal hemp sales by April 1, 2022.ballotpedia.orgA separate measure on the same ballot (Initiated Measure 26) legalized medical marijuana and passed with stronger support (~70%); it took effect and remains in place because it was a statutory change, not a constitutional amendment.cannabisbusinesstimes.comThe "Single-Subject Rule" and How It Was UsedSouth Dakota’s Constitution (Article XXIII, § 1) includes a single-subject rule for proposed constitutional amendments: “no proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject.” Voters added this requirement via Amendment Z in 2018 to prevent “logrolling” (bundling unrelated issues together to force voters into an all-or-nothing choice).ballotpedia.orgShortly after the election, opponents—including Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom, South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller, and with support from Gov. Kristi Noem’s administration—filed a lawsuit arguing that Amendment A violated this rule. They claimed it bundled three distinct subjects:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Recreational marijuana legalization, regulation, and taxation.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A mandate requiring the legislature to create a medical marijuana program.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A mandate requiring the legislature to legalize and regulate hemp sales. ujs.sd.gov</li> </ul>In February 2021, Circuit Court Judge Christina Klinger ruled Amendment A unconstitutional on two grounds:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It violated the single-subject rule (the provisions were not “reasonably germane” to one single topic).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It went beyond a simple amendment and amounted to a “revision” of the state constitution (which would require a constitutional convention). ogletree.com</li> </ol>The sponsors appealed. In November 2021, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the ruling in a 4-1 decision. Chief Justice Steven Jensen wrote that Amendment A embraced “at least three separate subjects, each with distinct objects or purposes,” and that voters could not fairly decide on them in one up-or-down vote.npr.orgResult: Effective Veto of the Voter MeasureBecause Amendment A was a constitutional change that would have taken effect automatically, the courts’ ruling nullified it entirely. No recreational legalization occurred. The governor and state officials did not need the legislature to pass a new veto law—the existing constitutional single-subject rule, enforced through the lawsuit and courts, achieved the same outcome.reason.comThis is why many described it as the government using the single-issue (single-subject) law to override the popular vote. The rule itself was voter-approved in 2018, but critics argued it was selectively applied here to block a measure the Republican-led government and governor strongly opposed on policy grounds.Later attempts at recreational marijuana (a 2022 initiated measure and a 2024 one) both failed at the ballot box, so the issue has not returned via the courts since. The single-subject rule remains in effect and has shaped how future ballot measures are written in the state.Essentially laws like this are easily weaponized to take power away from the people and give it to the govt, which Im not a fan of.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA