The South Dakota Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of Amendment A. In the 2020 election, almost 55 percent of the state’s voters approved the amendment that legalizes cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes. The law officers who brought this suit say this new amendment violates older amendments, especially one added in 2018.
Advocates for legalization of marijuana are represented before the Supreme Court by Brendan Johnson. He says the power of government comes from the people, as reflected by the state’s motto.
“Under God the people rule was a statement… it was more than just words.”
Johnson tells justices that South Dakota was the first state to give its citizens the power to initiate legislation. He says tension between the legislature, the executive branch, and the people was inherent by design.
“When we had a situation where we had an executive branch and a legislative branch that might see things very differently than the people, that the people themselves could act as a legislature.”
Johnson argues there’s a well-established process for challenging initiated measures ahead of the election, and opponents did not follow that process. Instead they waited until after November 3rd 2020, subsequently putting the Supreme Court in the position of having to decide whether to overthrow the voters’ will.
Lisa Prostrollo argues on behalf of Colonel Rick Miller, Superintendent of the Highway Patrol. He was given executive authority to bring this challenge by Governor Kristi Noem.
Prostrollo explains why the Highway Patrol brought the lawsuit after the election, rather than asking the Supreme Court for a ruling beforehand.
“If we were to bring an action before the election… that may not be… that might not have ever been necessary if the amendment were defeated. That’s a waste of judicial resources.”
Prostrollo says Amendment A is unconstitutional for many reasons. One is that it contains an array of subjects, running contrary to the one-subject rule established in 2018 by Amendment Z, also approved by a majority of voters.
She says Amendment A can’t represent the will of the people if it violates the people’s constitution.
Justices will deliberate and issue an opinion at a later date.