The state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday on whether a voter approved measure legalizing marijuana is constitutional.
Those challenging the amendment say it violates a recent law that limits constitutional changes to only one subject. The state’s high court has yet to interpret the provision.
South Dakota voters legalized recreational and medical marijuana last year when they passed Amendment A. But those challenging Amendment A say they are two separate issues.
That would violate the so-called ‘single subject rule.’
Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller say the people’s vote to legalize marijuana is unconstitutional. That is also Governor Kristi Noem’s opinion.
Mark Mickelson is a former Speaker of the House. The Sioux Falls Republican led the charge to approve the single subject rule in 2018. Mickelson says he brought the amendment to prevent, lengthy ballot measures.
“I want the issue properly briefed and argued,” Mickelson says. “Let those folks decide whether it applies or not. If they conclude it doesn’t apply here, that means it doesn’t apply to the next version of IM22 or the next version of Marsy’s Law, where clearly we had multiple topics in the same amendment.”
Mickelson says the amendment is meant to prevent ‘log-rolling,’ the practice of combining multiple proposals into one ballot question. That can convince some people to vote for the whole package when they only support one aspect of it. Mickleson says he believes the law applies to Amendment A.
Those supporting the amendment say marijuana and hemp involve the same subject.
The state Supreme Court will hear arguments on Amendment A starting at 10 AM CT.
