The group backing two marijuana related ballot questions says they’re concerned about the language of the Attorney General’s explanations.
The Attorney General is tasked with crafting ‘an objective, clear, and simple summary’ of a proposed amendment.
A lawyer assisting the group New Approach South Dakota in passing two ballot questions legalizing recreational and medicinal marijuana says the language in Attorney General Marty Jackley’s summary is unnecessarily strong.
Jesse Kelley is legislative counsel for the Marijuana Policy Project, a cannabis advocacy group based out of Washington D.C.
Kelley says words like trafficking mischaracterize the intent of the ballot questions.
“People who maybe don’t have a lot of information about medical marijuana, or about marijuana in general, they’re not going to get it from that attorney general’s opinion," Kelley says. "It’s really sad that a public official would try to take an issue of critical importance and maybe use it for political gain.”
Kelley points to Attorney General Marty Jackley’s run for governor.
However, South Dakota’s top lawyer says he is tasked with drafting a 200 word explanation of a ballot question that’s fair and accurate.
Jackley says he wanted voters to know of his constitutional concerns of the ballot questions.
“When you have ballot measures that proposed that are 95 sections, or 35 sections, it becomes sometimes challenging to pick out what we feel would most assist the voters. In other words, we aren’t advocating for or against the measure," Jackley says. "We are trying to assist voters in understanding the legal consequence and the effect of the particular measures.”
Jackley says there are some confusing and vague provisions in the measures that, if passed, will likely require judicial or legislative clarification. Jackley did not say which provisions those were.