Pro and con logos of the groups involved in the marijuana votes in the November 2020 election.
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO.com) — The Pennington County Sheriff and the Superintendent of the South Dakota Highway Patrol have filed a lawsuit Friday in state circuit court in Hughes County to overturn Amendment A.
Voters passed Amendment A, which would legalize the recreational use of marijuana, in the November general election
The Pennington County Sheriff is Kevin Thom and Col. Rick Miller is the Superintendent of the Highway Patrol.
The lawsuit, according to a well-placed source, alleges that Amendment A was wrongly proposed.
The lawsuit does not concern Initiated Measure 26, medical marijuana, which also passed in November.
The plaintiffs allege that under Article 23 of the South Dakota Constitution, there are two ways to change the constitution.
Under Section 1, the voters or the legislature can propose changes–the keyword being “changes”–to the state constitution.
Under Section 2, if there is to be a revision–new material such as a new Article–3/4ths of the members of both the South Dakota House and Senate have to agree to a constitutional convention. Seventy delegates are elected to the convention on a non-partisan basis. If a majority of the convention passes the revision, the voters confirm or reject the measure at a special election.
The plaintiffs also allege that the newly passed amendment contains more than one subject. Under an amendment passed in 1972 by South Dakota voters, constitutional amendments must contain only one subject matter. The plaintiffs say it has at least five subjects in it, including legalizing pot, penalties for violations, medical marijuana, and taxation.
Below is the news release from the plaintiffs:
Pennington County, SD – Today, Pennington County Sherriff Kevin Thom and the Superintendent of the South Dakota Highway Patrol, Colonel Rick Miller, filed two causes of action contesting the constitutionality of Amendment A. The challenges were filed in Hughes County Circuit Court.
“I’ve dedicated my life to defending and upholding the rule of law,” said Sheriff Thom. “The South Dakota Constitution is the foundation for our government and any attempt to modify it should not be taken lightly. I respect the voice of the voters in South Dakota, however In this case I believe the process was flawed and done improperly, due to no fault of the voters.”
“Our constitutional amendment procedure is very straightforward,” said Col. Rick Miller. “In this case, the group bringing Amendment A unconstitutionally abused the initiative process. We’re confident that the courts will safeguard the South Dakota Constitution and the rule of law.”
The causes of action focus on the unconstitutional drafting and proposal of this issue as a constitutional amendment. First, the causes of action cite this clause in Article XXIII Sec. 1. of the South Dakota Constitution: “A proposed amendment may amend one or more articles and related subject matter in other articles as necessary to accomplish the objectives of the amendment; however, no proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject.”
Second, the pleadings emphasize that Amendment A attempted to insert an entirely new article into the Constitution, and therefore needed to follow the revision process set out in Article XXIII Sec. 2 of the Constitution. The proponents of Amendment A failed to follow that basic textual requirement.
Given that this matter is now part of pending litigation, neither Sheriff Thom nor Col. Miller will be making further comment. All media inquiries should be directed to legal counsel.
Click here to read the filing.
Comments