PIERRE, S.D. (KELO.com) — In a statement released online, the group South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws say they’re prepared to fight against lawsuits filed by Pennington County Sherriff Kevin Thom and Superintendent of South Dakota Highway Patrol Colonel Rick Miller. Lawsuits that the group says would invalidate Amendment A and overturn the will of the voters.
The group says this week they will be filing a lawsuit of their own in defense of Amendment A which would legalize recreational marijuana use. The advocates are calling the lawsuits fallacious attempts based on incorrect legal theory.
‘This lawsuit was filed under South Dakota law, as a “contest” to an election. However, the complaint has nothing to do with the manner in which the election was conducted, and only relates to the text of Amendment A,’ the group posted.
The plaintiffs argued that Amendment A was wrongly proposed, under Article 23 of the South Dakota Constitution, that states 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 argue that the newly passed amendment contains more than one subject. According to South Dakotas’ constitution, 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.
South Dakotans for Marijuana fired back at the accusations, stating that the theory that Amendment A is not held to a single subject is false and that anyone who reads Amendment A can see that every word is related to the cannabis plant. Thus following the one-subject rule. The group also described the plaintiffs’ claim of adding a new article in the constitution instead of adding a section to an existing article to enact Amendment A which in turn invalidates the amendment as a manufactured distinction.
(Todd Epp contributed to this report.)
Comments