South Dakota Supreme Court weighs pot legalization battle

The issue of marijuana legalization has created significant divisions among Republicans in South Dakota. For some reason they have a duty to respect the will of voters, but Noem insists that legalizing marijuana is a “bad decision”.

On Wednesday, lawyers quarreling in front of five Supreme Court judges in Pierre had nothing to say about the pot’s merits or ills, but focused on the constitutionality of the amendment passed by 54% of voters. Those who opposed the legalization said the new law would violate the state constitution by making the agency responsible for regulating the resort area, the Treasury Department, a fourth branch of government, and that the electoral measure violated a rule according to which Constitutional amendments may affect only one subject.

“Amendment A will have a significant and lasting impact on our constitution if it persists,” said Lisa Postrollo, an attorney who represents Miller.

The judge in South Dakota rejects a change to legalize cannabis

A state judge and a representative appointed by Noem joined these arguments and put down the constitutional measure in February. Legalization attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court.

Brendan Johnson, an attorney who represents lawyers like South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, admitted the constitutional amendment was lengthy but said it was no reason to overturn it. He argued that the court should be careful when it comes to crushing the electoral measure as it would weigh on future citizens’ efforts to change the laws at the ballot box.

He warned judges of “the harm that could be done if, for the first time in the history of our state, we have a court that literally casts 417,000 votes cast on a law.”

Johnson also argued that Miller and Thom are not standing as law enforcement officers to challenge the constitutional amendment.
Before the law was repealed by the Circuit Court, it was due to take effect July 1st. The court could crush the law entirely, deny Noem’s challenge, or delete certain sections that it considers to be a violation of the constitution while leaving other parts intact. It did not provide a timetable for when the decision was made.