South Dakota Judge Rules Against Voters

Erin Partin andJeffrey MironThe forward march of marijuana legalization encountered a roadblock yesterday when a South Dakota judgeruled against the will of voters and declared an amendment legalizing the use and sale of recreation and medical marijuana and hemp unconstitutional. Last November South Dakota voters approvedAmendment A by a margin of eight points but strong opposition to the voter ‐​driven initiative from within the highest levels of state government – including the governor – have led to this recent ruling.The basis for the unconstitutionality argument rests on the 2018 adoption ofAmendment Z which, “establish[es] that a proposed constitutional amendment may embrace only one subject, and requiring proposed amendments to be presented and voted on separately. ” Despite warnings from opponents that it could be used to prevent all but the narrowest amendments from being voted upon and dramatically increase the cost of initiative petition drives, Amendment Z passed with overwhelming support – 62.4 percent to 37.6 percent.South Dakota is not alone in having a single ‐​subject rule. Of the twenty‐​six states with processes for initiatives or referendums sixteen – including South Dakota – have similar single‐​subject rules or separate‐​vote requirement provisions. These weaken the power of citizens to generate change from outside the political structure which is antithetical to democratic ideals.Two law en...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs