A judge in South Dakota tries to nullify legalization

A judge in South Dakota ruled Monday that a cannabis legalization initiative adopted by voters in the November election is contrary to the state's constitution and therefore invalid. Judge Christina Klinger of South Dakota's Sixth Circuit Court ruled that Amendment A is against the state's constitution on two counts and should not be implemented. Amendment A was approved by 54% of South Dakota voters in last year's general election. Under the initiative, marijuana would be legalized for adult use and a regulated market would be created for the legal trade in cannabis. State voters also approved Measure 26, an initiative to legalize medical marijuana, with 70% of the vote. Following the election, South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Col. Rick Miller and Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom filed a lawsuit to block Amendment A, alleging the move was against the constitution. So far, no complaints have been filed against Measure 26. Klinger decided that the initiative violated the requirement that election activities be limited to one topic. The judge also ruled that the amendment alters the state constitution to the extent that it is a revision rather than an amendment, so it must be passed by a constitutional convention rather than an electoral measure. "Amendment A is a revision because it has far-reaching implications for the fundamental nature of South Dakota's system of government," she wrote in her ruling. "Failure to submit Amendment A through the proper constitutional process renders the amendment invalid and has no effect," added Klinger. Republican Governor Kristi Noem backed the legal challenge to Amendment A, saying after the election that she believed voters made the "wrong choice" about legal cannabis. "I was personally against these measures and firmly believe they are the wrong choice for South Dakota's communities," Noem wrote in a statement. "We have to find ways to strengthen our families, and I think we are taking a step back in that effort. I am also very disappointed that we have the state government over millions of dollars in public safety costs and to set this up." new regulatory system. " In a statement by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Deputy Director Paul Armentano criticized the attempt to deny the will of the voters. "Opponents of legalization cannot be successful in public opinion or at the ballot box," said Armentano. "So they are now trying to overturn the election results in a desperate attempt to uphold cannabis prohibition. Whether you support marijuana legalization or not, Americans should be outraged by these overtly undemocratic tactics." South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, the group that campaigned for Measure A, plans to appeal Klinger's decision to the state's Supreme Court, according to attorney Brendan Johnson. "We disagree with the decision and we are preparing our appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court," he said. In a Facebook post, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws predicted that the calling will be successful. "This is not over. We will appeal. We will win," the group wrote.