South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

First off, not interested in debating if recreational Pot is the right choice yada yada yada. SD has already voted on how they feel about that. This is specific to the case brought against amendment A by Kristi.

I watched the arguments in front of the State Supreme Court yesterday and found it pretty interesting.

It seems these are the Key Arguments:


Pro keeping Amendment A:

• A legal vote took place in which the majority of voters selected to adopt Amendment A
• The one subject rule was not violated because past precedent has shown it is applied to outlier riders
  • For example, tacking a bill making gambling illegal onto a bill redistricting the state based on the census

Against Keeping Amendment A:

• Violates one subject rule because it focuses on more than one subject
  • Taxing, regulation, permitting, etc.
• Creates a fourth branch of government in SD
  • Dept of revenue is responsible for regulation of Rec Pot
• Highway patrol are the only ones tasked regulation
  • This was a different lawyer arguing this point, hard a tough time following what he was getting after to be honest...

I don't believe the State Supreme Court has made a ruling yet, but after listening to the oral arguments (didn't read the briefings) I think they are going to confirm Amendment A for the following reasons:

• No one is arguing that it was a legal vote, the question more falls on the single subject rule from the arguments.
• Past court cases seem to point that a "Single Subject" gets a pretty broad interpretation in the eyes of the court.
  • Thinking about this, what amendment or law is a very narrow single subject? Almost none
• Voters didn't know what they were voting for
  • Man do I hate this argument! Gets used all the time in SD when we vote on something and the state legislation enacts laws dismantling or changing the ballot measure.
  • I always read this as "our people are too stupid to know what they're voting for, so we should make the choice after the fact for them"
• Court seemed to hint that they don't believe the amendment created a fourth branch of government, and if that is the case they would expect it be brought before them to judge that particular piece of the amendment

Obviously we'll see what the court says on the subject, but is it their place to reject the will of the people due to a technicality?



I'm not saying I'm hot to Trot for legal pot, but man it grinds my gears that our own governor feels the need to fight her constituents on a ballot measure like this. I get she doesn't like pot, but when 55% of the people vote to approve it, that's saying something and as an elected official you should listen...


Let's not even talk about our State Legislation now trying to change the ballot measure threshold to 60% of the vote, or change the date of voting to the primary election ballot only...




Any way, rant over. any thoughts or debate?

 

[Rzrbk]

I just wonder which pot stock to buy for my portfolio. It's definitely going nationwide and market share will only increase. It's coming to SD now or in the not-to-distant future. I believe it's now legal recreationally where I'm at in NM..., at least it was on the Governors desk for signature last I heard.

 

[RobertD]

Seems to me like if the one subject rule is problematic, there was ample time for Noem or anyone else to raise a red flag BEFORE the vote. As is it seems like it only became relevant after the amendment passed.

And yeah, a lot of this is really paternalizing towards South Dakota voters IMO. Not to mention the constant ad campaign touting SD as the freedom/liberty state all through the past year and now this.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Seems to me like if the one subject rule is problematic, there was ample time for Noem or anyone else to raise a red flag BEFORE the vote. As is it seems like it only became relevant after the amendment passed.

And yeah, a lot of this is really paternalizing towards South Dakota voters IMO. Not to mention the constant ad campaign touting SD as the freedom/liberty state all through the past year and now this.

just as long as your freedoms align with Kristi!
To be frank you just get disheartened as a voter with all of this. Nothing you do seems to matter sadly

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

I just wonder which pot stock to buy for my portfolio. It's definitely going nationwide and market share will only increase. It's coming to SD now or in the not-to-distant future. I believe it's now legal recreationally where I'm at in NM..., at least it was on the Governors desk for signature last I heard.

there's been talk that everything will have to be SD owners, at least majority stake, so not sure how that will play with the market to be honest

 

[warmer]

The really sad thing is that she'll get re-elected any way. And she knows that.

 

[88man]

First off, not interested in debating if recreational Pot is the right choice yada yada yada. SD has already voted on how they feel about that. This is specific to the case brought against amendment A by Kristi.

I watched the arguments in front of the State Supreme Court yesterday and found it pretty interesting.

It seems these are the Key Arguments:


Pro keeping Amendment A:

• A legal vote took place in which the majority of voters selected to adopt Amendment A
• The one subject rule was not violated because past precedent has shown it is applied to outlier riders
  • For example, tacking a bill making gambling illegal onto a bill redistricting the state based on the census

Against Keeping Amendment A:

• Violates one subject rule because it focuses on more than one subject
  • Taxing, regulation, permitting, etc.
• Creates a fourth branch of government in SD
  • Dept of revenue is responsible for regulation of Rec Pot
• Highway patrol are the only ones tasked regulation
  • This was a different lawyer arguing this point, hard a tough time following what he was getting after to be honest...

I don't believe the State Supreme Court has made a ruling yet, but after listening to the oral arguments (didn't read the briefings) I think they are going to confirm Amendment A for the following reasons:

• No one is arguing that it was a legal vote, the question more falls on the single subject rule from the arguments.
• Past court cases seem to point that a "Single Subject" gets a pretty broad interpretation in the eyes of the court.
  • Thinking about this, what amendment or law is a very narrow single subject? Almost none
• Voters didn't know what they were voting for
  • Man do I hate this argument! Gets used all the time in SD when we vote on something and the state legislation enacts laws dismantling or changing the ballot measure.
  • I always read this as "our people are too stupid to know what they're voting for, so we should make the choice after the fact for them"
• Court seemed to hint that they don't believe the amendment created a fourth branch of government, and if that is the case they would expect it be brought before them to judge that particular piece of the amendment

Obviously we'll see what the court says on the subject, but is it their place to reject the will of the people due to a technicality?



I'm not saying I'm hot to Trot for legal pot, but man it grinds my gears that our own governor feels the need to fight her constituents on a ballot measure like this. I get she doesn't like pot, but when 55% of the people vote to approve it, that's saying something and as an elected official you should listen...


Let's not even talk about our State Legislation now trying to change the ballot measure threshold to 60% of the vote, or change the date of voting to the primary election ballot only...




Any way, rant over. any thoughts or debate?

What if 55% of the people voted to defund the police or yada yada

 

[warmer]

Went to a cracker barrel meeting with my legislators in early March. They were all opposed to the amendment, mostly because it was written so that the legislature has no say in enforcement or promulgating rules and they were not able to make decisions dealing with the revenue. I thought to myself, "Whoever wrote it knew you would f''k it up, so they left you out." And they were right.

 

[warmer]

What if 55% of the people voted to defund the police or yada yada

Obviously, they would get defunded.

 

[Rzrbk]

What if 55% of the people voted to defund the police or yada yada

Elections have consequences.

 

[88man]

Elections have consequences.

I know $100 bucks didn't even fill my gas tank this morning.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

What if 55% of the people voted to defund the police or yada yada

Don't disagree with the point you're making, but not the point in this specific case, ya know?

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

Went to a cracker barrel meeting with my legislators in early March. They were all opposed to the amendment, mostly because it was written so that the legislature has no say in enforcement or promulgating rules and they were not able to make decisions dealing with the revenue. I thought to myself, "Whoever wrote it knew you would f''k it up, so they left you out." And they were right.

100% the logic without a doubt. Not sure if you followed it or not, but Kristi was trying really hard to have the legislation greatly alter Amendment A to do just that.

They failed to pass so far, but its being tried

 

[JustinsDad]

Don't disagree with the point you're making, but not the point in this specific case, ya know?

I agree with 88man but I also get your point, SD Prairie Goat. You can’t have a pure democracy or when 51% of the people can tax the flock out of the other 49% it collapses. Heck the 51% could vote that the other 49% has to give all their money to the 51%. It doesn’t work. Has to be rules. But I don’t like how they can take something they know won’t pass and tack it onto something unrelated that they know will pass, and it passes that way. That’s not really the will of the people.

But as for pot I don’t care, people can smoke it all they want. The people in SD obviously want it.

 

[Addicting]

The real way to stop it is to work your township board. They get to set the rules via ordnances. They can make it all but impossible for a license to grow or sell get approved.

We are currently dealing with this here. A few townships open the flood gates and are now paying the price with the citizens complaining about the smell. Other townships have set the rules on fencing and property line offsets so egregious that it’s not worth the infrastructure to set up shop.

Some townships are under a “good Neighbor” policy, although it’s very subjective and not quantifiable.

The ballot initiatives on pot I’ve seen open a can of worms. Unfortunately, the legislature then has to knee jerk legal responses too in order to facilitate the will of the people.

Pot is a mess, there is nothing easy about making Joe’s right to smoke it legal while infringing on Jane’s right to not smell it for 6 weeks on her own property.