South Dakota Gov. Christy Noem says he won’t get in the way for a second time after successfully filing a legal challenge to voter-approved recreation pot amendments.
State voters are set to decide next week on Commencement Bill 27, a proposal to legalize personal possession of marijuana by adults 21 and older.
Republican Noem, who is seeking re-election this year, remains opposed to legalizing marijuana. But at a Rapid City precinct office on Thursday, the governor said he would stand by voters’ will if they pass Bill 27.
“If it passes, it will be implemented. It’s just a fact,” Noem told voters. rapid city journal.
54% of South Dakota voters approved an amendment to legalize recreational marijuana in the state in 2020. But he led a legal challenge, which ultimately led to the state Supreme Court overturning the amendment.
At last week’s campaign stoppage, Noem defended his actions, saying the law would be against the state’s constitution.
“I raised my right hand and said I stand by the state constitutions and the United States constitution. according to rapid city journal.
Proponents were confident that Bill 27 could be in line with the 2020 amendments, but polls show the bill’s passage is far from certain.
An August poll by Mason Dixon found that 54% of South Dakota voters opposed legalization and 44% supported it.
A South Dakota State University poll released earlier this month found 47% of voters in the state opposed legalizing recreational marijuana, 45% supported the idea, and another 8% were uncertain. It turns out there is.a poll The 2017 edition of Emerson College, released last week, paints an even tougher picture, finding that 50% of voters intend to vote against Measure 27, while about 40% intend to vote for it. is showing.
Noem faces a challenge from Democrat Jamie Smith, who has frequently criticized the governor for overturning the 2020 Amendment. An Emerson College poll showed Nome leading Smith well into Election Day.
The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled last November that the 2020 proposal, Amendment A, violated the Constitution’s single subject requirement. (This amendment was intended to legalize recreational and medical marijuana along with hemp.)
Justice Stephen Jensen of the Supreme Court said in the majority opinion, “This constitutional directive cannot be articulated more clearly. Each agenda item must be voted on individually, and a simple separation of specific provisions would not be sufficient.” It may or may not reflect the actual will of voters.” “Therefore, we accept the proponent’s proposal that removing the medical marijuana and hemp provisions from Amendment A is an appropriate remedy in favor of retaining the provisions that regulate and legalize recreational marijuana. You can’t, Amendment A is completely invalid.”
Noem celebrated the verdict.
“South Dakota is a place where the rule of law and our constitution matter, and that’s about today’s decision,” she said at the time. How we do things is just as important as what we do.We are still governed by the rule of law.This decision is a personal decision for voters of approved medical cannabis programs in 2020. does not affect the implementation of the government of