As reported earlier by Texas Cannabis Collective, South Dakota’s Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller have launched a contradictory lawsuit against the Secretary of State, aiming to overturn the passing results of the November votes for Amendment A and Measure 26. In their legislation, Measure 26 authorizes the medicinal use of cannabis, and Amendment A legalizes the recreational use of the plant.
Learn how to become a medical cannabis patient in Texas
In a state as historically and almost opaquely red as South Dakota, the passing of Amendment A at an 8 point margin would be surprising to most political analysts.
And yet, as we at the Collective have reported the support for cannabis reform, whether decriminalization or full legalization, among more conservative-leaning Americans is undeniable. And the evident support for reform of cannabis laws was present in the state that voted for the soon to be ex-President by a margin of 27 percent. It appeared that one of the most conservative-leaning states in the country would soon have fully legal cannabis on par with Colorado and California.
The hopes were dashed however with Thom and Miller’s lawsuit that some lawyers would consider frivolously litigious and directly against the vote of the people. Their lawsuit alleges that because Amendment A requires the change of more than one subject of the South Dakota Constitution, the supposedly violative Amendment must be rescinded. The argument’s foundation consists of a 2016 law passed by voters that created a rule that ballot measures can only change one subject of the state Constitution at a time. As Amendment A would require multiple changes to the Constitution, from what substances are and aren’t legal, to policing of cannabis to possibly business laws due to its newly legal status.
Until recently, it was generally assumed that while Governor Noem unsurprisingly expressed her support for the lawsuit, the filing of the lawsuit was done by Officers Thom and Miller alone. However, news broke across South Dakota media outlets that Governor Noem issued an executive order saying that she directly authorized Thom and Miller to “commence the litigation on my behalf in his official capacity.”
“No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification, joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest.” Noem wrote in citing that 2016 law.
Noem expanded on her viewpoints and why she felt that authorizing the filing of this lawsuit was necessary.
“Whereas, the initiative process used to place Constitutional Amendment A on the ballot and was not proper and violated the procedures set forth in the South Dakota Constitution.” Noem wrote in the text of the executive order.
It’s not startling in the slightest for governors of red or purple states wishing to legalize cannabis to speak out against cannabis reform. In between shutting down vitally important bridges over a political beef and his own appointed staff going to jail, former New Jersey governor and Trump-pet Jabba The…. I mean Chris Christie, spoke out against cannabis legalization on so many occasions. Calling any cannabis reform supporters “crazy liberals” who want to poison children, promising a nationwide crackdown during his presidential run which would’ve been as successful as his 2016 campaign and peddling the “gateway drug” myth were prime examples of this cannabis hatred during his time as The Garden State’s governor. A chaotic time he ended with a 15 percent approval rating, but that’s another story.
Numerous officials across Texas have condemned any cannabis reform in the slightest, from more prohibitionist sheriffs than could fill multiple seasons of “Live PD” to the notoriously out of touch lieutenant governor, the vasectomized on-air wonder himself, Dan Patrick.
Before Mississippi’s medical cannabis vote, Governor Tate Reeves went on a mini-Twitter rant regarding Initiative 65.
“There are good folks on all sides of the medical marijuana debate. Most non-stoners say we should be careful & deliberate,” Gov. Tate Reeves (R) tweeted. “Initiative 65 is the opposite.”
“Experts say it would mean the most liberal weed rules in the US! Pot shops everywhere—no local authority,” he said.
But for a sitting governor to actively go against the vote and the will of their constituents by an eight percent margin and authorize two high-ranking law enforcement officers to sue the Secretary of State is something rarely ever seen.
Read more about Delta-8 in Texas
And because the attorney for the Secretary of State, a South Dakota state government official, is the Attorney General of South Dakota, the state is essentially suing itself. Proving the truly convoluted disconnect between the highest ranking officials in the Mount Rushmore State, AG Jason Ravnsborg’s office has issued a statement that derides the entire lawsuit.
“The State respectfully requests that Contestants’ Election Contest be denied in all respects and that Contestants’ Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, in its entirety, and judgement be entered in favor of the state,” reads the filing authored by Assistant Attorney General Grant Flynn.
In legal terms, “dismissing with prejudice” means that the judge throws the case out permanently, and the lawsuit may not be refiled ever again as a result. If the presiding judge does in fact dismiss Thom and Miller’s lawsuit with that prejudice, then the two officers and the ringleader governor will have to get creative if they attempt to subvert the will of the voters like this again.