PIERRE, S.D. — Questions remain about the future of recreational marijuana in South Dakota despite a constitutional amendment approved by voters. With Republicans still opposed, a political expert says their response might signal how other “red” states will deal with future scenarios.
In November, 53% of South Dakota voters endorsed legalizing marijuana for those 21 and older. Dave Wiltse, a political scientist at South Dakota State, said despite passage, the state still is very conservative. And with some law enforcement challenging the result in court, and GOP Gov. Kristi Noem remaining firmly opposed, Wiltse said if they can’t stop it, they might try other ways to limit access.
“We could see really high licensing fees, we could see high regulation of this industry to the point that it might be prohibitive for someone to enter it,” Wiltse said.
He suggested this approach might happen if other red states see marijuana proposals pass. A similar situation is playing out in neighboring Montana, which also passed a legalization ballot question.
As for denying the will of the voters, Wiltse noted there is precedent, when state lawmakers overturned campaign finance changes in 2016. If it happens again, he doesn’t think they’d feel the scorn of voters – mostly because there wasn’t much backlash last time.
Wiltse said while it’s hard to predict any outcomes to the legal challenge, it appears the state’s hands are tied because the changes involve the constitution, not state law. But, he said, because a lot of Republicans still voted “no” on the initiated measure, party leaders feel it’s worth it to keep pushing back.
“It might be a little distasteful because they are going against the will of the people. But it’s just not the sort of thing that really is going to steer their voting choices,” he said.
The lawsuit against the amendment was brought by the Pennington County Sheriff and Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller. They say it conflicts with existing language within the state’s constitution because it’s too broad.
But South Dakota’s attorney general disagrees with the arguments in the lawsuit, and has said it should be tossed out.
