South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020)

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Marijuana
Status a/ot Overturned
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens
List of South Dakota measuresInitiated Measure 26Constitutional Amendment AConstitutional Amendment BSubmit

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, was on the ballot in South Dakota as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. It was approved but overturned in a supreme court ruling.

A "yes" vote supported the constitutional amendment to legalize the recreational use of marijuana and require the South Dakota State Legislature to pass laws providing for the use of medical marijuana and the sale of hemp by April 1, 2022.

A "no" vote opposed legalizing marijuana for recreational use and requiring the state legislature to pass laws providing for the use of medical marijuana and the sale of hemp.

On February 8, 2021, Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled that the measure was unconstitutional, finding that it violated the state's single-subject rule and constituted a revision of the constitution rather than an amendment. Amendment A sponsors South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court ruling.

Aftermath

House Bill 1100

House Bill 1100 was introduced in the South Dakota House of Representatives on January 27, 2021, and was passed by the House in a vote of 40-28 on February 25, 2021. The bill stated that "Due to the pending litigation [surrounding Constitutional Amendment A], the Department of Health's continued efforts against COVID-19, and the complexity of marijuana's status under federal law, the State needs more time to establish a medical marijuana program with integrity and prudency than its current effective date of July 1, 2021." The bill was designed to amend language in Initiated Measure 26 to change the effective date from July 1, 2021, to January 1, 2022, and to delay the deadlines for certain provisions from Fall 2021 (under IM 26) to Spring 2022.

On March 8, 2021, the Senate amended House Bill 1100 to allow the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. The House did not concur with the Senate's amendments and a conference committee was appointed. The two chambers did not reach an agreement and the bill died on March 11, 2021.

Lawsuit

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether the amendment comprises more than a single subject; whether the amendment is considered to be an amendment or a revision to the state constitution
Court: Hughes County Circuit Court appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court
Ruling: Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning Amendment A; the ruling was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court upon appeal.
Plaintiff(s): Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller	Defendant(s): State of South Dakota; intervention by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota
Plaintiff argument: The measure comprises more than one subject; the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature	Defendant argument: Amendment A contains one subject to which all provisions are essentially related, and the state constitution's definition of amendment and revision is permissive, not obligatory.

  Source: South Dakota Department of Public Safety

On February 8, 2021, Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, finding that the measure violated the state's single-subject rule and was a revision of the constitution rather than amending it. Klinger wrote that "Amendment A is a revision as it has far-reaching effects on the basic nature of South Dakota’s governmental system." Governor Kristi Noem (R) said, "Today's decision protects and safeguards our constitution. I'm confident that South Dakota Supreme Court, if asked to weigh in as well, will come to the same conclusion." Sponsors of the measure, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, appealed the ruling to the South Dakota Supreme Court. On November 24, 2021, the South Dakota Supreme Court upheld the circuit court ruling. According to Marijuana Moment, Ian Fury, a spokesperson for the South Dakota Governor's office told The Argus Leader that proponents of the amendment should pay for the governor's legal fees because they "submitted an unconstitutional amendment and should reimburse South Dakota taxpayers for the costs associated with their drafting errors.” South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws said, "South Dakota cannabis reform advocates have no obligation to pay for Governor Noem's political crusade to overturn the will of the people. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous."

Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller filed a lawsuit in Hughes County Circuit Court seeking to block Amendment A from taking effect. Plaintiffs alleged that the measure comprises more than one subject and that the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature. Miller said, "Our constitutional amendment procedure is very straightforward. In this case, the group bringing Amendment A unconstitutionally abused the initiative process. We’re confident that the courts will safeguard the South Dakota Constitution and the rule of law."

In South Dakota, all citizen initiatives—both initiated constitutional amendments and initiated state statutes—must concern only one subject. South Dakota did not have a single-subject rule for ballot measures until 2018. Constitutional Amendment Z was approved on November 6, 2018. It enacted a single-subject rule to initiated constitutional amendments and legislatively referred constitutional amendments and required that constitutional amendments be presented so that multiple proposed amendments to the constitution be voted on separately.

Plaintiffs alleged that the measure concerns five subjects: legalizing marijuana; regulating, licensing, and taxing marijuana; licensing and regulating marijuana by political subdivisions; regulating medical marijuana; and regulation of hemp.

Article XXIII of the South Dakota Constitution provides that a constitutional amendment "may amend one or more articles and related subject matter in other articles as necessary to accomplish the objectives of the amendment; however, no proposed amendment may embrace more than one subject."

Plaintiffs alleged that Amendment A should be considered a revision to the constitution rather than an amendment and therefore that the measure should be declared invalid. In South Dakota, revisions to the constitution may be called by a three-fourths vote of all the members in each house of the state legislature. Revisions resulting from a revision convention would require a majority vote of members of the convention before being placed on the ballot for voter ratification.

Proponents of the measure, South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, said, "We are prepared to defend Amendment A against this lawsuit. Our opponents should accept defeat instead of trying to overturn the will of the people. Amendment A was carefully drafted, fully vetted, and approved by a strong majority of South Dakota voters this year."

The office of the South Dakota Attorney General asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. Hughes County Circuit Judge Christina Klinger granted requests by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota to intervene, allowing the groups' attorneys to file arguments in defense of the measure.

CannabisWire reported that this is the first time a state's governor led an effort to overturn a marijuana legalization measure passed by voters. Governor Kristi Noem (R) said, "I directed [petitioners] to commence the Amendment A litigation on my behalf."

Election results

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		225,260	54.18%
No		190,477	45.82%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Constitutional Amendment A do?

See also: Measure design

Amendment A legalized the recreational use of marijuana for individuals 21 years old and older. Under the measure, individuals are allowed to possess or distribute up to one ounce of marijuana. The amendment required the South Dakota State Legislature to pass laws providing for a program for medical marijuana and the sale of hemp by April 1, 2022.

Individuals who live in a jurisdiction with no licensed retail stores can grow up to three marijuana plants in a private residence in a locked space, though not more than six marijuana plants could be kept in one residence at a time. Under the amendment, marijuana sales were set to be taxed at 15%. After the tax revenue is used by the Revenue Department to cover costs associated with implementing the amendment, 50% of the remaining revenue was set to be appropriated to fund state public schools and 50% would be deposited in the state's general fund.

Under the amendment, a local government could ban marijuana cultivators, testing facilities, wholesalers, or retail stores from operating in its limits. Under the amendment, a local government cannot prohibit the transportation of marijuana on public roads in its jurisdiction by those who are licensed to do so.

How did Constitutional Amendment A get on the ballot?

See also: Path to the ballot

The initiative was filed by Brendan Johnson, former U.S. Attorney for the District of South Dakota. Proponents reported submitting more than 50,000 signatures on November 4, 2019. On January 6, 2020, the South Dakota Secretary of State's office announced that proponents of the measure had submitted 36,707 valid signatures, indicating a signature validity rate of about 73%.

What did the other marijuana initiative on the ballot do?

See also: South Dakota Initiated Measure 26, Medical Marijuana Initiative (2020)

Initiated Measure 26 was also on the 2020 ballot in South Dakota. It established a medical marijuana program in South Dakota for individuals who have a debilitating medical condition as certified by a physician. New Approach South Dakota, Marijuana Policy Project, and South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws support Initiated Measure 26 as well as Constitutional Amendment A. South Dakota was the first state to vote on recreational and medical marijuana at the same election.

What is the status of recreational and medical marijuana in the United States?

See also: Recreational marijuana in the United States, Medical marijuana in the United States, and Federal policy on marijuana

As of 2020, 33 states and Washington, D.C., had passed laws legalizing or decriminalizing medical marijuana. Additionally, 13 states had legalized the use of cannabis oil, or cannabidiol (CBD)—one of the non-psychoactive ingredients found in marijuana—for medical purposes. As of 2020, 11 states and the District of Columbia had legalized marijuana for recreational purposes; nine through statewide citizen initiatives, and two through bills approved by state legislatures and signed by governors.

The federal government has classified marijuana as an illegal controlled substance since 1970. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). As of 2020, the possession, purchase, and sale of marijuana were illegal under federal law.

Measure design

Amendment A legalized the recreational use of marijuana for individuals 21 years old and older. Under the measure, individuals are allowed to possess, use, and distribute up to one ounce of marijuana. No more than eight grams can be in a concentrated form.

Amendment A required the South Dakota State Legislature to pass laws providing for a program for medical marijuana and the sale of hemp by April 1, 2022. The measure required the Department of Revenue to adopt rules and regulations to implement the amendment including the issuance of licenses, health and safety requirements, and more.

Home-grow provisions

Individuals who live in a local government jurisdiction with no licensed retail stores may grow up to three marijuana plants. The plants need to be kept in a private residence in a locked space that is not visible from a public place. Not more than six marijuana plants can be kept in one residence at a time, regardless of how many individuals may grow marijuana plants.

Civil penalties

The amendment provided for the following civil penalties (fines):

• $250 if a person grows marijuana plants that are visible from a public place;
• $250 if cultivated marijuana plants are not kept in a locked space;
• $250 if a person grows marijuana in a local government jurisdiction that has marijuana retail stores (unless the jurisdiction has authorized home-grow for individuals);
• $100 for smoking marijuana in a public place unless the place is licensed for such activity;
• $100 or attending up to four hours of a drug education/counseling program for smoking marijuana if a person is under the age of 21.

Taxes on marijuana sales

Under the amendment, marijuana sales were set to be taxed at 15%. Under the amendment, the South Dakota State Legislature can adjust the tax rate after November 3, 2024. After the tax revenue is used by the Revenue Department to cover costs associated with implementing the amendment, 50% of the remaining revenue was set to be appropriated to fund state public schools and 50% would be deposited in the state's general fund.

Licenses types

The measure authorized the Department of Revenue to create four licenses types, as follows:

• licenses for commercial cultivators;
• licenses for testing facilities;
• licenses for wholesalers to package, process, and distribute marijuana to retail sales outlets; and
• licenses for retail stores to sell marijuana.

Amendment A directed the Department to issue "enough licenses to substantially reduce the illicit production and sale of marijuana throughout the state" and, if necessary, limit licenses "to prevent an undue concentration of licenses in any one municipality."

Local government regulation

Amendment A authorized local governments to enact regulations surrounding licensees operating in its jurisdiction, including how many licensees there can be and where they may be located. Under the amendment, a local government can ban licensees or any category of licensee from operating in its limits. Under the amendment, a local government cannot prohibit the transportation of marijuana on public roads in its jurisdiction by those who are licensed to do so.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for this measure was as follows:

“

An amendment to the South Dakota Constitution to Iegalize, regulate, and tax marijuana; and to require the Legislature to pass laws regarding hemp as well as laws ensuring access to marijuana for medical use.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot explanation for this measure was as follows:

“ This constitutional amendment legalizes the possession, use, transport, and distribution of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia by people age 21 and older. Individuals may possess or distribute one ounce or less of marijuana. Marijuana plants and marijuana produced from those plants may also be possessed under certain conditions. The amendment authorizes the State Department of Revenue ("Department") to issue marijuana-related licenses for commercial cultivators and manufacturers, testing facilities, wholesalers, and retailers. Local governments may regulate or ban the establishment of licensees within their jurisdictions. The Department must enact rules to implement and enforce this amendment. The amendment requires the Legislature to pass laws regarding medical use of marijuana. The amendment does not legalize hemp; it requires the Legislature to pass laws regulating the cultivation, processing, and sale of hemp. The amendment imposes a 15% tax on marijuana sales. The tax revenue will be used for the Department's costs incurred in implementing this amendment, with remaining revenue equally divided between the support of public schools and the State general fund. Judicial clarification of the amendment may be necessary. The amendment legalizes some substances that are considered felony controlled substances under current State law. Marijuana remains illegal under Federal law. ”

Constitutional changes

See also: South Dakota Constitution

The measure added a new article to the South Dakota Constitution. The following underlined text was added: Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the below text to see the full text.

§ 1. Terms used in this article mean: (1) "Department," the Department of Revenue or its successor agency; (2) "Hemp," the plant of the genus cannabis, and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than three-tenths of one percent on a dry weight basis; (3) "Local government," means a county, municipality, town, or township; (4) "Marijuana," the plant of the genus cannabis, and any part of that plant, including, the seeds, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or its resin, including hash and marijuana concentrate. The term includes an altered state of marijuana absorbed into the human body. The term does not include hemp, or fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other products; (5) "Marijuana accessory," any equipment, product, material, which is specifically designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana into the human body. § 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, this article does not limit or affect laws that prohibit or otherwise regulate: (1) Delivery or distribution of marijuana or marijuana accessories, with or without consideration, to a person younger than twenty- one years of age; (2) Purchase, possession, use, or transport of marijuana or marijuana accessories by a person younger than twenty-one years of age; (3) Consumption of marijuana by a person younger than twenty-one years of age; (4) Operating or being in physical control of any motor vehicle, train, aircraft, motorboat, or other motorized form of transport while under the influence Of marijuana; (5) Consumption of marijuana While operating Or being in physical control of a motor vehicle, train, aircraft, motorboat, or other motorized form of transport, while it is being operated; (6) Smoking marijuana within a motor vehicle, aircraft, motorboat, or other motorized form of transport, while it is being operated; (7) Possession or consumption of marijuana or possession of marijuana accessories on the grounds of a public or private preschool, elementary school, or high school, in a school bus, or on the grounds of any correctional facility; (8) Smoking marijuana in a location where smoking tobacco is prohibited; (9) Consumption of marijuana in a public place, other than in an arc licensed by the department for consumption; (10) Consumption of marijuana as part of a criminal penalty diversion program; (11) Conduct that endangers others; (12) Undertaking any task under the influence of marijuana, if doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice; or (13) Performing solvent-based extractions on marijuana using solvents other than water, glycerin, propylene glycol, vegetable oil, or food grade ethanol, unless licensed for this activity by the department. § 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of this article, this article does not (1) Require that an employer permit or accommodate conduct allowed by this article; (2) Affect an employer's ability to restrict the use of marijuana by employees; (3) Limit the right of a person who occupies, owns, or controls private property from prohibiting or otherwise regulating conduct permitted by this article on or in that property; or (4) Limit the ability of the state or a local government to prohibit or restrict any conduct otherwise permitted under this article within a building owned, leased, or occupied by the state or the local government. § 4. Subject to the limitations in this article, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under state law or the laws of any local government within the state or be subject to a civil fine, penalty, or sanction, or be a basis for detention, search, or arrest, or to deny any right or privilege, or to seize or forfeit assets under state law or the laws of any local government, if the person is at least twenty-one years of age: (1) Possessing, using, ingesting, inhaling, processing, transporting, delivering without consideration, or distributing without consideration one ounce or less of marijuana, except that not more than eight grams of marijuana may be in a concentrated form; (2) Possessing, planting, cultivating, harvesting, drying, processing, or manufacturing not more than three marijuana plants and the marijuana produced by the plants, provided: (a) The plants and any marijuana produced by the plants in excess of one ounce are kept at one private residence are in a locked space, and are not visible by normal, unaided vision from a public place; (b) Not more than six plants are kept in or on the grounds of a private residence at one time; and (c) The private residence is located within the jurisdiction of a local government where there is no licensed retail store where pursuant to this article. marijuana is available for purchase pursuant to this article. (3) Assisting another person who is at least twenty-one years of age, or allowing the property to be used, in any of the acts permitted by this section; and (4) Possessing, using, delivering, distributing, manufacturing, transferring, or selling to persons twenty-one years of age or older marijuana accessories. § 5. (1) A person who, pursuant to §4 of this article, cultivates marijuana plants that are visible by normal, unaided vision from a public place is subject to a civil penalty not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars. (2) A person who, pursuant to §4 of this article, cultivates marijuana plants that are not kept in a locked space is subject to a civil penalty not exceeding two-hundred and fifty dollars. (3) A person who, pursuant to §4 of this article, cultivates marijuana plants within the jurisdiction of a local government where marijuana is available for purchase at a licensed retail store is subject to a civil penalty not exceeding two-hundred and fifty dollars, unless the cultivation of marijuana plants is allowed through local ordinance or regulation pursuant to § 10. (4) A person who smokes marijuana in a public place, other than in an area licensed for such activity by the department, is subject to a civil penalty not exceeding one-hundred dollars. (5) A person who is under twenty-one years of age and possesses, uses, ingests, inhales, transports, delivers without consideration or distributes without consideration one ounce or less of marijuana or possesses, delivers without consideration, or distributes without consideration marijuana accessories is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one-hundred dollars. The person shall be provided the option of attending up to four hours of drug education or counseling in lieu of the fine. § 6. The department shall have the exclusive power, except as otherwise provided in §10, to license and regulate the cultivation, manufacture, testing, transport, delivery, and sale of marijuana in the state and to administer and enforce this article. The department shall accept applications for and issue, in addition to any other types of licenses the department deems necessary: (1) Licenses permitting commercial cultivators and manufacturers of marijuana to cultivate, process, manufacture, transport, and sell marijuana to marijuana wholesalers; (2) Licenses permitting independent marijuana testing facilities to analyze and certify the safety and potency of marijuana; (3) Licenses permitting marijuana wholesalers to package, process, and prepare marijuana for transport and sale to retail sales outlets; (4) Licenses permitting retail sales outlets to sell and deliver marijuana to consumers. § 7. Not later than April 1, 2022, the department shall promulgate rules and issue regulations necessary for the implementation and enforcement of this article. The rules shall be reasonable and shall include: (1) Procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of licenses; (2) Application, licensing, and renewal fees, not to exceed the amount necessary to cover the costs to the department of implementing and enforcing this article; (3) Time periods, not to exceed ninety days, by which the department must issue or deny an application; (4) Qualifications for licensees; (5) Security requirements, including lighting and alarm requirements, to prevent diversion; (6) Testing, packaging, and labeling requirements, including maximum tetrahydrocannabinol levels, to ensure consumer safety and accurate information. (7) Restrictions on the manufacture and sale of edible products to ensure consumer and child safety, (8) Health and safety requirements to ensure safe preparation and to prohibit unsafe pesticides; (9) Inspection, tracking, and record-keeping requirements to ensure regulatory compliance and to prevent diversion; (10) Restrictions on advertising and marketing; (11) Requirements to ensure that all applicable statutory environmental, agricultural, and food and product safety requirements are followed; (12) Requirements to prevent the sale and diversion of marijuana to persons under twenty-one years of age; and (13) Civil penalties for the failure to comply with rules adopted pursuant to this article. § 8. In determining the appropriate number of licenses to issue, as required under this article, the department shall: (1) Issue enough licenses to substantially reduce the illicit production and sale of marijuana throughout the state; and (2) Limit the number of licenses issued, if necessary to prevent an undue concentration of licenses in any one municipality. § 9. Actions and conduct by a licensee, a licensee's employee, and a licensees agent, as permitted pursuant to a license issued by the department, or by those who allow property to be used by a licensee, a licensee's employee, or a licensees agent, as permitted pursuant to a license issued by the department, are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under state law, or the laws of any local government within the state, or be subject to a civil fine, penalty, or sanction, or be a basis for detention, search, or arrest, or to deny any right or privilege, or to seize or forfeit assets under state law, or the laws of any local government within the state. No contract is unenforceable on the basis that marijuana is prohibited by federal law. A holder of a professional or occupational license is not subject to professional discipline for providing advice or services related to marijuana licensees or applications on the basis that marijuana is prohibited by federal law. § 10. A local government may enact ordinances or regulations governing the time, place, manner, and number of licensees operating within its jurisdiction. A local government may ban the establishment of licensees or any category of licensee within its jurisdiction. A local government may allow for cultivation at private residences within its jurisdiction that would otherwise not be allowed under §4(2)(c) so long as the cultivation complies with and §4(2)(b) and the other requirements of this article. A local government may not prohibit the transportation of marijuana through its jurisdiction on public roads by any person licensed to do so by the department or as otherwise allowed by this article. § 11. An excise tax of fifteen percent is imposed upon the gross receipts of all sales of marijuana sold by a person licensed by the department pursuant to this article to a consumer. The Legislature may adjust this rate after November 3, 2024. The department shall by rule establish a procedure for the collection of this tax and shall collect the tax. The revenue collected under this section shall be appropriated to the department to cover costs incurred by the department in carrying out its duties under this article. Fifty percent of the remaining revenue shall be appropriated by the Legislature for the support of South Dakota public schools and the remainder shall be deposited into the state general fund. § 12. Any rule adopted by the department pursuant to this article must comply with chapter 1-26 of the South Dakota Codified Laws. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the department is entitled to appeal the decision in accordance with chapter 1-26 of the South Dakota Codified Laws. If by April 1, 2022, the department fails to promulgate rules required by this article, or if the department adopts rules that are inconsistent with this article, any resident of the state may commence a mandamus action in circuit court to compel performance by the department in accordance with this article. § 13. The department shall publish an annual report that includes the number and type of licenses issued, demographic information on licensees, a description of any enforcement or disciplinary action taken against licensees, a statement of revenues and expenses of the department related to the implementation, administration, and enforcement of this article, and a statement of taxes collected in accordance with this article, and an accounting for how those revenues were disbursed. § 14. Not later than April 1, 2022, the Legislature shall pass laws to: (1) Ensure access to marijuana beyond What is set forth in this article by persons who have been diagnosed by a health care provider, acting within the provider's scope of practice, as having a serious and debilitating medical condition and who are likely to receive therapeutic or palliative benefit from marijuana; and (2) Regulate the cultivation, processing, and sale of hemp. § 15. This article shall be broadly construed to accomplish its purposes and intents. Nothing in this article purports to supersede any applicable federal law, except where allowed by federal law. If any provision in this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of the article that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this article are severable.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The state legislature wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 20, and the FRE is 13. The word count for the ballot title is 34, and the estimated reading time is 9 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 15, and the FRE is 15. The word count for the ballot summary is 196, and the estimated reading time is 52 seconds.

Support

South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws led the campaign in support of Amendment A. Drey Samuelson was the political director for both Constitutional Amendment A and Initiated Measure 26 on the 2020 ballot.

Supporters

Organizations

• Marijuana Policy Project
• New Approach PAC
• South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws

Arguments

• South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws: "Our mission is to reform South Dakota’s harmful and outdated marijuana policies. We believe arresting adults for something objectively safer than alcohol is a wasteful and unjust use of public resources. We also believe patients deserve safe, legal access to medical marijuana."

Official arguments

Ballot Question Pamphlet Arguments: "Amendment A will legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana for adults 21 and older and require that patients be protected for medical use. Amendment A is designed specifically for South Dakota to work for South Dakotans. Amendment A: •Includes strong protections for children. Marijuana will only be sold to adults age 21 or older in regulated, licensed businesses that check I.D. before every single sale. •Protects health. When marijuana is sold on the illicit market it can be contaminated with chemicals or laced with other drugs. Amendment A will ensure that consumers know what they are buying and consuming and that products are safe. •Creates jobs: All marijuana sold in South Dakota must be grown and packaged inside our borders, which will lead to hundreds of jobs for construction workers, plumbers, electricians, HVAC workers, laborers, and retail workers. •Creates new revenue: According to the Legislative Research Council, Amendment A will generate $60M by 2024, including millions of dollars for schools. •Saves law enforcement resources. By reducing prosecutions and arrests for minor marijuana-related offenses, law enforcement will save money and be able to focus on serious crime. •Protects patients: Amendment A will require that South Dakota protect patients whose doctors recommend marijuana, including veterans who need marijuana as an alternative to opioids to treat PTSD and pain. •Rebuilds lives: South Dakota’s current marijuana laws can ruin a person’s life. One youthful mistake for minor conduct can result in a criminal record preventing someone from going to school or getting a job. Amendment A will stop this. South Dakota’s current approach to marijuana just doesn’t make sense. It’s time to put an end to our broken system and implement proven reforms so marijuana will be safe, legal, controlled, and taxed for adults, and patients will be protected for medical use."

The arguments in support of Constitutional Amendment A in the 2020 Ballot Question Pamphlet were written by Brendan Johnson (former South Dakota U.S. Attorney); Chuck Parkinson (former Associate Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service, Presidents Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush); Bill Stocker (retired Marine, disabled veteran, retired Sioux Falls Police Officer); and Drey Samuelson (Campaign Manager).

Opposition

NO Way on Amendment A led the campaign in opposition to Amendment A. The committee was filed by David Owen, president of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce.

Opponents

Organizations

• Association of General Contractors
• Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce
• South Dakota Association of Cooperatives
• South Dakota Association of Healthcare Organizations
• South Dakota Chamber of Commerce
• South Dakota Farm Bureau
• South Dakota Retailers Association
• South Dakota State Medical Association

Arguments

• South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry: The chamber said, "While Amendment A says businesses can refuse to hire people that fail a drug test now, the States of New York and Nevada have recently passed laws that prohibit that very activity; meaning businesses can no longer use a failed drug test as a reason to not hire an applicant." A board member of the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce and Industry said, "We can’t find anyone that can pass a drug test now; you make pot legal and we won’t have a workforce." The chamber said that the measure does not belong in the constitution because "The only way to change any of the provisions of Amendment A if it passes will be to put it back on the ballot for another election. That only happens every two years and is expensive." The chamber also said that people under the age of 21 will have increased access to marijuana and that marijuana legalization will result in an increase in fatal car accidents due to people driving under the influence.

Official arguments

Ballot Question Pamphlet Arguments: "The South Dakota State Medical Association urges a “no” vote and maintains that marijuana is a hazardous drug and a public health concern. As such, the SDSMA believes the sale and possession of marijuana – especially for recreational purposes – should not be legalized. At the time of this writing, the DEA has more than doubled the number of individuals and institutions allowed to conduct research on marijuana, as well as increasing the amount of marijuana to study due to public demand – this includes over 90 researchers registered to conduct CBD research on humans. Marijuana remains classified by the federal government as a schedule 1 drug – meaning there is no accepted medical use and a drug with a high potential for abuse. Research has shown marijuana to be highly addictive with well documented negative consequences with both short- and long-term use. Consequences include impaired short-term memory and decreased concentration, attention span, and problem solving. Alterations in motor control, coordination, judgement, reaction time and tracking ability have also been documented. Negative health effects on lung function associated with smoking marijuana have also been documented, and studies have linked marijuana use with higher rates of psychosis in patients with a predisposition to schizophrenia. Marijuana use has the potential to cause brain atrophy and permanently change the structure and physiology of the developing brain. Furthermore, it is important to understand that marijuana use harms more than just the person using the drug. Societal costs of marijuana use include paying for increased emergency room visits, medical care, and addiction treatment for the uninsured; more victims of drugged driving accidents; increased crime; and a negative impact on the health of those exposed to secondhand smoke. The SDSMA further believes marijuana will create a steep cost for society and taxpayers that far outweighs its tax revenues. Vote no."

The arguments in opposition to Constitutional Amendment A in the 2020 Ballot Question Pamphlet were written by Benjamin Aaker, MD (South Dakota State Medical Association President).

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for South Dakota ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through December 31, 2020.

New Approach South Dakota and South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws supported Initiated Measure 26 and Constitutional Amendment A. Together, the committees raised $2.35 million and spent $1.6 million. New Approach PAC contributed $1.82 million in cash and $54,892 in in-kind contributions to both committees.

South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws spent $595,235.22 on signature gathering to collect the 33,921 required signatures for Constitutional Amendment A, resulting in a cost-per-required-signature of $17.55. The committee also spent $252,616.78 on signature gathering to collect the 16,961 required signatures for Initiated Measure 26, resulting in a cost-per-required-signature of $14.89. That amount was reported as an in-kind contribution given to New Approach South Dakota.

No Way on Amendment A opposed Amendment A. The committee reported $259,035 in contributions and $249,035 in expenditures. South Dakota Chamber Ballot Action Committee was the largest donor, which provided $87,325.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$1,941,158.79	$412,105.37	$2,353,264.16	$1,190,373.91	$1,602,479.28
Oppose	$259,035.00	$0.00	$259,035.00	$249,035.00	$249,035.00

To avoid double-counting funds, Ballotpedia subtracts contributions from one committee to another from the contributing committee's contributions and expenditures.

Support

Committees in support of Constitutional Amendment A
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws	$1,865,753.79	$125,221.94	$1,990,975.73	$1,116,168.35	$1,241,390.29
New Approach South Dakota	$75,405.00	$286,883.43	$362,288.43	$74,205.56	$361,088.99
Total	$1,941,158.79	$412,105.37	$2,353,264.16	$1,190,373.91	$1,602,479.28

Top donors

The top five donors to the support campaign are listed below.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
New Approach PAC	$1,867,115.94	$54,152.97	$1,921,268.91
FSST Pharms, LLC	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Justin Johnson	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Marijuana Policy Project	$4,129.03	$54,891.55	$59,020.58
Riichard J Steves Jr	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Constitutional Amendment A
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No Way on Amendment A	$259,035.00	$0.00	$259,035.00	$249,035.00	$249,035.00
Total	$259,035.00	$0.00	$259,035.00	$249,035.00	$249,035.00

Top donors

The top five donors to the opposition campaign are listed below.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
South Dakota Chamber Ballot Action Committee	$87,325.00	$0.00	$87,325.00
Open for Business	$50,000.00	$0.00	$50,000.00
Avera Health	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00
SDEUC Ballot Question Committee	$20,000.00	$0.00	$20,000.00
Daugaard For South Dakota	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2020 ballot measure polls

Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy conducted a poll of 625 registered South Dakota voters from October 19-21, 2020. Participants were asked how they planned to vote on the measure. Poll results for the measure are detailed below.

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy poll 10/19/20 - 10/21/20	51.0%	44.0%	5.0%	+/-4.0	625
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Recreational marijuana in the United States

See also: Marijuana laws and ballot measures in the United States

As of July 2019, 11 states and the District of Columbia had legalized marijuana for recreational purposes; nine through statewide citizen initiatives, and two through bills approved by state legislatures and signed by governors. Colorado and Washington both opted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012. In a subsequent Colorado measure, voters enacted a statewide marijuana taxation system. The three ballot measures that passed in 2014 were Oregon's Measure 91, Alaska's Measure 2, and the District of Columbia's Initiative 71. Voters in California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada approved recreational marijuana legalization ballot measures in November 2016. The Vermont State Legislature approved a bill in mid-January 2018 to allow recreational marijuana, and Gov. Phil Scott (R) signed it into law on January 22, 2018. Gov. Scott vetoed a previous bill to legalize marijuana in May 2017. On June 25, 2019, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a bill into law legalizing the use and possession of recreational marijuana. Initiatives legalizing recreational marijuana were on the ballot in November 2018 in Michigan and North Dakota. The Michigan initiative was approved, and the North Dakota initiative was defeated.

The map below details the status of recreational marijuana legalization in the states as of November 2018. States shaded in green had legalized recreational marijuana usage (the shades of green indicate the years in which ballot measures were adopted; light green indicates measures approved in 2012, medium green indicates measures approved in 2014, medium-dark green indicates measures approved in 2016, and dark green indicates measures approved in 2018). The states shaded in dark gray had defeated ballot measures that proposed to legalize recreational marijuana. States in blue had recreational marijuana approved by the state legislature and signed by the governor. The remaining states (those shaded in light gray) had not legalized recreational marijuana.

Medical marijuana in the United States

See also: Medical marijuana and Marijuana laws and ballot measures in the United States

As of May 2021, 36 states and Washington, D.C., had passed laws legalizing or decriminalizing medical marijuana. Additionally, 10 states had legalized the use of cannabis oil, or cannabidiol (CBD)—one of the non-psychoactive ingredients found in marijuana—for medical purposes. In one state—Idaho—medical marijuana was illegal, but the use of a specific brand of FDA-approved CDB, Epidiolex, was legal. Based on 2019 population estimates, 67.5 percent of Americans lived in a jurisdiction with access to medical marijuana.

Unique instances

Idaho: In 2015, the Idaho State Legislature passed a bill legalizing certain types of CBD oil that was later vetoed by Governor Butch Otter (R). In response, Otter issued an executive order allowing children with intractable epilepsy to use Epidiolex in certain circumstances.

South Dakota: In 2019, the South Dakota State Legislature passed a bill amending one section of law by adding Epidiolex to its list of controlled substances. The bill also exempted CBD from the state's definition of marijuana in that section. Elsewhere in state law, CBD was not exempted from the definition of marijuana. This discrepancy led to confusion that left the legal status of CBD in the state unclear for a year.

After the 2019 changes, Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R) issued a statement, wherein he argued all forms of CBD oil, apart from Epidiolex, were illegal under state law. Several state's attorneys expressed disagreement with the Attorney General's statements. Aaron McGown and Tom Wollman, state's attorneys for Minnehaha and Lincoln counties, respectively, issued a joint statement where they said the discrepancy left legality open to differing interpretations. Mark Vargo, the Pennington County state's attorney, said his office would not prosecute CBD cases based on his interpretation of the state law.

On March 27, 2020, Gov. Kristi Noem (R) signed House Bill 1008 into law, which legalized industrial hemp and CBD oil in the state.

Federal policy on marijuana

See also: Federal policy on marijuana, 2017-2018

The federal government has classified marijuana as an illegal controlled substance since 1970. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). According to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, marijuana has "high abuse potential and no approved therapeutic use through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) process for establishing medications."

On January 4, 2018, the Trump administration rescinded the Cole Memorandum, a 2013 policy that deprioritized the enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states where marijuana had been legalized. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that in deciding which activities to prosecute under federal laws, such as the Controlled Substances Act, "prosecutors should follow the well-established principles that govern all federal prosecutions. ... These principles require federal prosecutors deciding which cases to prosecute to weigh all relevant considerations, including federal law enforcement priorities set by the Attorney General, the seriousness of the crime, the deterrent effect of criminal prosecution, and the cumulative impact of particular crimes on the community."

As of 2020, the possession, purchase, and sale of marijuana were illegal under federal law.

The following table compares a selection of provisions, including possession limits, local control, taxes, and revenue dedications, of ballot initiatives that were designed to legalize marijuana.

Click "Show" to expand the table.

Comparison of marijuana ballot measure provisions, 2012-2022
Measure	Possession limits	Homegrown plants	Local control	State taxes	Revenue
Ballot measures that were on the ballot in 2022
Marijuana Legalization Amendment (2022)	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified
Ballot measures that were approved
Arizona Proposition 207 (2020)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	• 16% excise sales tax	• community college districts • police and fire departments and fire districts • highways • new criminal justice fund (restorative programs, mentoring, and behavioral health)
Montana I-190 (2020)	• 1 ounce of marijuana	• Individuals could grow up to four marijuana plants and four seedling in a private residence in a locked space	• A local government is not allowed to completely ban marijuana cultivators, testing facilities, wholesalers, or retail stores from operating in its limits; cannot prohibit the transportation of marijuana on public roads in its jurisdiction by those who are licensed to do so; allowed to pass ordinances to regulate an adult-use provider or adult-use marijuana-infused products that operate in its jurisdiction	• 20% sales tax	• After the tax revenue is used by the Department of Revenue to cover costs associated with implementing the initiative, 10.5% of the remaining revenue would be appropriated to the state's general fund, and the remainder would be appropriated to conservation programs, substance abuse treatment, veterans’ services, healthcare costs, and localities where marijuana is sold
New Jersey Amendment (2020)	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Subject to state sales tax • Prohibits additional state sales taxes on marijuana	• Not specified
Michigan Proposal 1 (2018)	• 2.5 ounces of marijuana • 0.5 ounces of marijuana concentrate	•Grow up to 12 marijuana plants	•Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	•10% excise sales tax	•local governments •K-12 education •road and bridge maintenance
California Proposition 64 (2016)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 0.3 ounces of marijuana concentrate	•Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	•Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	•15% excise sales tax •$9.25/ounce cultivation tax for flowers •$2.75/ounce cultivation tax for leaves	•youth drug education, prevention, and treatment •prevent and fix environmental damage from illegal marijuana producers •marijuana DUI prevention and negative health effects programs
Nevada Question 2 (2016)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 0.125 ounces of marijuana concentrate	•Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	•Permits local ballot measures pertaining to zoning and land use for marijuana establishments	•15% excise sales	•K-12 education
Maine Question 1 (2016)	• 2.5 ounces of marijuana and/or marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	• 10% excise sales tax •The legislature added a $20.94/ounce cultivation tax on flowers and mature plants; $5.88/ounce cultivation tax on marijuana trim; $1.50 tax per immature plant; $0.30 tax per immature plant	•General Fund (legislature added public health programs and law enforcement programs)
Massachusetts Question 4 (2016)	• 10 ounces of marijuana in one's home • 1 ounce of marijuana in public • 0.2 ounces of marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to limit number of establishments and restrict the time, place, and manner of their operation • Permits local ballot measures to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	• 3.75% excise sales tax (legislature increased to 10.75%)	• General Fund
Alaska Measure 2 (2014)	• 1 ounce of marijuana	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	• $50/ounce cultivation tax	• General Fund
Oregon Measure 91 (2014)	• 8 ounces of marijuana in one's home • 1 ounce of marijuana in public • 1 ounce of marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 4 marijuana plants	• Permits local ballot measures to ban or limit marijuana establishments	• 17% excise sales tax (legislature added the excise sales tax) • $35/ounce producer tax for flowers • $10/ounce producer tax for leaves	• K-12 education • drug prevention and treatment • state police • local law enforcement
Colorado Amendment 64 (2012)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 1 ounce of marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	•Required the state legislature to enact taxes •In 2013, the legislature's Proposition AA enacted a 15% excise tax on unprocessed retail marijuana and 10% (increased to 15% in 2017) sales tax on retail sales	• K-12 public education • Proposition AA added allocations for local governments, healthcare, substance abuse prevention and treatment, and law enforcement
Washington Initiative 502 (2012)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 0.25 ounce of marijuana concentrate	• Illegal	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	•25% excise sales tax (legislature increased the tax to 37%)	• research • drug prevention, public health education • healthcare • dropout prevention, intervention • General Fund
Ballot measures that were defeated or overturned
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A (2020)	• 1 ounce of marijuana	• Individuals who live in a jurisdiction with no licensed retail stores could grow up to three marijuana plants in a private residence in a locked space, though not more than six marijuana plants could be kept in one residence at a time	•A local government allowed to ban marijuana cultivators, testing facilities, wholesalers, or retail stores from operating in its limits; cannot prohibit the transportation of marijuana on public roads in its jurisdiction by those who are licensed to do so	• 15% sales tax	• After the tax revenue is used by the Revenue Department to cover costs associated with implementing the amendment, 50% of the remaining revenue would be appropriated to fund state public schools and 50% would be deposited in the state's general fund
North Dakota Measure 3 (2018)	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified
Arizona Proposition 205 (2016)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	• 15% excise sales tax	• school districts and charter schools • state department of health • local governments
Ohio Issue 3 (2015)	• 1 ounce of marijuana and/or equivalent concentrate	• Grow up to 4 marijuana plants with a license	• Municipalities prohibited from banning the development or operation of marijuana establishments	• 15% tax on gross revenue of growth, cultivation, extraction, and manufacure facilities • 5% tax on gross revenue of retail marijuana stores	• research and development • local governments • mental health and addiction and treatment services

The following table provides information on the political context of the states that had voted on legalization measures as of 2022.

Click "Show" to expand the table.

Political factors and marijuana ballot measures, 2012-2022
State	Measure	Year	Status	Presidential, 2008-2020	State partisan control at time of vote
Colorado	Amendment 64	2012	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Divided
Washington	Initiative 502	2012	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Democratic
Alaska	Measure 2	2014	a	Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump-Trump)	Republican
Oregon	Measure 91	2014	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Democratic
Ohio	Issue 3	2015	d	Pivot (Obama-Obama-Trump-Trump)	Republican
Arizona	Proposition 205	2016	d	Pivot (McCain-Romney-Trump-Biden)	Republican
California	Proposition 64	2016	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Democratic
Maine	Question 1	2016	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Divided
Massachusetts	Question 4	2016	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Divided
Nevada	Question 2	2016	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Republican
Michigan	Proposal 1	2018	a	Pivot (Obama-Obama-Trump-Biden)	Republican
North Dakota	Measure 3	2018	d	Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump-Trump)	Republican
Arizona	Proposition 207	2020	a	Pivot (McCain-Romney-Trump-Biden)	Republican
Montana	Initiative 190	2020	a	Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump-Trump)	Divided
New Jersey	Amendment	2020	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Democratic
South Dakota	Amendment A	2020	a/ot	Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump-Trump)	Republican
Maryland	Marijuana Legalization Amendment	2022	On the ballot	Democrat (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Divided

Marijuana on the ballot in 2020

See also: 2020 marijuana legalization and marijuana-related ballot measures

State ballot measures

The following is a list of marijuana-related statewide ballot measures that were on the ballot in 2020:

Ballot Measure:	Outcome:
Mississippi Initiative 65 and Alternative 65A: Medical Marijuana Amendment	ot

Marijuana on the South Dakota ballot

South Dakotans rejected medical marijuana initiatives in 2006 and 2010. Initiative 4 on the 2006 ballot was defeated by a vote of 52% against to 48% in favor. Initiative 13 on the 2010 ballot was defeated by a vote of 63% against to 37% in favor.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in South Dakota

The state process

In South Dakota, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in the previous gubernatorial election. Signatures must be submitted by the first Tuesday of May during a general election year.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2020 ballot:

• Signatures: 33,921 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was November 4, 2019.

Once the signatures have been gathered and filed, the secretary of state verifies the signatures using a random sample method.

Details about this initiative

• Brendan Johnson, former U.S. Attorney for the District of South Dakota, sponsored the initiative. It was approved for circulation on September 11, 2019.
• Proponents reported submitting more than 50,000 signatures on November 4, 2019.
• The South Dakota Secretary of State's office announced the measure qualified for the ballot on January 6, 2020, after finding through a random sample that proponents submitted about 36,707 valid signatures.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired a signature gathering company to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $595,235.22 was spent to collect the 33,921 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $17.55.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in South Dakota

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in South Dakota.

How to cast a vote in South Dakota

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. Poll times In South Dakota, all polls are open from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. If the polls close while you are still in line, you will be permitted to vote. South Dakota is divided between Central and Mountain time zones. Registration requirements Check your voter registration status here. To register to vote in South Dakota, an applicant must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of South Dakota, and at least 18 years old by the day of the next election. The deadline to register to vote is 15 days before the next election. To register, an applicant may submit a voter registration form to the county auditor. Prospective voters can also register in person at the county auditor's office, driver's license stations, certain public assistance agencies, or military recruitment offices. Automatic registration South Dakota does not practice automatic voter registration. Online registration See also: Online voter registration South Dakota does not permit online voter registration. Same-day registration South Dakota does not allow same-day voter registration. Residency requirements To register to vote in South Dakota, you must be a resident of the state. Verification of citizenship See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States South Dakota does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. Verifying your registration The South Dakota Secretary of State’s office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website. Voter ID requirements South Dakota requires voters to present photo identification while voting. Voters can present the following forms of identification: South Dakota driver's license or nondriver ID card U.S. government photo ID U.S. passport U.S. Armed Forces ID Current student photo identification card from a South Dakota high school or South Dakota accredited institution of higher education Tribal photo ID If a voter does not have a photo ID, he or she can sign a personal identification affidavit. The voter will then be given a regular ballot.

See also

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Marijuana on the ballot
• 2020 legislative sessions

South Dakota

• South Dakota ballot measures
• South Dakota ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Attorney General's statement and full text
• 2020 Ballot Question Pamphlet

Support

• South Dakota for Better Marijuana Laws campaign website
• South Dakota for Better Marijuana Laws Facebook page
• South Dakota for Better Marijuana Laws Twitter page

Opposition

Submit links to editor@ballotpedia.org.