South Dakota Group Submits 29K Signatures for 2024 Adult-Use Cannabis Legalization Measure

South Dakota voters may get yet another shot at legalizing cannabis for adult use this fall, as advocates behind an initiated measure submitted 29,030 signatures to the South Dakota secretary of state May 7 to qualify for the November ballot.

This is South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws’ (SDBML) third attempt since 2020 to reform the state’s cannabis laws, but the group will need 17,508 signatures validated—or roughly 60% of what they filed ahead of Tuesday’s deadline—in order to land the proposed state statute on the ballot. That required signature number is based on 5% of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election.

“Today is the culmination of seven months of hard work by advocates and volunteers across South Dakota,” SDBML Executive Director Matthew Schweich said in a press release May 7. “We are very confident that we have collected enough signatures from registered voters to qualify for this November's ballot.”

Secretary of State Monae Johnson’s office has until Aug. 13 to validate the signatures, according to The Associated Press.

Today we submitted 29,030 signatures to the Sec. of State to qualify our legalization initiative for the 2024 ballot! Thank you to everyone who signed & volunteered! We are very confident we collected enough signatures & we should get the official word in the next several weeks. pic.twitter.com/vCVEtAp3qM

— South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws (@southdakotamj) May 7, 2024

In 2022, SDBML submitted roughly 31,600 signatures, of which more than 25,000, or 79%, were validated—i.e., confirmed registered voters who reside in the state and wrote legibly. That year, the initiative ultimately failed with 53% of voters opposing the measure on Election Day.

That 2022 letdown for cannabis legalization advocates came after voters approved SDBML’s 2020 legalization measure—a constitutional amendment that year—with 54.2% in favor of reform. But the voice of the people was nullified a year later, when the state’s Supreme Court upheld a ruling that the voter-approved amendment violated the state’s single-subject rule and therefore was an unconstitutional ballot initiative. The ruling came after Republican Gov. Kristi Noem issued an executive order asserting that it was unconstitutional and launched a taxpayer-funded lawsuit challenging the ballot measure. 

“The effects of Governor Noem’s actions, including leading the lawsuit against Amendment A, have left a lot of South Dakotans feeling as though their votes do not matter,” SDBML Deputy Director Quincy Hanzen said in the release. “If this initiative qualifies for the ballot, we hope South Dakota voters will show up on November fifth and make their voice heard.” 

So, will a third time be the charm in South Dakota?

“Things all seem to be moving in the right direction for South Dakota to finally win the freedom they voted for a few years ago,” Deb Peters, president of the Cannabis Industry Association of South Dakota, said in the SDBML release. “At the federal level, things are moving towards a responsible rescheduling and dozens of states are seeing the tax benefits of recreational cannabis legalization. It's inspiring to see this industry come together and work so hard. We're looking forward to Election Day. " 

One main difference between 2020 and 2022 is that the former was a presidential election, Schweich indicated in an interview with Keloland Media Group. Schweich also serves as the executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, a national cannabis legalization advocacy group.

“The conventional opinion is that when you’re going to run a cannabis-reform ballot initiative in a conservative-leaning state, you do so in a presidential (election) year,” he said. “You’re going to have a larger turnout; you’re going to have an electorate that is more likely to view the issue favorably.”

The proposed 2024 initiated measure would allow those 21 and older to possess, grow, ingest and distribute cannabis or cannabis paraphernalia. Specifically, individuals could possess up to 2 ounces of cannabis, 16 grams of cannabis concentrate or 1,600 milligrams of THC and could grow up to six plants for personal use but no more than 12 plants per household.

Other key provisions included in the proposal, as outlined by the secretary of state’s office, are:

• The measure restricts where individuals may possess or consume cannabis, such as schools or where tobacco is prohibited.
• The measure allows employers to restrict an employee's use of cannabis. Property owners may also regulate the use of cannabis on their property.
• The measure does not affect state laws dealing with hemp. It also does not change laws concerning the state's medical cannabis program.
• The measure legalizes cannabis-derived substances considered felony-controlled substances under state law. Cannabis remains illegal under federal law.
  

The 2024 proposal would not establish a taxed and regulated commercial marketplace, which makes it more likely to stand the test of the state’s single-subject rule, which SDBML decided during the group’s push in 2022.

“While the measure does decriminalize transfers of cannabis without consideration (i.e., for free), it does not decriminalize the sale of cannabis,” South Dakota Legislative Research Council Director Reed Holwegner wrote in a fiscal note on the measure to Secretary Johnson. “Accordingly, neither the state nor municipalities could expect to earn additional sales tax revenue through the sale of cannabis. However, the state and municipalities could earn minimally more sales tax revenue with the decriminalization of cannabis accessories.”

The SDBML’s current campaign comes at a time when 24 states have legalized adult-use cannabis and 38 states have legalized medical cannabis programs that don’t severely restrict patient access via product availability or low-THC caps.

The campaign also comes at a time when possessing 2 ounces or less of cannabis is a Class 1 misdemeanor in South Dakota, where the penalty includes up to a year of incarceration.

It costs the state’s counties roughly $581,500 per year to hold those convicted of cannabis-related Class 1 misdemeanors behind bars, according to Reed’s fiscal note.