Updated at 6 a.m. CT Nov. 7
Possessing any amount of cannabis will remain criminalized with the possibility of jail time in South Dakota.
The prohibition policies remain intact in the Mount Rushmore State after voters rejected an adult-use legalization initiative, Measure 29, with 55.5% casting ballots in opposition to reform on Nov. 5, according to unofficial election results from the South Dakota secretary of state’s office with 100% of precincts reported as of 6 a.m. CT on Nov. 7.
Sponsored by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws (SDBML), the measure intended to allow adults 21 years and older to possess up to 2 ounces of cannabis flower and grow up to six plants at home without facing criminal penalties or incarceration.
With Measure 29’s failure, South Dakota will remain a medical cannabis-only state.
The 2024 election marks South Dakota’s third attempt to legalize adult-use cannabis.
In 2020, voters approved an adult-use legalization amendment with a 54.2% majority only to have that election result nullified when the state’s Supreme Court upheld a ruling that the amendment violated a single-subject rule. The reform opportunity was slammed shut in large part due to Republican Gov. Kristi Noem launching a taxpayer-funded lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the measure.
And in 2022, South Dakotans rejected another adult-use legalization attempt with 53% opposed. Cannabis advocates attributed the flipped results to lower voter turnout for the 2022 midterm election: 74% of South Dakota voters cast ballots in the 2020 election, while 59% of voters cast ballots in the 2022 election, according to the South Dakota secretary of state’s office.
However, voter turnout in the 2024 presidential election wasn’t enough to push Measure 29 across the finish line. The main difference between the voter-approved 2020 constitutional amendment and the voter-rejected 2024 statutory measure was that the former legalization attempt included language to establish a commercial marketplace for licensed businesses to cultivate, manufacture and sell cannabis.
The 2024 measure did not provide language for a licensed and regulated market so that legalization advocates could avoid violating the state’s single-subject rule in a repeat of four years ago. This lack of opportunity for the state’s existing medical cannabis companies to expand their operations may have deterred some licensees from contributing money toward the legalization campaign—but not all.
In the days leading up to Election Day, Schweich responded to criticism of the SDBML campaign by saying his team was severely underfunded. The group received about $458,000 toward its legalization effort, notably with donations from Grow South Dakota, a political action committee that received most of its contributions from the state’s medical cannabis companies, according to campaign finance reports.
Greenlight CEO John Mueller said while he respects the voters’ decision, Measure 29’s failure marks a missed opportunity. A multistate cannabis operator, Greenlight is vertically integrated in South Dakota’s medical market. The company was the main financial backer of the SDBML campaign.
“As an established operator with three dispensaries serving South Dakota’s medical patients, Greenlight remains committed to our presence here and will continue advocating for safe, regulated adult-use access,” Mueller said in a statement provided to Cannabis Business Times. “Many states have successfully implemented adult-use programs, and we believe South Dakota will eventually follow suit.”
While Measure 29 wouldn’t have provided South Dakota additional tax dollars from licensed dispensary sales, the state would have realized an annual savings of roughly $581,500 at the county level, which represents the cost of holding those convicted of cannabis-related Class 1 misdemeanors behind bars for possessing 2 ounces or less of cannabis, according to a fiscal note for the rejected proposal.
Measure 29’s main oppositional campaign was Protecting SD Kids, a nonprofit political action committee of health care professionals, parents, educators, treatment providers, law enforcement and other “concerned people.” Overall, legalization opponents raised roughly the same amount of money as SDBML supporters, according to campaign finance reports.
Protecting SD Kids used its funds, in part, to launch a television ad in October that Schweich called “demonstratively false and deceptive” in violation of Federal Communication Commission rules. Specifically, the ad claimed Measure 29 wouldn’t just legalize cannabis but also “cultivate a whole new generation of meth, fentanyl and opioid abusers” and impaired drivers in South Dakota.
“The question of what Measure 29 legalizes is not a matter of opinion,” Schweich said last month during a press conference in which he demanded the ad be taken down. “It is crystal clear, based on the text of the initiative, that Measure 29 only legalizes marijuana and marijuana-related products.”
South Dakota’s existing laws against impaired driving were to remain in place under Measure 29. The proposal also aimed to restrict where individuals could possess or consume cannabis, including near schools, public places or any location where smoking tobacco is prohibited.
The measure also would have allowed employers to restrict an employee’s use of cannabis in the workplace and would not have interfered with existing workplace requirements for drug testing.
In the end, prohibitionists prevailed on election night in South Dakota.