A writing error might cost a ballot measure campaign its chances of legalizing recreational marijuana in South Dakota next year.
A marijuana advocacy group has been gathering signatures for four months in support of a ballot measure intended to legalize small amounts of marijuana.
The way the measure is worded, though, it would only legalize marijuana paraphernalia, not the drug itself, according to the state’s official interpretation.
The measure’s sponsor downplayed the problem as a “typo,” one that could be fixed later by the courts or the Legislature. Fixing it before it goes to the ballot would force the group back to the starting line with only four months left to gather new petitions.
“There is a fix for it, so I’m not concerned about it at all,” said Melissa Mentele, director of cannabis advocacy group New Approach South Dakota. “It’s just a typo. It’s one person’s perception of grammar versus another’s.”
The measure strikes city and county ordinances that outlaw recreational cannabis, but it doesn’t make the same specific change to state law.
“We don’t believe that the way that it is written actually legalizes it except for paraphernalia,” Jason Hancock, director of the Legislative Research Council, said Monday.
Supporters could submit an amended proposal, restarting the clock, Hancock said, but that would void all existing ballot measure signatures.
“They’re going to have to start over for gathering signatures,” he said.
A new proposal could derail efforts to get the question on the ballot as the attorney general’s office could take up to 60 days to publish an explanation. Those bringing ballot measure efforts must submit almost 14,000 valid petition signatures by November, leaving little room for error in the drafting and circulating process.
“It’s a really simple question: how do you change every city, county and municipal law without changing state law?” she said.
The measure as written would save the state more than $2 million over the next decade in jail costs for those who would have been convicted for possession of marijuana paraphernalia, legislative analysts estimated.Sens. Stace Nelson, R-Fulton, and Reynold Nesiba, D-Sioux Falls, said they worked with Mentele and Hancock to understand the discrepancies between the language submitted and the assessment of the measure.
If the measure is approved at the ballot and he is re-elected in 2018, Nesiba said he would be willing to bring legislation clarifying the bill’s intent.
“I would be prepared to bring that amendment forward if needed,” Nesiba said.
In the meantime, legislators can’t touch the measure. And the political support for recreational marijuana in the Legislature likely isn’t sufficient to approve a similar bill ahead of the 2018 election.
Nelson said that after talking through the situation with Mentele and Hancock he doubts much can be done to remedy the situation.
“I don’t know of any way to help them change what they have right now,” he said.
The opponent of recreational marijuana who represents Mentele’s district said he was sympathetic to the ballot measure sponsor’s concerns but likely couldn’t justify voting to amend a voter-approved law down the road.
credit:argusleader.com
