On February 12, South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg responded to the unconstitutional verdict on voter approved Amendment A. Ravnsborg declined to move forward with the appeal process, stating that he’s completed his job to defend the amendment. His surprising response left many organizations and citizens furious, as many hoped that Amendment A would finally bring cannabis legalization to the state. The Attorney General’s job is to defend any state law challenged in court. And Amendment A became law when voters approved it by 54 percent majority. The move seems to stand in contradiction to the duties of the position, and seems to be largely politically-motivated.

The statement released said, “After a review of the matter the Attorney General decided that the Office of the Attorney General has fulfilled its obligation to defend Amendment A. That conclusion includes the decision that all matters that may be raised on appeal are questions of law, and it appears that all arguments that could have (been) made in this matter have, in fact, been made. Therefore it is the decision of the Attorney General that the Plaintiffs and Intervenors can proceed with an appeal of the declaratory judgment action without the involvement of the Attorney General’s Office.”

Public Outcry

Advocates are furious at Attorney General Ravnsborg. No matter what his personal feelings are, he is responsible for defending the law to the best of his abilities. Many are saying that Ravnsborg is avoiding the duties of his job in favor of his own personal opinion and interests. Some have even called for his resignation.

Melissa Mentele, executive director of New Approach South Dakota, has publicly opposed Ravnsborg’s statement. Mentele has been a strong advocate for marijuana legalization and pushed for both IM 26 and Amendment A.

“The Attorney General has abdicated his responsibility to represent the people of South Dakota,” Mentele said in a statement. “Simply put, he has decided to stop doing his job. The Attorney General’s decision is difficult to understand given that he previously argued in court that Amendment A is completely lawful.”

Future

New Approach is going to move forward with the appeal process. They plan to take the ruling by Judge Christian Klinger of South Dakota’s Sixth Judicial Circuit Court to the Supreme Court. Judge Klinger deemed Amendment A unconstitutional because it deals with more than one subject. Amendments should only be about one topic. Additionally, Amendment A isn’t really an amendment. From a legal perspective, it’s more of a revision than an amendment. Amendment A also didn’t go through the proper regulations for voter presentation.

The Supreme Court hearing for Amendment A will most likely take place in April. As more information becomes available, we will make sure to update you with the latest. Make sure to check back for more cannabis and hemp related news.