Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Thom v. Barnett

Thom v. Barnett

Supreme Court of South Dakota

April 28, 2021, Argued; November 24, 2021, Opinion Filed

# 29546, # 29547

Opinion

 [**264]  JENSEN, Chief Justice (on reassignment).

 [*P1]  At the November 3, 2020 general election, South Dakota voters approved Initiated Constitutional Amendment A, titled by the Attorney General as: "An amendment to the [***2]  South Dakota Constitution to legalize, 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." Following the election, Kevin Thom (Thom) and Rick Miller (Miller) filed a statutory election contest and a separate declaratory judgment action claiming Amendment A was presented to the voters in violation of the requirements for amendments to the South Dakota Constitution. The circuit court dismissed the election contest determining it was not an appropriate proceeding to challenge Amendment A. However, the court concluded in the declaratory judgment action that Amendment A was submitted to the voters in violation of the single subject requirement in the South Dakota Constitution Article XXIII, § 1 and that it separately violated Article XXIII, § 2 because it was a constitutional revision that should have been submitted to the voters through a constitutional convention. We affirm the circuit court's dismissal of the election contest and its determination that Amendment A violates Article XXIII, § 1.

Facts and Procedural History

 [*P2]  In May 2019, the prime sponsor of Amendment A submitted the original version  [**265]  of the Amendment to the director of the Legislative Research Council for review and comment [***3]  as required by SDCL 12-13-25. The director's written comments were provided to the prime sponsor, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of State. On August 16, 2019, the Attorney General delivered the final form of Amendment A and the Attorney General's statement of its title and explanation to the Secretary of State as required by SDCL 12-13-25.1. In the explanation, the Attorney General expressed the view that "[j]udicial clarification of the amendment may be necessary."

 [*P3]  The sponsors of Amendment A submitted a petition to the Secretary of State seeking to place Amendment A on the ballot at the November 2020 general election. On January 6, 2020, the Secretary of State announced that he had validated that the petition contained a sufficient number of qualified voter signatures for Amendment A to be placed on the ballot in the next general election. The measure was titled "Constitutional Amendment A" and was placed on the 2020 general election ballot for consideration by the voters on November 3, 2020. Amendment A was approved by a majority vote, with 225,260 "Yes" votes (54.2%) and 190,477 "No" votes (45.8%).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2021 SD 65 *; 967 N.W.2d 261 **; 2021 S.D. LEXIS 124 ***

SHERIFF KEVIN THOM, In His Official Capacity as Pennington County Sheriff, and COLONEL RICK MILLER, In His Official Capacity as Superintendent of the South Dakota Highway Patrol, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. STEVE BARNETT, In His Official Capacity as the South Dakota Secretary of State, Defendant, and SOUTH DAKOTANS FOR BETTER MARIJUANA LAWS, RANDOLPH SEILER, WILLIAM STOCKER, CHARLES PARKINSON, and MELISSA MENTELE, Defendants and Appellants.IN THE MATTER OF ELECTION CONTEST AS TO AMENDMENT A, AN AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH DAKOTA CONSTITUTION TO LEGALIZE, 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.

Subsequent History:  [***1] Reassigned September 7, 2021.

Prior History: APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT HUGHES COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA. THE HONORABLE CHRISTINA L. KLINGER Judge.

Disposition: Affirmed.

CORE TERMS

marijuana, voters, hemp, legalization, Proponents, regulation, provisions, revision, propositions, licenses, election, initiative, constitutional amendment, cultivation, voted, plant, medical marijuana, connected, circuit court, ratification, real party in interest, propose an amendment, election contest, single subject, licensees, ballot, local government, logrolling, manufacture, accomplish

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Governments, Legislation, Interpretation, Summary Judgment, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Judgments, Pretrial Judgments, Judgment on Pleadings, Local Governments, Elections, State & Territorial Governments, Constitutional Law, Amendment Process, State Constitutional Operation, Declaratory Judgments, State Declaratory Judgments, Appellate Review, Justiciability, Standing, Injury in Fact, Parties, Substitution, Motions for Substitution, Contracts Law, Remedies, Ratification, Real Party in Interest, Subrogees, Grounds for Relief, Initiative & Referendum, Legislatures