Could South Dakota repeal its medical cannabis law?

A proposed ballot initiative has materialized that would scuttle South Dakota’s new medicinal marijuana law.

To be clear, this is only a proposed measure and has a long way to go to get to a vote, and if it should get on the ballot, it would theoretically have a lot of momentum working against it.

Still, the prospect is there and must be treated with a degree of seriousness.

The ballot measure proposes to repeal 2020’s Initiated Measure 26 (IM26), which established the legalization of medicinal cannabis in South Dakota. IM26 passed with nearly 70% of the vote.

Despite that outcome, a Newell man, Travis Ismay, is preparing a petition drive to get a repeal measure on the 2024 ballot, according to the office of Attorney General Marty Jackley, which released a draft ballot explanation last week.

This can be viewed as frustrating on several fronts.

First, the proposed measure is trying to undo a law that was approved overwhelmingly just three years ago. That would seem to have been a rather definitive statement on the matter.

It was emphatic enough that it compelled state lawmakers to begin moving forward in 2021 on implementing IM26, or so it appeared. As we recall, the 2021 session started with a surprising lack of action or urgency on implementing medicinal marijuana regulations, possibly with the belief (as was speculated then) that many lawmakers figured it would be scuttled somehow by an executive branch that wasn’t particularly excited by the idea. But progress was eventually made, perhaps because it became clear to lawmakers that they couldn’t ignore 70% of the voters on the topic.

Counties and municipalities began fashioning their own rules on how development should work. Yankton County was surprisingly progressive in its approach, while some other counties and cities were notably more stringent.

For the public, getting medicinal cards has reportedly been a slow process, but headway has been made. But right now, there are about 80,000 card holders in South Dakota, Kittrick Jeffries, CEO of Puffy’s Dispensary, told Rapid City TV station KOTA.

Also, medical dispensaries are now opening up with more frequency in the states after a slow start. Yankton saw its first such dispensary open last summer, and at least two more (one within Yankton and another in rural Yankton County) have opened in the past couple of weeks. A new dispensary also opened last week in Vermillion. These are not fly-by-night operations: They have required considerable investment and procedural work, as well as procuring product, which must be produced in South Dakota.

The new petition effort seems to be another hurdle in this process, and it may cause some potential medical dispensary operators to temporarily rethink their plans. (And perhaps that freezing effect is part of the point of all this.)

The petition effort must collect more than 17,000 valid signatures to get on the ballot, which is not impossible but, given the overwhelming support for medicinal marijuana shown in 2020, might make the odds rather long.

Still, the added uncertainties it creates are frustrating, not only for those who use medicinal cannabis but also for those who are trying to establish dispensaries or produce and process product to meet the demand. A repeal of this law would undo a lot of work and investment made on this issue the last three years and put South Dakota at a disadvantage compared to several surrounding states.

Undeniably, a repeal of IM26 would be a huge step. The question is: In which direction?

— Yankton Press & Dakotan, July 31

State surplus is good news; what to do next?

We can debate taxes and spending in South Dakota for a long time, but let’s take a moment to recognize the great financial situation South Dakota government is in.

Jim Terwilliger, commissioner of South Dakota’s Bureau of Finance and Management, reported to the Joint Appropriations Committee Wednesday morning about the $96 million budget surplus achieved in the year ended June 30. More than $17 million of the surplus was revenue the state collected above forecast, while $78 million was from expenses lower than budgeted.

Budget surpluses are not new for South Dakota, whose state Constitution requires the Legislature to pass a balanced budget, combined with the generally conservative culture of budgeting in the state. Surpluses, by law, are put into general fund reserves and must be re-appropriated to be spent.

These factors have led to a healthy state financial situation: AAA rating by bond agencies, a fully funded retirement system for government employees (not just state employees, but city, county and school workers) and very little debt in state government.

South Dakota has several trust funds, including the School and Public Lands fund, and part of the interest and earnings from each of them is sent to the Legislature for spending each year. It’s a financial position that most states in the U.S. would love to have.

Not all surpluses are good, however. A notable portion of the expense surplus was a result of being understaffed at important jobs, such as workers at the Health and Human Services in Yankton. We’d much rather see those jobs filled with capable people to help South Dakotans in need than have a financial gain.

There are also some critics who would prefer more spending and less prudence. Others believe taxes should be lowered if there are additional funds available after the fiscal years are complete. They certainly have a point, but we prefer to have reserves and surpluses that can be used for extraordinary items, such as replacing the century-old penitentiary and other corrections facilities. The state Legislature and the governor have already been setting aside funds for their replacement.

South Dakota’s finances are among the best of any state, and we expect that will continue into the foreseeable future.

— Madison Daily Leader, July 27