I received a copy of a sample ballot for South Dakota. The state released it early so that voters can see what measures will be on the ballot. This gives them time to study the issue, do some research, or whatever so they know how they will vote when they see that measure on the ballot at the polls.
This ballot has some interesting things on it.
One measure will change the State Constitution so that all existing male pronouns (he, him, etc.) are replaced with the title of the person specified. So instead of saying "he will.." it will say, "The Governor will ..." and so on.
Also, a measure to change the State Constitution to specify a right to abortion. There are other measures that we have been fighting long and hard for that are coming up for a vote again, like repealing the sales tax on food items, decriminalizing possession of marijuana, and so forth.
The ballot also provides for voting for the electors who will vote for President. We don't vote directly for who we want in the highest office but instead, vote for the people who will vote for them. These people are called electors and together they make up the Electoral College. What I found interesting, is this note from the government archives website:
The U.S. Constitution contains very few provisions relating to the qualifications of electors. Article II, section 1, clause 2 provides that no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. ~
National Archives.
That makes sense. Usually, the Party selects senior party members to be the electors. That also seems ok. But then I saw this: (my notes in red)
So my question is, are they trying to pull a sneaky trick on us voters?
Or is this perfectly legal?
Maybe the implication is that the highest offices in our state government are not an "Office of Trust" as specified in the U.S. Constitution. I know that I don't trust them.
The other question I have is in regards to Initiated Measure 29, Legalizing Marijuana. The text explains what the new law will allow and what it won't. It all looks good until you get down to the Fiscal Note where they explain how this will affect the State budget. It says, "... as the measure will not decriminalize the sale of cannabis... ". Hmmm
The law makes it legal to possess and consume for any purpose up to two ounces of marijuana. But it remains illegal to sell it. Are the cannabis dispensaries going to give it away for free? The law does allow you to grow your own (up to 12 plants), but where am I supposed to acquire two ounces if I can't buy it? Maybe if I wandered into a dispensary and "found" a couple of ounces regularly, I could make a "donation" to the dispensary because the cashier has a nice smile.
The end result will not affect me because I live in a drug-free zone. The property management has a zero-tolerance policy on any drugs without a prescription, but that policy does not allow medical marijuana on the property. Maybe that policy will change if the law gets voted in again. Or maybe Kristi Noem will issue another Executive Order to sue the People and have the vote declared "Unconstitutional" again. (No lie, she really did this.)
