As South Dakotans approach a vote on recreational cannabis, a new paper makes recommendations to policymakers on implementing its legality.

The American College of Physicians suggests lawmakers take a public health approach to cannabis control in places where recreational use is legal. It could soon include South Dakota, if voters approve a ballot measure in November.

Dr. David Hilden, chair of the Health and Public Policy Committee for the American College of Physicians, said the approach considers not just the effects of legalization on people who use cannabis but on communities at large.

"States that legalize cannabis should consider: What framework are you giving for marketing? For advertising? What safeguards are in place for the content of your cannabis? What about the effects on our roadways?" Hilden outlined.

South Dakota voters approved medical and recreational cannabis use in 2020. But in a case reaching the state's Supreme Court, the recreational-use vote was overturned on a technicality over how changes are made to the state's constitution.

Hilden acknowledged people both for and against cannabis legalization tend to have "fairly firm beliefs" it is either a safe or dangerous substance. The safety of its use likely lands more in the middle, he said, and he wants governments to support research around what is still unknown.

"Voters don't have all of that information at their fingertips," Hilden pointed out. "It is up to state governments, public health agencies, the federal government, to do that scientific inquiry into the benefits and the harms, and then put some safeguards in place."

This Election Day will be the third time recreational cannabis use has gone to voters in South Dakota.


get more stories like this via email

The saga over votes in a North Carolina Supreme Court election continues, with potentially damaging effects for the state's democracy.

While the race is still uncertified, the current loser of the November election - Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin - wants more than 60,000 ballots thrown out.

He's challenging most of the votes from voters he says incorrectly filled out registration forms.

But Jennifer Rubin, president of the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, said this is an attempt to invalidate votes after an election.

"Which is really unprecedented," said Rubin, "and there is no real valid reason for these votes to be discounted after an election, after they've been legitimately, legally cast."

The League of Women Voters of North Carolina filed a friend of the court brief in defense of voters in the case.

Griffin is currently behind Democratic Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs by a little more than 700 votes. The case is in both federal and state courts.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing oral arguments today to decide whether to send the case back to the state.

Rubin said regardless of the outcome, the current fight over the race impacts how people see elections.

"These kinds of actions sow distrust in people's minds in the election process," said Rubin, "and it also should be a real alarm for North Carolina voters that something like this could happen."

Rubin noted that unfortunately, this could be a playbook used in future elections too.

"We're concerned beyond this race," said Rubin, "that this is a trend that could potentially continue as an attempt to invalidate voters."

A bill in Olympia would further expand Washington state's automatic voter registration process.

Sen. Javier Valdez, D-Seattle, introduced Senate Bill 5077 to allow the governor to widen automatic voter registration to more government agencies. Proponents said nearly a million eligible voters in Washington are not registered.

Abigail Leong, communications manager for the Washington Voting Justice Coalition, testified Tuesday in support of the measure. She said the unregistered are typically new citizens, low-income, or people with convictions who are less likely to get enhanced driver's licenses, where they would be automatically registered.

"By automatically registering people to vote when they become citizens, apply for health care or return home from prison, we take the burden of registration off of potential voters," Leong asserted.

Leong argued the bill would also save the state time and money. One opponent of the bill testified the legislation would make the state's elections less secure. The bill is scheduled for an executive session tomorrow in the Senate Committee on State Government, Tribal Affairs and Elections.

Jacob Schmitt, founder and director of the nonprofit Just Us Solutions, was formerly incarcerated. He testified in support of the bill, saying people who are released from incarceration often struggle with technology.

"Anything that we can do to strategically set people up coming out of incarceration to be involved with the civic process is something that we should do," Schmitt contended. "I say we should do this because every barrier that we remove that would otherwise frustrate them or make them feel disenfranchised is something that makes them feel like they're part of the community."

Hailey Wu, community engagement coordinator for Asian Counseling and Referral Service, said expanded automatic voter registration would help immigrant communities in Washington state as well.

"Immigrant families face countless challenges, like discrimination, a long road to citizenship and language barrier that prevent them from fully connecting with their new community," Wu explained. "Sadly, many of our community, they don't receive enough voter outreach, so they need more support to register accurately and on time for Election Day."

A Montana District Court this week issued a preliminary injunction maintaining the public's right to know about legislative bills but the case will need to be revisited for a final decision.

The Montana Constitution protects the public's right to review bill draft files. Last year, the Legislative Services Division made a policy restricting the right, arguing legislators have the right to prevent the public from seeing those files.

Anne Hedges, policy and legislative director for the Montana Environmental Information Center, a plaintiff in the case, said the policy is counter to the state constitution, which was written to keep the public "front and center in our government."

"They are the ones that elected officials are supposed to be representing and working on behalf of," Hedges pointed out. "They have a right to know and a right to participate in government decision-making."

Hedges noted her organization won a case on similar grounds in 1995. The injunction this week will maintain the right to know through the current legislative session but litigation will likely be needed to reach a final decision.

Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, founder and executive director of Upper Seven Law, an attorney for the plaintiffs, noted access to bill drafts is important for the public but also for legislative staff, lobbyists and the press, who she said joined the lawsuit with separate representation.

"If you don't have access to the information that you need in a timely manner, it will impact your ability to participate effectively in the lawmaking process," Sommers-Flanagan contended.

She added the Montana Constitution, adopted in 1972, has some of the strongest protections for such rights in the country.

Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email