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

Early voting begins today for Wisconsin's Aug. 13 primary election and nonpartisan outreach groups said their efforts to convince reluctant voters to participate this time around continue to evolve.

Ahead of the November election and the closely watched presidential race, Wisconsin voters have a chance to decide primary races for U.S. Senate, the state Legislature and two ballot questions.

Rhonda Lindner, statewide organizer for the Wisconsin Interfaith Voter Engagement Campaign, said part of their mission is to connect with registered voters from different political backgrounds who sat out the midterms in 2022. She said it is not just about bombarding them with information.

"Listening to them, valuing what they have to say and understanding why perhaps they've been disengaged for a while," Lindner explained.

Her group also has embraced postcarding, which became popular during the pandemic. In this election cycle, Lindner's team sent out more than 1,600 postcards with handwritten messages to low-propensity voters in select areas. She acknowledged the more personal approach might not galvanize a wave of participation from the group but added it can serve as a gateway to civic engagement.

Lindner pointed out that getting people at least thinking about voting again can eventually pay off, especially if loved ones are part of the conversation. Reminding individuals about the importance of local elections versus national races has been a longstanding approach but Lindner noted it is another important tool.

"Oftentimes these are voters who are just thinking on the national level of a presidential election, they're not considering the down-ballot races and how down ballot races can directly impact their neighborhoods," Lindner emphasized.

Some legislative districts will be more competitive after the state Supreme Court ordered fair political maps. The decision followed years of claims Wisconsin Republicans carried out extreme partisan gerrymandering in leading redistricting. Organizers hope new names on the ballots will spur voter interest.

Meanwhile, the ballot questions have to do with who should have more control at the state level, either the GOP-led Legislature or the governor's office, in making use of federal funding for Wisconsin.

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


get more stories like this via email

Earlier this year, Mexico elected the first woman president in the country's 200-year history, and Kamala Harris hopes to duplicate that milestone in the U.S.

But a group that studies how women fare in elections says it's still an uphill battle.

Harris already is America's first female vice president, and the first Black and South Asian American to hold the office.

Kelly Dittmar - director of research and data for the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University - said in addition to gender and race attacks, Harris will face criticism for her style, with some claiming she's not presidential.

"We've also seen attacks on Harris' qualifications," said Dittmar, "something more common to women and especially to women of color - whose competencies are more often questioned while, for white men, they're more often assumed."

In 2020, New Mexico became the first state to elect all women of color to its House delegation.

The group included then incumbent Rep. Deb Haaland - D-Albuquerque - who now leads the Department of the Interior.

Center Director Debbie Walsh said the number of women running for federal office has fallen off nationally in both political parties.

That follows numerous successes, especially at the gubernatorial level.

"Women have been essential to flipping the most competitive seats in recent election years," said Walsh, "and women of color have been winning both statewide executive and legislative seats, in states and districts with majority white electorates."

The last two New Mexico governors have been women - Republican Susana Martinez and current Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat.

In this year's race, two of New Mexico's three U.S. House incumbents seeking re-election are women.

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




get more stories like this via email

Recent Supreme Court rulings on air pollution are affecting Virginia and the nation.

Climate advocates said the court overstepped its bounds in ruling the Environmental Protection Agency's Good Neighbor Rule was improperly enacted and repealing the so-called "Chevron deference." Without it, judges have to rule on ambiguous regulatory laws with no agency expertise.

Craig Segall, vice president of the advocacy group Evergreen Action, said the court is diminishing the capacity of Virginia's federal climate partners like the EPA.

"By creating room to attack, for instance, carbon standards for power plants federally, that Virginia might want to implement," Segall outlined. "Or by making it harder for U.S. EPA to move us toward electric vehicles that would create jobs in Virginia and that would, you know, clean up the air, especially in Northern Virginia where it's so congested."

He added it creates an opportunity for states to lead on climate action. But partisan opinions on climate change vary across the country. In Virginia, it means mixed efforts from utility companies and lawmakers. Dominion Energy is developing offshore wind, but it is also pressing on with a natural gas plant residents vehemently oppose.

The rulings, coupled with decisions on presidential immunity and what constitutes bribery have eroded the Supreme Court's perception of impartiality. Polls show most Americans across party lines feel the Court puts political ideology first.

Quentin Scott, federal policy director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said it opens the floodgates to government corruption.

"We can't have this blatant, open corruption or it will diminish our effectiveness of government and enforcement of some very important rules related to pollution," Scott asserted.

He stressed climate action will be a top ballot priority along with preserving democracy. Some of his group's top issues for the next presidency will be improving grid interconnection of clean energy projects and approving certain reforms for the Supreme Court.