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

Some Colorado lawmakers are scrambling to protect voter rights after President Donald Trump issued an executive order to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. They say the requirement would disproportionately affect low-income voters and people of color.

David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the language in the U.S. Constitution is very clear that the authority to run elections is delegated to individual states.

"Everyone - Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative - wants to keep ineligible voters off the list. And there's always some value in discussing how to do it better," he explained. "Unfortunately that's not what this executive order does. It's really a remarkable seizure of power from the states."

Trump has cast doubt on the integrity of American elections for years, despite evidence that fraud is extremely rare. The new order claims the nation has failed "to enforce basic and necessary election protections," and would allow the Department of Homeland Security and 'DOGE' to access state voter rolls. Colorado Senate Bill 1 - which would bar voter discrimination based on race, sexual orientation or gender identity - has cleared the state Senate and now moves to the House.

Becker noted that Congress does have constitutional authority to change election rules, and did so most notably after passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And in 2021, he says House Democrats passed a sweeping set of election reforms that ended up dying in the Senate.

"But at least that was done through congressional action. What we have here is an executive power grab - an attempt by the President of the United States to dictate to states how they run elections, how they should exercise the power that is granted to them by the Constitution," he continued.

Becker noted the new order suggests serious misunderstandings, intentional or not, about the nation's election system, which he says is secure. It's already illegal for non-U.S. citizens to vote, and voter lists are as accurate as they've ever been. More than 95% of all U.S. voters use paper ballots, which are available in all states, and ballots are audited to confirm results.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana's school board elections moved closer to becoming partisan after the House of Representatives narrowly approved a bill requiring candidates to list political affiliations on ballots.

If enacted, candidates must declare a party affiliation, list themselves as independent or remain nonpartisan. Party-affiliated candidates would have their designation appear on ballots.

Rep. Chuck Moseley, D-Portage, spent nine years on a school board and opposes the bill.

"The whole premise of this bill is there's politics in the schools, let's just put more politics in the schools," Moseley pointed out. "You can choose to believe me or not believe me, but the fact of the matter is we kept politics out of that."

Supporters argued school boards already operate along party lines and said voters should know candidates' political leanings. The bill passed 54-40 with 14 Republicans joining 26 Democrats who voted no. It now returns to the Senate for final approval.

Opponents of Senate Bill 287 claimed the change would inject unnecessary partisanship into local education, making elections more divisive. Only Democrats spoke against the measure during debate, warning it would deepen political divides in schools.

Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, said school boards are already partisan.

"One party is saying it's OK that biological males can compete with our daughters in sports; another party is pushing against that," Lucas contended. "One party thinks it's OK to sterilize and mutilate children; another party's pushing against that."

If the Senate approves the changes, Indiana will join a handful of states with fully partisan school board elections.


get more stories like this via email

More than 1,000 protests against the policies of President Donald Trump are set for Saturday across the country, with 117 planned in California alone.

The so-called "Hands Off" protests are sponsored by a coalition of dozens of civil rights, environmental, education, social justice and labor groups.

Hunter Dunn is press and public relations director for the grassroots group 50501 So Cal, which stands for "50 protests in 50 states, one movement."

"We oppose executive overreach, including pardon abuse, the institution of Project 2025 policies, and mass deportations by ICE," Dunn outlined. "We also oppose the use of the unitary executive theory to justify ignoring the court system."

Trump has said policies are intended to save money, fight crime and support the domestic oil and gas industry. The rallies in downtown Los Angeles and Sacramento are expected to draw huge crowds for this national day of action.

Dunn argued large-scale protests over a sustained period will slow down the Trump administration's priorities and motivate people to make their voices heard at polls going forward.

"In 2026 and 2028, all the people that are in the streets, they will vote for pro-democracy candidates that are in favor of affordable housing, universal health care, workers rights," Dunn contended. "Any policies that actually make a difference in the lives of the average American."

Some of the groups involved in the protests include the Women's March, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Indivisible, MoveOn.org, Human Rights Campaign, the AFL-CIO and the League of Conservation Voters.


get more stories like this via email