Last verified: May 2026
The Three Votes — Trajectory of Decline
- 2020 (presidential year): Amendment A passed 54.18% yes / 45.82% no — with the boost of presidential-year turnout. Court-erased by Thom v. Barnett (Nov 24, 2021).
- 2022 (midterm): IM 27 lost 52.92% no / 47.08% yes — lower midterm turnout combined with organized opposition.
- 2024 (presidential year): IM 29 lost ~55.6% no / ~44.4% yes — even with presidential-year turnout, support declined 10 points from 2020.
The downward trajectory across measures — despite increasing voter familiarity with medical cannabis and the broader normalization of cannabis-policy debate — is the central puzzle of SD adult-use ballot history.
Factor 1 — The Republican-Supermajority Electorate
South Dakota’s electorate is approximately 27 percentage points more Republican than the national average (per various poll-aggregator analyses across 2020–2024 cycles). The 2024 presidential election produced a 26-point Trump margin over Kamala Harris. The Republican supermajority is veto-proof in the legislature and produces the political environment in which:
- Conservative cultural framings dominate.
- Organized opposition has institutional advantages (media access, donor networks, evangelical-religious infrastructure).
- Adult-use cannabis is consistently framed as a "values" question rather than an "economic-or-policy" question.
Factor 2 — The Medical Program as De-Urgency
IM 26 passed in 2020 with 70% support and was operational by July 2022. By 2024, 18,000+ South Dakotans held active medical-cannabis cards. The medical program’s availability has reduced perceived urgency for adult-use legalization among:
- Patients with qualifying conditions who can access cannabis through IM 26.
- Patient-adjacent voters (family members of patients) who see the system working.
- Medical-industry stakeholders whose business model depends on the medical-only structure.
Schweich post-IM 27 loss: "There are many voters who are dissatisfied with how the medical program is working and there’s people that are shut out of it entirely." But the dissatisfaction has not translated into adult-use vote yes.
Factor 3 — Organized Opposition Architecture
Protecting South Dakota Kids (Jim Kinyon, chair) emerged in 2022 and led both IM 27 and IM 29 opposition campaigns:
- 2022 IM 27: $351K spent of $427K raised, mainly on advertising. Public officials including Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken and Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead campaigned against. SAM Action’s Kevin Sabet provided national support.
- 2024 IM 29: Joined by SD Catholic Conference and law-enforcement and business groups. Opponents repeatedly grouped marijuana with unregulated intoxicating hemp and fentanyl in their messaging.
The opposition infrastructure that did not exist in 2020 (when Amendment A passed without organized resistance) provided a crucial advantage for the 2022 and 2024 votes.
Factor 4 — The Religious-Conservative Coalition
SD’s religious composition skews Lutheran (ELCA, LCMS, WELS), Catholic, and small evangelical denominations. The South Dakota Catholic Conference and the South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance have been consistent organized opponents of cannabis ballot measures. The German-Russian (Hutterite, Mennonite) and Norwegian-Lutheran cultural register adds traditional-conservatism layers beyond evangelical Protestantism.
Factor 5 — The "Medical First, Recreational Later" Framing
Several SD voters in post-2024 polling cited a "medical first, see how it works, then maybe recreational" pattern. The 70% vote for IM 26 demonstrated underlying support for cannabis access; the rejection of Amendment A / IM 27 / IM 29 reflects voter caution about expansion beyond medical. This framing creates a structural ceiling: voters who support medical cannabis may decline to support recreational because they want to see medical work first.
Factor 6 — The Federal-Land & Tourism Overlay
Mount Rushmore, Crazy Horse Memorial, Custer State Park, the Badlands, Wind Cave, Jewel Cave, the Sturgis Rally — SD’s tourism economy operates with substantial federal-land overlay. Federal property prohibits cannabis regardless of state law. Tourism stakeholders (Black Hills hospitality, Sturgis-area lodging, motorcycle-rally vendors) have not provided strong organized advocacy for adult-use legalization, possibly because the federal-land overlay constrains the upside.
Factor 7 — The Tribal Cannabis Pre-Empt
The Flandreau Santee Sioux and Pine Ridge tribal cannabis programs operate independently of state law. Some voters perceive that "cannabis is available if you really need it" through tribal pathways, reducing pressure for state-level recreational legalization. The tribal-program existence produces a perceived (if narrow and complicated) safety valve.
The Constitutional Amendment L Backstop
The 2026 ballot includes Constitutional Amendment L, requiring future constitutional amendments to clear a 60% supermajority. If passed, future cannabis constitutional amendments face a substantially higher bar. Amendment L does not directly affect IM 26 or future initiated statutes, but it constrains future ballot reform architecture.
Path Forward
Schweich and SDBML have publicly stated they are finished with state-level recreational ballot work after the 2024 loss. Independent reform efforts may file for 2028 or beyond. The 2026 ballot has no certified recreational measure. The 2027 SD legislative session will not produce recreational legalization given Republican supermajority dynamics. The realistic adult-use legalization timeline now stretches to 2028 or beyond — conditional on (a) a federal regulatory environment that further normalizes cannabis, (b) a meaningful demographic shift in SD’s electorate, and (c) renewed advocacy infrastructure.
For in-depth cannabis education, dosing guides, safety information, and research summaries, visit our partner site TryCannabis.org
Related on this site: Amendment A & Thom v. Barnett, IM 27 (2022) & IM 29 (2024), Send a Message.