Noem's veto of industrial hemp legalization stands after Senate fails to override

PIERRE — Gov. Kristi Noem's veto on legalizing industrial hemp will stand after the Senate failed to override it on Tuesday.

The House voted 55-11 to override Noem's veto of House Bill 1191 on Tuesday morning, but the Senate failed to reach a two-thirds majority with its 20-13 vote on Tuesday afternoon.

Bill sponsor Rep. Oren Lesmeister, D-Parade, said he was "disappointed" in Noem's veto, which wasn't "the right thing to do." The states surrounding South Dakota are "probably jumping for joy right now" because South Dakota is out of the industrial hemp market, he said. 

Noem's veto sends a message that she doesn't believe the state has the capabilities to address problems, and that legislators have more faith in the state's law enforcement and agriculture department than she does, he said. The veto and "no" votes should also send a message to South Dakota's farmers, he added.

"I'd rather be pro-agriculture than holding us back and waiting, 'Let's let somebody else do it, and we'll pick up the crumbs and leftovers,'" Lesmeister said.

Noem announced on Monday night that she vetoed the proposal because South Dakota should focus on leading for the state's next generation and stand as an example for the rest of the country instead of going along with other states. 

More:Noem vetoes industrial hemp bill: ‘Our state is not yet ready’

"Our state is not yet ready for industrial hemp," she wrote in a letter explaining her veto.

Questioning Noem's concerns

Several legislators questioned on Tuesday Noem's objections to legalizing industrial hemp this year. 

Rep. Tim Goodwin, R-Rapid City, said the "excuse" about the state's readiness isn't "relevant" because the state will have to deal with industrial hemp as it travels across South Dakota between states where it's legal.

In her letter, Noem also argued that legalizing industrial hemp would lead to legalized marijuana in South Dakota.

Sen. Stace Nelson, R-Fulton, said he doesn't understand Noem's veto to make federally legal industrial hemp illegal in South Dakota because law enforcement may not be able to tell the difference between hemp and marijuana.

More:As legislative session nears end, who are the winners and losers in Pierre this year?

"We don't have a hemp epidemic. We have a meth epidemic," Nelson said. "If we're going to outlaw everything that law enforcement cannot look at and say, 'That could be meth,' we've got a long list of things we need to criminalize."

Lesmeister said he wasn't given a fair shot to work with Noem on her concerns because he was never able to meet with her to discuss it. Her issues with the bill changed in every stage of the bill's movement through the Legislature, and it comes down to Noem being "uneducated" about industrial hemp.

"I don't know if she ever had a true issue with hemp or (if) she just did not like hemp at all," Lesmeister said. "And what's really surprising is that after voting for the 2018 Farm Bill and talking about it in her campaign about championing it, helping put language in the Farm Bill and then voting for it, to do a complete 180 now. Why?" 

House votes to override

A few House members changed their votes to "no" between previous industrial hemp votes and Tuesday's override vote. Rep. Nancy York, R-Watertown, was one of the House members to change because she said she now believes the state isn't prepared to take the "aggressive step" of legalizing industrial hemp due to a lack of regulations in place.

Several lawmakers said legalizing industrial hemp will allow the state to begin crafting regulations to put into place ahead of the 2020 growing season, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's plan to release guidelines in the fall will fit into that schedule. Rep. Kent Peterson, R-Salem, pointed out that if they wait until next year, the Legislature will be facing a crunch to pass a bill with an emergency clause to begin implementing it immediately.

Senate fails to override

Sen. Troy Heinert, D-Mission, said the legislators' vote to either support or oppose legalizing industrial hemp is one that constituents will remember going forward.

"This is what is right for South Dakota producers and South Dakotans who want to use, manufacture and grow this product," Heinert said.

The state doesn't have any funding earmarked for regulating industrial hemp in its budget, and there will be costs to the state if industrial hemp is legalized on July 1, said Appropriations Committee Chairman Sen. John Wiik, R-Big Stone City. 

Sen. Alan Solano, R-Rapid City, said the state is going to miss out on manufacturing hemp, as well as growing it, because manufacturers are looking at sites in states that are legalizing it now. That means a loss of jobs for the state, he said.

"We can always catch up on production, but we're not going to catch up when it comes to manufacturing," Solano said.