The South Dakota Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a lower court\u0026#039;s ruling in striking down a voter-approved measure that would have legalized recreational marijuana.\r\n\r\n\u0022Legalization opponents... are now petitioning the courts to overturn the will of the people.\u0022\r\n\r\nIn a statement explaining its 4-1 ruling, the court argued that Constitutional Amendment A—which passed by an eight-point margin last year in a state-wide referendum vote last year—was invalid because it dealt with more than one subject and thus ran afoul of the state constitution.\r\n\r\nIn addition to addressing recreational pot, the measure also had provisions regarding hemp and medical marijuana.\r\n\r\n\u0022As a result of the constitutional violation, the court has declared the amendment invalid,\u0022 the judges said.\r\n\r\nMatthew Schweich, campaign director for South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, which led the campaign in support of Amendment A, called the ruling \u0022extremely flawed.\u0022\r\n\r\nThe ruling, according to Schweich, \u0022states that Amendment A comprised three subjects—recreational marijuana, medical marijuana, and hemp legalization—and that South Dakotans could not tell what they were voting on when voting for Amendment A.\u0022 But Schweich rejected that finding as \u0022a legal stretch and one that relies on the disrespectful assumption that South Dakota voters were intellectually incapable of understanding the initiative.\u0022\r\n\r\nRepublican Gov. Kristi Noem had backed the lawsuit against legalization and welcomed the supreme court\u0026#039;s ruling.\r\n\r\nThe plaintiffs in the case are South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller and Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom. \u0022Legal fees for Miller\u0026#039;s role in challenging the amendment,\u0022 the Sioux Falls Argus Leader previously reported, \u0022are being paid for by the state of South Dakota at the order of Gov. Kristi Noem, who campaigned against the ballot measure leading up\u0026nbsp;to the election.\u0022\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n“Legalization opponents cannot succeed in the court of public opinion or at the ballot box,\u0022 Paul Armentano, deputy director of advocacy group NORML, said in a statement. \u0022Thus, they are now petitioning the courts to overturn the will of the people. Whether or not one supports marijuana legalization, Americans should be deeply concerned by this trend and by the outcome of this case.\u0022\r\n\r\nFifty-four percent of South Dakota voters approved the amendment last November. Among other things, it would have allowed recreational use for those over 21, as well as the possession and distribution for up to an ounce of marijuana.\r\n\r\n\u0022We had full confidence that a majority of South Dakotans, if given the opportunity to vote on (marijuana), would realize the economic, health, and social justice benefits of marijuana reform. And they did,\u0022 Drey Samuelson, political director for South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws, said at the time.\r\n\r\nLegal challenges in the conservative state, however, quickly ensued.\r\n\r\nWednesday\u0026#039;s decision upholds the February decision from Circuit Court Judge Christina Klinger.