The separation of powers was designed to keep each branch of government independent with a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

On May 14, the judicial branch in Mississippi went beyond its usual oversight. The state’s Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the voice of its people, who voted in favor of legalizing medical cannabis by more than a two-thirds majority in the November 2020 election, was not enough to influence public policy.

The high court’s decision was based on an outdated ballot procedure that requires signatures from each congressional district in Mississippi to not exceed one-fifth of the total number of signatures required for an initiative to be placed on the ballot. But after the 2000 Census, Mississippi dropped from five districts to four districts, putting the one-fifth requirement mathematically at odds with the political structure of the state’s electorate.

In the majority opinion to overturn the election results, Justice Josiah D. Coleman argued the Supreme Court’s hands were tied and the one-fifth requirement would need legislative amending.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice James D. Maxwell argued that federal congressional districts for the state’s representation in the U.S. House of Representatives should have no bearing on state laws. Furthermore, the section of Mississippi’s law that defines five congressional districts was never updated following the 2000 Census. Therefore, according to state law, Mississippi still has five statutory districts, he said.

But the fact remains that Mississippi is not the only state with a judicial branch extending its reach to interpret ballot procedures—a gatekeeping issue that some argue should be up to the election commission to enforce before an election takes place.

The South Dakota Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 28 on the constitutionality of a voter-approved amendment for adult-use cannabis. The plaintiffs in the case argued the ballot measure violated the state’s one-subject rule, whereas voting on legalizing cannabis and regulating cannabis on a ballot initiative could be interpreted as two subjects. The five-member court has yet to deliver an opinion.

More recent in relevance than Mississippi’s conundrum, South Dakota’s single-subject rule was enacted in 2018. The 2020 adult-use cannabis initiative is its first test.

In Mississippi, where the one-fifth requirement became outdated more than 20 years ago, multiple initiatives have been placed on the state ballot without meeting the procedural prerequisites. In 2011, for instance, Mississippians passed Initiative 27, which requires residents to show government-issued photo identification before voting.

But it wasn’t until 74% of Mississippians voted in favor of medical cannabis in 2020 that those signature prerequisites came into question, which should leave voters asking, “Why now?”

As a response to Mississippi’s judicial branch extending its authoritative reach into democracy at the polls, the legislative branch could amend the state’s one-fifth signature requirement. Or the executive branch (Gov. Tate Reeves) could call a special session to give lawmakers the opportunity to pass a medical cannabis bill that coincides with the will of the people.

And if Mississippians want to instill their own system of checks and balances, they have the power to vote out Supreme Court justices at the polls when their eight-year terms expire. Then, their voices surely will be heard.

-Tony Lange, Associate Editor