Joni Johnson, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Marty J. Jackley

Summary

The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed the denial of a writ of certiorari challenging the Attorney General’s ballot explanation for a proposed prescription drug pricing initiative. The court held that the explanation adequately addressed the measure’s purpose, effect, and legal consequences under SDCL 12-13-25.1, and that the Attorney General had not abused his discretion by omitting a discussion of a collateral standing provision.

Holdings

1. The circuit court did not err by applying a deferential standard under which the Attorney General's ballot explanation will not be overturned unless the Attorney General acted in a manifestly corrupt, arbitrary, or misleading manner.
2. The explanation adequately described both the purpose and effect of sections 1 through 4 because, in this measure, the purpose and effect were the same: limiting the amount state agencies could pay for prescription drugs to the amount paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
3. Appellants failed to establish that the Attorney General abused his discretion in describing the measure's likely legal consequences.
4. The Attorney General was not required to explain section 5's contingent standing provision because it was wholly collateral to the measure's purpose and effect and concerned the proponents' litigation interests rather than the electorate as a whole.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Attorney General's ballot explanation satisfied SDCL 12-13-25.1 by adequately describing the proposed measure's purpose, effect, and legal consequences.
2. Whether the Attorney General's explanation was subject to a less deferential standard than the manifestly corrupt, arbitrary, or misleading standard recognized in Gormley.
3. Whether the explanation was required to address every potential practical effect or speculative litigation consequence of the measure.
4. Whether the explanation was required to summarize the collateral standing provision in section 5.

Disposition

affirmed