SC Has No Citizen Ballot Initiative — One of 24 States

Last verified: May 2026

The 24-State Cohort

Per Ballotpedia, the United States is divided roughly in half on citizen ballot-initiative authority. 26 states plus the District of Columbia permit at least some form of statewide citizen-initiated ballot measures (initiated constitutional amendment, initiated statute, popular referendum, or combinations thereof). 24 states — including South Carolina — permit none. The 24-state cohort skews Southern and Northeastern: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia. The cohort overlaps significantly with the prohibition states that have not legalized adult-use cannabis — precisely because the absence of citizen-initiative authority forecloses the most effective recent path to legalization.

Why This Matters for Cannabis Policy

The 14 most recent state legalizations of adult-use cannabis include a heavy preponderance of citizen-initiative legalizations. Colorado (2012), Washington (2012), Oregon (2014), Alaska (2014), DC (2014), California (2016), Maine (2016), Massachusetts (2016), Nevada (2016), Michigan (2018), Arizona (2020), Montana (2020), New Jersey (2020), South Dakota (2020 — subsequently invalidated), Maryland (2022), and Missouri (2022) all reached adult-use through citizen-initiated ballot measures, often after the relevant state legislature had refused to act. The pattern is striking: in ballot-initiative states, voters have repeatedly outpaced legislatures on cannabis reform. In non-initiative states, reform must clear the legislature, and the legislatures of non-initiative states have, in general, been substantially slower than their voters. South Carolina’s 76–80% medical-cannabis support is, by national standards, easily a ballot-passing supermajority — but voters do not have the option.

The Polling Reality

South Carolina voter sentiment on medical cannabis has shown sustained high support across multiple polls:

• Winthrop Poll, April 2023 (n > 1,500): 76% supported medical cannabis, including 80% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans — cross-cutting consensus rare in modern polling.
• Adult-use support: 56% overall in the same poll, with 62% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans (45% Republican opposed). Adult-use is more politically divided but still secures majority support.
• Earlier Winthrop polls have shown comparable support for medical cannabis since at least 2015.
• National polling context (Pew, Gallup): medical-cannabis support has hovered around 88% nationally for several years; adult-use support around 60–70%. SC’s medical-cannabis support tracks the national pattern.

In any state with a citizen ballot-initiative process, this polling environment would predict near-term legalization. South Carolina’s polling matters politically — reform-coalition organizations cite it constantly — but the polling does not, on its own, change the law.

Article XVI: The Only Constitutional Path

Under Article XVI of the South Carolina Constitution, a constitutional amendment may be placed on the ballot only by legislative referral — not by citizen petition. The procedural threshold is steep:

1. Two-thirds (66.67%) supermajority in each chamber during one legislative session — that is, at least 82 votes in the 124-seat House and at least 30 votes in the 46-seat Senate. The governor’s signature is not required.
2. The amendment is then submitted to voters at the next general election for state representatives.
3. If approved by a majority of voters, the legislature must then ratify it again (simple majority in each chamber) before it becomes part of the Constitution.

The two-thirds threshold has been the binding constraint. The Senate has twice passed Sen. Tom Davis’s Compassionate Care Act — 28–15 in 2022 and 24–19 in 2024 — both well below the 30-vote two-thirds bar that would be required for an Article XVI referral. The House has not approached the 82-vote two-thirds bar at any point. See Article XVI referral page.

Constitutional Amendments Since 1985

Constitutional amendments have been successfully placed on the South Carolina ballot 56 times between 1985 and 2022, with 47 approved and 9 defeated. None has ever been specifically for cannabis policy. The 2024 ballot included one constitutional amendment (concerning voter eligibility); cannabis was not on the ballot. The historical pattern shows that the General Assembly does periodically refer constitutional amendments — on tax policy, gambling regulation, court structure, and similar institutional questions — but it has shown no inclination to refer a cannabis-related amendment despite sustained voter support.

Statutory Path: The Compassionate Care Act

The alternative to constitutional amendment is statutory enactment by majority vote in each chamber. This is the path Sen. Davis has pursued since 2014. The Compassionate Care Act would create a heavily restricted medical-cannabis program by statute, bypassing the constitutional question entirely. This path requires only majority votes (not the two-thirds bar) and has come closer to success than the constitutional path. Senate passage twice (28–15 in 2022, 24–19 in 2024) demonstrates that majority-vote enactment is structurally feasible in the Senate; the House blockage is the binding constraint. See Compassionate Care Act page.

Repeated Attempts to Create a Citizen-Initiative Process

Bills to create a citizen ballot-initiative process have been introduced repeatedly. The 2025–26 session has at least three such measures:

• S.95 (2025–26) — "Ballot Initiative" amendment proposal.
• H.3491 (2025–26) — constitutional amendment creating Section 16 of Article XVII for citizen initiative and referendum.
• Multiple prior session bills (e.g., S.39 in 2021–22) have similarly failed to clear the two-thirds threshold required for any constitutional referral.

None has ever cleared the General Assembly. The political reality is that the legislature has no incentive to surrender its monopoly on policy-setting, and the two-thirds threshold has been an effective barrier. The same Republican-supermajority dynamics that block medical cannabis also block initiative authority.

S.268 (2022): Advisory Referendum Attempt

In 2022, a non-binding advisory referendum on medical cannabis was filed (S.268) with the goal of putting the question on the November 2022 general-election ballot. An advisory referendum, unlike a binding ballot measure, would not have changed the law — it would only have polled voters formally. Even this milder mechanism did not advance. There is no precedent for South Carolina placing an advisory referendum on a contested social-policy question in recent decades. The General Assembly has been uninterested in even consultative voter input on cannabis policy.

Federal Preemption Pressure

The structural blockages described above may ultimately be partially relieved by federal action that South Carolina cannot prevent:

• The April 28, 2026 DOJ Schedule III rescheduling order (91 Fed. Reg. 22714) does not legalize cannabis under SC state law, but under S.C. Code § 44-53-160(c) may trigger a corresponding state schedule change. McMaster spokesperson Michelle LeClaire told the Post and Courier in April 2026 that "§ 44-53-160(c) will require the State to mirror the new federal order." See federal rescheduling page.
• The November 12, 2026 federal hemp ban under PL 119-37 § 781 will end the current de facto retail market for hemp-derived intoxicants and may create pressure to fill the gap with a regulated medical or recreational program. See federal hemp cliff page.

Neither federal action restores citizen-initiative authority to South Carolina. They simply create separate pressures that may force General Assembly action without voter pressure.

Comparison to Neighboring States

• North Carolina: also no citizen initiative; medical-cannabis bill blocked in legislature; EBCI tribal sovereign-flex on Qualla Boundary.
• Georgia: also no citizen initiative; narrow medical (low-THC oil) program through legislature.
• Tennessee: also no citizen initiative; full prohibition; medical-cannabis legislation blocked.
• Florida: has citizen initiative; voters approved Amendment 2 (medical) in 2016 with 71%; Amendment 3 (adult-use) failed at 56% in 2024 (60% supermajority required).
• Virginia: no citizen initiative; legislature legalized possession in 2021; Gov. Youngkin vetoed retail.

Practical Implication

Voter sentiment is, in the current structure, irrelevant to South Carolina cannabis policy. The only paths to reform run through the General Assembly, and both have been blocked for over a decade. Reform-coalition strategy must focus on House composition (the binding chamber), House leadership, and the slow-burn evolution of Republican-caucus posture. Federal preemption pressure may ultimately force General Assembly action, but the timing and substance of that action will be determined by the legislature, not by voters.