Pubdate: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 Source: Washington Times (DC) Copyright: 2002 News World Communications, Inc. Contact: http://www.washingtontimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/492 Author: Steve Fox D.C. BALLOT'S POT INITIATIVE In a recent article about the struggle to place a medical marijuana initiative on the ballot in the District ("Medical pot awaits decision," Metro, Wednesday), I was described as "infuriated" with the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics. This certainly is true, but the article failed to convey the precise source of my anger. When we were informed by the board that Initiative 63 - the Medical Marijuana Initiative of 2002 - had qualified for the Nov. 5 ballot, we asked the board to consider holding a special session to certify the initiative immediately. The reason we asked for immediate action is straightforward. If the U.S. Court of Appeals reverses an earlier U.S. District Court decision - which in March declared unconstitutional the Barr appropriations amendment forbidding the use of District funds for any initiative to lessen criminal penalties for marijuana - the board will be unable to spend money to place the initiative on the ballot. If, however, the board prints the ballots before the Court of Appeals rules, the initiative will appear on the ballot no matter what the court decides. When I raised this issue with Kenneth J. McGhie, general counsel for the board, he said the board would not consider certifying the initiative until its regularly scheduled meeting next Wednesday. He added that the board did not care how or when the Court of Appeals ruled because the board is "impartial" and acts without regard to outside events. I later discovered that the board was planning to wait as long as possible for the Court of Appeals to rule before placing us on the ballot (as reported in the article). This not only ran counter to what Mr. McGhie had told me, but also demonstrated that the board is abandoning standard procedure in order to stymie our initiative. The District will incur additional costs if the ballot is sent to the printer after today. One can be certain, therefore, that the ballot normally would be finalized by that time. Given the absence of legal barriers to printing the ballots after today, the only reason to delay is pure bias against our cause. Given the city's $323 million deficit, it is outrageous - and, to me, infuriating - that the board is planning to spend additional funds on these ballots in an effort to deny District residents the right to vote on a broadly supported initiative. STEVE FOX Director of government relations Marijuana Policy Project Washington - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens