Pubdate: Fri, 21 Feb 2014
Source: Washington Times (DC)
Copyright: 2014 The Washington Times, LLC.
Contact:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/492
Author: Andrea Noble

AG: LEGALIZATION CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL LAW

Nathan Says Initiative As Written Should Not Be on Ballot

A proposed initiative to legalize possession of marijuana in the 
District should not be allowed on the November ballot because it 
violates federal law, the city's attorney general wrote in an opinion 
issued to the Board of Elections.

The opinion comes ahead of a scheduled Tuesday hearing during which 
the elections board will decide whether the initiative passes legal 
muster and can be put to a vote by D.C. residents.

In a letter sent to Board of Elections General Counsel Kenneth 
McGhie, Attorney General Irvin B. Nathan wrote that the initiative 
violates federal law because it would ban public housing facilities 
from stating in lease agreements that tenants can be evicted for 
drug-related criminal activity.

"The proposed Initiative would prohibit leases from containing such 
language and prohibit the District from evicting a public-housing 
tenant who, in violation of federal law and the lease, possessed 
small quantities of marijuana," Mr. Nathan wrote.

The ballot initiative as written would make it legal to possess up to 
2 ounces of marijuana and to grow up to six marijuana plants in one's 
own home. The initiative would not make the sale of marijuana legal, 
nor would it allow for pot shops to set up in the city.

The passage in the initiative that has come under fire from the 
attorney general for violating federal law states that "no district 
government agency or office shall limit or refuse to provide any 
facility service, program or benefit to any person" based on the 
legalization of marijuana.

Mr. Nathan notes that the passage conflicts with the Anti-Drug Abuse 
Act of 1988, which "requires that public housing leases make 
'drug-related criminal activity' on or off public housing premises a 
cause for terminating a public housing lease."

The sponsor of the legalization initiative, Adam Eidinger, said he is 
working with lawyers from his group, DCMJ, to see if the questionable 
wording in the initiative can be changed ahead of the Tuesday hearing.

"It might just be a matter of four words that have to be changed," 
Mr. Eidinger said. "I don't want to lose our opportunity to collect 
signatures."

Before the initiative can be placed on the Nov. 1 ballot, the Board 
of Elections must first sign off on the ballot language and the group 
must then collect 23,000 signatures from registered D.C. voters.

Board of Elections spokeswoman Tamara Robinson said the board would 
take the attorney general's letter into account, but his disapproval 
is not certain death for the initiative.

"We take all comments into consideration, whether they are from the 
AGs office or written from D.C. residents," Ms. Robinson said. "At 
times we have agreed with the attorney general's office on certain 
matters and at times we don't."

The purpose of the Board of Elections hearing is to make sure the 
ballot initiative language "falls within the guidelines we have in 
place," she said.

To be approved, initiatives may not appropriate city funds, violate 
the District's Home Rule Charter, negate a budget act, or violate the 
Human Rights Act, according to the board.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom