HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
Judge Throws Out Challenge to Legal Marijuana
Pubdate: Sat, 20 Aug 2016
Source: Sun, The (Yuma, AZ)
Copyright: 2016 The Sun
Contact: http://www.yumasun.com/sections/opinion/submit-letters/
Website: http://www.yumasun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1258
Author: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
JUDGE THROWS OUT CHALLENGE TO LEGAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE IN ARIZONA
PHOENIX - A judge has thrown out a bid to keep voters from deciding
whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.
In a ruling Friday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jo Lynn
Gentry said when state lawmakers altered the election code last year
they eliminated - perhaps inadvertently - the ability of individual
citizens to sue to keep initiative measures off the ballot. And she
said lawmakers failed to restore that right anywhere else.
"Thus, whether wittingly or not, the legislatures eliminated a means
by which initiative petitions can be challenged," Gentry wrote.
The judge also rejected a legal end-run attempted by Brett Johnson,
the attorney for foes of legalization, who told Gentry she should use
the court's more general powers over actions of public officials to
keep Secretary of State Michele Reagan from putting the measure to voters.
"Where the legislature has specifically acted to divest the court of
jurisdiction, it would be imprudent to ignore the standing issue,"
Gentry wrote.
Friday's ruling is not the last word.
"Despite today's ruling we still believe this initiative perpetrates
a fraud on the electorate," said Seth Leibsohn who chairs Arizonans
for Responsible Drug Policy, the group that is trying to keep the
measure from getting to voters. "We will be seeking an appeal on the ruling."
Gentry, however, is prepared if the Arizona Supreme Court overturns
her conclusion that the challengers have no legal right to sue. She
also ruled that even if they had legal standing to contest the
validity of the measure, they never provided the legally required
proof that the initiative is too legally flawed to present to voters.
In a prepared statement, initiative chairman J.P. Holyoak said the
ruling shows "this was a frivolous and politically motivated lawsuit."
He also noted that plaintiffs in the case include two prosecutors:
Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk and Bill Montgomery from Maricopa
County. Holyoak said they they don't like the measure "they should
take their arguments to the voters, not to our overburdened court system."
A 2010 voter initiative allows those with certain medical conditions,
a doctor's recommendation and state-issued ID card to obtain up to 2
1/2 ounces of marijuana every two weeks from one of approximately 90
state-authorized dispensaries.
This measure, sponsored by many of the same interests, would permit
any adult to have up to one ounce of the drug or six plants without
fear of prosecution under state law. It also sets up a new state
agency to regulate sales, imposes new taxes and enacts various
provisions that have ripple effects through state law.
Johnson argued those ripple effects are not disclosed to voters in
the 100word summary required by state law.
For example, he noted, it would prohibit a judge handling a child
custody fight from considering whether one parent uses marijuana.
There also are new restrictions on the ability of employers to fire
workers simply for using the drug off premises.
And while the law prohibits driving while impaired by marijuana, it
sets no legal presumptive standard of how much psychoactive substance
someone would have to have in his or her blood to be found guilty.
Gentry said even if the challengers had standing to sue, that
argument would fail.
She said that, pretty much by definition, a summary is just that.
More to the point, the judge noted that Arizona law limits a summary
to 100 words. Yet Gentry noted that it took her 106 words just to
list all the things challengers say need to be added to what already
was a 96-word description.
Yet she said Johnson never told her what was in the original summary
that could come out to keep the summary at the legally limited 100
words. "Plaintiffs' position is in essence that the summary should
have more fully described what the initiative would do but do not
explain how they could do it better," Gentry wrote.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom