Homeless in Arizona

Sure the MPP initiative has some lies in it, but as the MPP lawyer pointed out there is no law making it illegal for people that write initiatives to LIE to the voters.

I sincerely doubt the legislator would make it illegal for themselves to lie to voters. Something they do all the time.

I believe that MPP also claimed that it's not the JOB of the courts to throw out initiatives that are unconstitutional BEFORE they get on the ballot. It's the job of the court to do this AFTER the initiative has been passed.

The Sheila Polk gang of prohibitions lied and said that the MPP initiative violated the "single issue" clause in the Arizona Constitution. So it was not shot down on that.

MPP pointed out that the "single issue" clause only applies to initiatives that modify the Arizona Constitution, not the Arizona Revised Statutes.

I suspect there is a good chance that the MPP initiative violates the "gift clause" in the Arizona Constitution. That's because the 85 or so current medical marijuana dispensaries get an automatic recreational marijuana license.

But we will only find out the answer to that question, if the initiative passes and if somebody sues over it.

I thought the Sheila Polk gangs claim that the initiative was invalid because it didn't fully describe the initiative in the 100 word limit was absolute BS. If they were to describe all of the 22 points they claimed needed to be in the 100 words, each sentence would have been a meaningless sentence of 4 or 5 words.

Source

Judge tosses challenge to Arizona marijuana initiative

By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX — A judge has thrown out a bid to keep voters from deciding whether to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

In a ruling released this morning, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jo Lynn Gentry said when state lawmakers altered the election code last year they eliminated 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, to claim that she could use more general powers over 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.

Today's ruling is unlikely to be the last word, with initiative foes virtually certain to take the case to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Gentry, however, is prepared if the justices overturn her conclusion that the challengers have no legal right to sue. She also ruled that even if they could sue, they still have not proven their case that the initiative is legally flawed.

Source

Judge rejects lawsuit: Marijuana measure will be on Arizona ballot

Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, The Republic | azcentral.com 9:07 a.m. MST August 19, 2016

The marijuana legalization effort will appear on the November ballot, despite a legal battle mounted by opponents to get it tossed.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jo Lynn Gentry dismissed a lawsuit brought by 13 individuals and groups, including Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Republican Rep. Paul Boyer, a Tempe school board member, and others. She heard arguments on the case last week.

The measure, known as Proposition 205, asks Arizona voters to legalize cannabis for recreational use and establish licensed shops where sales of the drug would be taxed, similar to the system established in Colorado. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act would allow adults 21 and older in Arizona to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants in their homes. Marijuana in Arizona

Among their arguments, foes of recreational marijuana argued in court last week that supporters of legalization are deceiving voters with their pitch of the measure. An attorney argued that a 100-word summary of the initiative failed to adequately summarize the measure's effects on laws affecting motorists, child custody, the workplace and licensing of certain professions.

But in her decision, Gentry disagreed, writing: "In short, Plaintiffs demonstrated no ability to prepare a summary that would comply with the 100-word limit and with their objections. Plaintiffs, nonetheless, persist in asserting that omitting these provisions from the summary along with what they consider misstatements about the provisions that were included makes the summary fraudulent. Plaintiffs’ position is in essence that the summary should have more fully described what the initiative will do but do not explain how they could do it better. Instead, Plaintiffs simply argue that such a summary creates a risk of confusion and unfairness and threatens the integrity of the initiative process."

Jentry wrote that the initiative's required 100-word summary for voters "substantially complies with the law" — and would even if a stricter application of the compliance were to apply.

An attorney for the measure argued opponents' argues are being targeted solely because of opponents' political and ideological views on marijuana legalization. The attorney also told the judge that opponents' arguments were dismissive of the will of Arizona voters' -- and of their ability to research and determine the effects of the law based on the summary and the text of the initiative, which is publicly available.

In her decision, Jentry pointed out that at oral arguments last week, "both sides acknowledged their confidence in the ability of the voters to read and discern the merits of the initiative."

Prop. 205 qualified earlier this month for the November ballot, but the anti-legalization campaign mounted the legal battle to try to get it tossed.

In a statement, J.P. Holyoak, chairman of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, said he was pleased with the judge's decision.

“This was a frivolous and politically motivated lawsuit. If these county prosecutors dislike this ballot measure, they should take their arguments to the voters, not to our overburdened court system," the statement said. "We hope they will accept the court’s ruling and return to waging legal battles against dangerous criminals rather than citizen initiatives.”

A spokesman for Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, which opposes legalization, had no immediately comment because attorneys were reviewing the judge's decision.

Follow the reporter on Twitter and Facebook. Reach her at yvonne.wingett@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-4712