Previous article on legalizing marijuana
Next article on legalizing marijuana
List of all articles on legalizing marijuana
Now I understand this and they are probably correct in that the initiative violates the "gift clause" of the Arizona Constitution:
Montgomery specifically cited a provision that would give first preference to the owners of existing medical marijuana dispensaries for the limited number of legal pot shops that the law would initially set up.Are they mixing up the AZfmr initiative with the MPP initiative??? The AZfmr initiative is 38 pages, while I think the MPP initiative is only 20 pages. In a lawsuit filed today, challengers say the 38-page initiative is legally flawed to the point where it would be illegal to put the question on the November ballot.While this article didn't address it, I suspect the phoney baloney MPP initiative may violate the Arizona Constitution and address several issues, rather then just one.
Opponents of legalized marijuana sue to block ballot measure By: Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services July 11, 2016 , 4:15 pm Foes of legalizing marijuana for recreational use in Arizona are trying to block voters from getting their say on the measure. In a lawsuit filed today, challengers say the 38-page initiative is legally flawed to the point where it would be illegal to put the question on the November ballot. It specifically says the legally required initiative summary fails to tell those who signed the petitions all the different things that the measure, if approved, would do. And that, according to the lawsuit, means it is “so misleading voters as to cause a fraud on the electorate.” Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, a foe of the measure and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, conceded that Arizona law allows initiative organizers just 100 words for a summary. And Arizona courts have ruled that not every single provision of a measure needs to be detailed in those 100 words. But Montgomery said he still believes this description is so flawed as to preclude it from going to voters. “If your summary can’t fairly encompass everything you’ve thrown into an initiative, it’s probably your first indication that your initiative is not going to meet constitutional and statutory muster,” he said. The lawsuit also claims that some of what the initiative seeks to do is inherently unconstitutional. Montgomery specifically cited a provision that would give first preference to the owners of existing medical marijuana dispensaries for the limited number of legal pot shops that the law would initially set up. “You can’t pass a law that gives special advantages to just a particular corporation or group or individuals,” he said, saying it runs afoul of the Gift Clause provision of the Arizona Constitution. Montgomery noted that the measure is being pushed and financed in part by those who already have medical marijuana dispensaries. “I think they got greedy in that regard,” he said. The legal filing drew an angry reaction from initiative organizers. “Our opponents have demonstrated that they are willing to do and say just about anything to maintain the failed policy of marijuana prohibition,” said J.P. Holyoak in a prepared statement. “This lawsuit is simply a desperate attempt to deprive Arizona voters of the right to vote on this ballot question.” A hearing is set for July 19 in Maricopa County Superior Court. Read full complaint here.
|