Friday, September 23, 2016

Arguments coming in on signatures for the medical marijuana act

Posted By on Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:12 AM

click to enlarge compassionate.jpg
Court filings are coming in today from parties involved in the challenge of signatures on the petitions for an initiated act to allow sale of medical marijuana from non-profit outlets.

First up is the secretary of state. I'll post the full filing, but a key part of the challenge — a lawsuit aided with help including money from sponsors of a medical marijuana amendment — covers some 5,000 signatures gathered during a time when a new state law on signature gathering had been struck down by a circuit court. The Arkansas Supreme Court later reinstated parts of that law, putting some new requirements for paid canvassers back in place.

The secretary of state's proposed findings of fact defend the office's certification of the measure for the ballot. It defends decisions on issues where there were some discrepancies in dates or failure to check boxes, such as for paid canvassers. Some were clerical errors. Others, said the secretary of state, could be explained by other circumstances and supported by the broad protection the Arkansas Constitution gives to those seeking to reach the ballot.

Here's the proposed findings of fact from the secretary of state.
The sponsors of the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act also have filed their proposed findings. They also argue that signatures were sufficient and dealt point-by-point with arguments made in the lawsuit by Kara Benca, nominally an advocate of marijuana decriminalization. The expert witness for the challenge is to be paid by sponsors of the marijuana amendment, the sponsors of the act noted.

A key argument by sponsors of the act is that most of its signatures were gathered by people who weren't paid and didn't expect to be paid and thus were exempt from rules for paid canvassers. Several volunteers were challenged for using business addresses rather than personal addresses, for example. The pleading concluded:

Whatever the number, plaintiff has failed her burden of proof to disqualify enough signatures to get the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act below 67,887 to disqualify it from the ballot.
Here's the filing in support of the act by sponsors.
Retired Judge John Robbins was appointed as a special master to consider the portion of the legal challenge about signatures. He's to issue findings next week. The Supreme Court Thursday upheld the sufficiency of the title of the amendment, which had been challenged in a separate lawsuit backed by the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and Arkansas Farm Bureau.

UPDATE: Late this afternoon, the plaintiff in the ballot challenge filed proposed findings to underscore their argument the signatures aren't sufficient. I'm trying to get a copy.
Favorite

Comments (3)

Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

  • Stand up for Little Rock

    If Little Rock deteriorates because of substandard schools, there will be blame aplenty to share. But some elected leaders deserve special mention.
    • Feb 23, 2017
  • UPDATE: Grocery store wine bill passes House Rules committee

    Will grocery stores be able to sell more wine? The legislative answer might depend on whether legislation is passed to allow liquor stores to sell more food.
    • Feb 23, 2017
  • Huge turnout for Tom Cotton town hall

    David Koon and Brian Chilson are covering the Tom Cotton town hall in Springdale, which is just about to get underway.
    • Feb 22, 2017
  • More »

Readers also liked…

Most Shared

Visit Arkansas

"Locally Labeled" passport expands to accommodate booming brew scene

"Locally Labeled" passport expands to accommodate booming brew scene

As if great beer weren't reward enough, you can earn prizes for sampling local craft beverages

Most Recent Comments

Blogroll

 

© 2017 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation