cannabisnews.com: ACLU Sues, Tries To Save Initiative


cannabisnews.com: ACLU Sues, Tries To Save Initiative





ACLU Sues, Tries To Save Initiative
Posted by CN Staff on July 28, 2004 at 11:31:11 PT
By Carri Geer Thevenot, Review-Journal
Source: Las Vegas Review Journal 
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and supporters of the marijuana-regulation initiative filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday that seeks to restore the measure in time for this year's general election. Accompanying the lawsuit was an emergency motion for a court order that would force Secretary of State Dean Heller to place the initiative on the November ballot.
Although more than 66,000 registered voters signed petitions for the initiative, according to the motion, officials are preventing the measure from appearing on the ballot "based on a raft of unreasonable, purposeless and unconstitutional restrictions." To qualify for the 2004 general election, the initiative petition needed the signatures of 51,337 registered voters by June 15. Heller announced two weeks ago that supporters of the initiative, which seeks to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, had failed to secure enough valid signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. Steve George, Heller's spokesman, said officials at the secretary of state's office needed more time to review the lawsuit before commenting on it. "I'm quite sure that we will put together a very good argument against the lawsuit, but I can't speak to the merits of it at this time," George said Tuesday. The ACLU of Nevada filed the complaint with the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana, the Marijuana Policy Project and several individual petition circulators and registered Nevada voters. Gary Peck, executive director of the ACLU of Nevada, said his organization has been involved in litigation and public advocacy on ballot initiative questions. "Our prior involvement has included the support of people whose petitions we both agree and disagree with," Peck said. "What is paramount for us is the integrity of the process. We want to make sure that the rights of the voting public are properly respected and no one is unlawfully disenfranchised. In this case, we actually support the legalization of small amounts of marijuana." The lawsuit focuses on three issues: • The "13 counties rule," which requires an initiative to have signatures from at least 10 percent of the number of voters who voted in the most recent general election in at least 13 of the state's 17 counties. • The rule requiring a registered voter to sign the petition and sign an affidavit verifying that others who signed the petition are registered voters. • The state's refusal to count the petition signatures of those who simultaneously signed voter registration applications. According to the emergency motion filed Tuesday, Clark and Washoe counties have 87 percent of the state's total population. In the 2002 general election, according to the document, 82 percent of the state's voters came from the two counties. "Given this remarkable disparity in voter turnout among counties, the effect of the '13 counties rule' is to dramatically increase the relative weight of the signatures of voters in rural counties and diminish the relative weight of the signatures of urban voters," the motion alleges. According to the document, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco recently struck down an Idaho restriction that mirrors Nevada's "13 counties rule." Nevada is part of the 9th Circuit. "As a result of the '13 counties rule,' even though more people voted to put the initiative on the 2004 ballot in Clark County than in any other county in Nevada, Clark County's 'vote' did not count," the motion alleges. "This is unfair, unequal and unconstitutional." According to the motion, Heller requires petition circulators, who need not be registered voters, to sign an affidavit indicating they believe all signatures are valid. If the circulator is a registered voter, that person also must sign what is referred to as an "affidavit of document signer." If the circulator is not a registered voter, then someone who signed the document must sign the affidavit. The motion alleges the document signer rule serves no valid purpose and poses an unconstitutional burden on the First Amendment rights of circulators and citizens. According to the motion, petition circulators gathered 35,409 signatures in Clark County, 4,049 more than required under the '13 counties rule." But Heller concluded that nearly 18,000 of those signatures were invalid, according to the motion, because they were contained in documents in which a circulator signed both the affidavit of circulator and affidavit of document signer but did not sign the document as a supporter. "The initiative is not the only initiative petition to suffer from the secretary of state's strained view of what the law requires for qualifying initiatives," according to the emergency motion. Heller also disqualified thousands of signatures gathered in support of petitions to raise the minimum wage and stop frivolous lawsuits. A state court judge later declared the requirement for an affidavit of document signer unconstitutional under the First Amendment and ordered Heller to count those signatures as valid. According to the lawsuit in the marijuana case, the Clark County Election Department disqualified signatures in a random sample because it said the signatures were placed on the petition before the signers had registered to vote. In those cases, the lawsuit alleges, the petitions and voter registration forms were signed at the same time. The state's refusal to count the signatures violates due process, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges Clark County officials had given assurances that such signatures were valid. New York attorney Matthew Brinckerhoff, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, was in Las Vegas on Tuesday. "This is a case that all the citizens of the state of Nevada should care about, because ultimately it's their right to choose to make new law, and that right has been stripped from them without any rational justification," the attorney said.Note: Group alleges unreasonable restrictions.Complete Title: Marijuana Proposal: ACLU Sues, Tries To Save InitiativeSource: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Author: Carri Geer Thevenot, Review-JournalPublished: Wednesday, July 28, 2004Copyright: 2004 Las Vegas Review-JournalContact: letters reviewjournal.comWebsite: http://www.reviewjournal.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Initiative To Make Pot Legal May Be Doomedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19158.shtmlMJ Initiative Backers Forgot 6,000 Signatureshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19055.shtmlLegalization of Marijuana: Initiative in Jeopardyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19052.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by Richard Paul Zuckerm on July 29, 2004 at 08:10:41 PT:
CONVICTED FEDERAL FELONS VOTING IN NEVADA
Nevada was good enough to pass a law permitting a person convicted of a felony in a state court to vote in Nevada, after the sentence has been fully served.Unfortunately, the law does not allow a person convicted of a felony in a FEDERAL court to vote after the sentence has been fully served.I hope Nevada closes this loophole in their law. There is no appreciable difference between a state felony and a federal felony.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment