Claims that the 38-page initiative to regulate marijuana like alcohol is legally flawed has resulted in the filing of a lawsuit against the initiative. The chief complaint in the suit outlines that the petition does not inform voters of every item of the measure. The suit claims that the language is “misleading voters as to cause a fraud on the electorate.”
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, is one of the plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit, KJZZ reports. Arizona law only requires the organizers of an initiative to provide 100 words for a summary of an initiative. Previous rulings in Arizona courts state that each provision in a measure is not required to be included in the summary.
Montgomery said, “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 or statutory muster.”
The County Attorney also claims that parts of the initiative are unconstitutional, such as the use of the Gift Clause allowing medical marijuana dispensaries the first opportunity to obtain recreational marijuana business licenses.
He said, “You can’t pass a law that gives special advantages to just a particular corporation or group or individuals.”
While dispensaries already in legal operating status would be an advantage, legislator fail to realize that these businesses are already equipped for the industry. Dispensaries are already following regulatory statutes and would be better prepared for a recreational marijuana market than a brand new business may be.
Campaign Chairman for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, JP Holyoak, prepared the following statement: “Our opponents have demonstrated that they are willing to do and say just about anything to maintain the failed policy of marijuana prohibition. This lawsuit is simply a desperate attempt to deprive Arizona voters of the right to vote on this ballot question.”
A hearing on the matter is set for July 19 in Maricopa County Superior Court. Further commentary from pro-legalization supporters and campaign representatives will not be made without further examination of the legal issues of concern.