Closing In On Legalization

[blackhorse]

Can MIlegalize pick the election that they wish the petition to be included on the ballot? If they turn in petitions before March 2016, will the petition automatically be on the May ballot?  After reading some of these posts, it got me to thinking. Maybe a question for bureau of elections, unless someone here knows.

[bobandtorey]

Advocates in Michigan have collected over 240,000 signatures on an initiative to legalize recreational cannabis, close to the 252,000 needed to place the measure on this November’s general election ballot.

The MILegalize Board of Directors announced Tuesday that despite being less than 12,000 signatures from the 252,000 signature requirement, the group is calling on volunteers to help them collect 50,000 more signatures by March 15th, the state’s deadline, in order to account for invalid signatures.

 

“MILegalize has always set a goal of overachieving the target number of signatures needed,” said MILegalize Chairman, Lansing attorney Jeffrey Hank. “Besides our heroic activists, we have established contracts with two professional signature gathering firms to collect another 100,000 valid signatures from voters before the end of our drive. It’s exciting. This spring offensive is the beginning of the end of cannabis prohibition in Michigan.”

 “Our volunteer army has kept us in the campaign,” says Campaign Manager Chris Silva said. “The people of Michigan responded. They know why we can’t wait.”

Campaign Finance Reports released earlier this week show that MILegalize has raised more than half a million dollars to legalize cannabis in Michigan.

To volunteer or donate, please visit www.milegalize.com or contact our campaign headquarters in Lansing. To read the group’s initiative, click here.

[t-pain]

thats 240,000 validated signatures. the actual count is much more. or so i'm guessing.

[bobandtorey]

Yup 

 

So cannabis will be legal  even in Oakland County ?

[Greg Rx]

How does 4209 prepare for MiLegalize? I think they are counting on MCC or MRC , which calls for the state to regulate. Spending tens of millions on a seed to sale system, will be the end of Jones.

[bobandtorey]

Over 300,000 signatures have been garnered on a Michigan Initiative to legalize recreational cannabis for those 21 and older. This is more than the 253,000 signatures required to put the measure to a vote of the people this November.

Despite having enough signatures, MILegalize plans to continue collecting signatures through to their June 1st deadline, to assure that enough signatures are valid (from registered Michigan voters).

“We have to overachieve that number,” says MILegalize Chairman Jeffrey Hank, speaking of the 253,000 signature requirement; “because we are sending a clear message that Michigan is ready to lead on civil rights, job growth, education, and better roads.”

 

“We are independent”, notes Hank. “This is a true grassroots movement that stands for more than cannabis reform. We are citizens seeking common-sense policies and dedicated to preserving democracy in Michigan and making Michigan great”.

MILegalize verifies every signature for voter eligibility and checks for duplication, and has two professional signature collection firms out on Michigan streets gathering signatures that are able to increase production with adequate resources.

http://thejointblog.com/michigan-enough-signatures-collected-to-put-legalization-initiative-to-a-vote/

[Willy]

this don't really sound totally legal, there are stipulations (quite a few really)..until i can sell a little at a roadside stand , its still illegal right/? And a 5000. 00 licensing fee is outrageous.. 

 

(b) A schedule of application, licensing, and renewal fees. An application fee shall not exceed $5,000.00. A renewal fee shall not exceed $500.00, unless the locality determines that a greater fee is necessary to administer this 

[bobandtorey]

All i can say about this is If it keeps the sick out of court then i'm all for it being able to sell cannabis is something am not wiling to do and have no opinion on doing

Thanks for your post Willy 

[Willy]

All i can say about this is If it keeps the sick out of court then i'm all for it being able to sell cannabis is something am not wiling to do and have no opinion on doing

Thanks for your post Willy 

well thanks for your post Bob,

 

I understand your trepidation completely. but legal is legal, not quasi legal. legal if you pay for the right. is not legal.  I am happy getting donations for my work as a CG. however that dont make me stop wishing i could setup a small stand at a farmers market to help get by on the ssdi. But apparently to do that, you need 5k for a licence. 

[beourbud]

All i can say about this is If it keeps the sick out of court then i'm all for it being able to sell cannabis is something am not wiling to do and have no opinion on doing

Thanks for your post Willy

 

You mean it keeps the illegal dispensary operators out of court.

[bobandtorey]

Lansing — An increasingly long-shot effort to put a marijuana legalization measure on Michigan’s 2016 ballot suffered another setback Thursday, when the Board of State Canvassers deadlocked on a policy revision for proving the validity of old signatures.

The two Republicans and two Democrats on the board were at odds over state Bureau of Elections recommendations that would have updated and eased the state policy for “rebutting” and rehabilitating signatures collected outside a traditional 180-day collection window. The proposed updates stalled in a series of 2-2 votes.

The stalemate is “an outrage,” said Jeff Hank, an attorney and executive director of MI Legalize, who added the ballot committee may ultimately pursue legal action in hopes of forcing the issue onto the ballot.

“We’ll vigorously defend our rights and the rights of every Michigan voter to have ballot access,” he said. “That’s what this is about now; it’s about our rights as Michigan citizens to petition.”

MI Legalize faces a June 1 deadline to turn in at least 252,000 valid signatures. The group began its petition drive nearly a year ago, and Hank said circulators have collected an estimated 200,000 signatures that could be disqualified under current policy.

At issue is a state law that usually requires committees to collect signatures within a 180-day period, along with a little-known policy allowing groups to use otherwise “stale and void” signatures if they can prove signers were registered to vote during the 180-day window.

Current policy requires affidavits from individual election clerks, but Hank requested an update to reflect new technology. The Bureau of Elections recommended a revised policy that would use the Qualified Voter File database to prove registration status.

Republican board appointee Norm Shinkle argued against any kind of policy update.

“We’re here today because there are people in the field who have failed to gather their signatures in the allotted time that has been with us for 30 years,” he said. “We should not be changing the rules in the middle of the game.”

Shinkle also noted that the Republican-led Legislature is considering a bill that would eliminate the ability to rehabilitate old signatures. The Senate has approved the measure, which is awaiting action in the House.

“They’re going to do something with it, and we should wait to see what the House is going to do,” he said.

Hank accused some legislators and Board of Canvassers members of seeking to limit the “core speech” rights of petitioners by standing in the way of the recommended policy update, which is also supported by an anti-hydraulic fracturing group seeking to make the ballot with a proposal to ban extracting oil and natural gas through “fracking.”

After the hearing, he reiterated that MI Legalize will consider legal action, arguing the 180-day window itself violates the state Constitution.

“That’s a shame, because this could all be avoided,” Hank said. “Norm Shinkle wants to cost taxpayers money. He doesn’t want to protect our rights to vote. He doesn’t want to protect our right to petition. There’s a problem.”

Bureau of Elections Director Chris Thomas presented canvassers with two possible policy updates: one that would have clarified the current process for challenging old signatures and another that would have revised the process to make it easier.

The current policy, which the board adopted in 1986, involves “quite a laborious process,” Thomas said.

Obtaining voter registration affidavits from individual election clerks “never made much sense,” he said. “If you’re going to have them sign that, you might as well have (voters) sign the petition again.”

Hank said clerks have refused to verify old signatures, as prescribed under the current policy, and Thomas said a handful of clerks have told him the same.

“You can’t create a policy that’s just impossible,” said Hank. “It’s like asking us to find a unicorn.”

Democratic appointee Julie Matuzak pushed for a vote on the policy recommendations, arguing the board should not assume the Legislature is going to address a policy that has not been changed since 1986.

“I do think it’s incumbent upon us to understand that technology changes,” she said, referencing the ability to verify voter registration via the Qualified Voter File. “…And I believe we should be as liberal as possible including signatures on petitions.”

But Shinkle argued against making changes to a policy that has stood for 30 years and questioned why Hank did not pursue a policy change closer to 1998, when the Qualified Voter File was first implemented.

“He’s here because he screwed up his petition drive,” Shinkle said the meeting. “He failed.”

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/12/michigan-pot-proposal-stymied-signature-stalemate/84282628/

[t-pain]

shitkle firing back! lookout we have a badass over here

[jamieuke]

Check out the Planet Green Trees broadcast from last night- Jeff Hank gives a great explanation of what is going on and discusses the history of ballot initiatives in Michigan.

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2016/05/13/pgt-299-return-of-the-godfather

[suneday11]

Norm Shinkle (517) 655-5992

[Willy]

this couldn't be a surprise.. we should have expected this long ago..

[bobandtorey]

Norm Shinkle (517) 655-5992

 a member of the MichiganBoard of Canvassers ...?

[bobandtorey]

this couldn't be a surprise.. we should have expected this long ago..

 

I think Jeff did 

[t-pain]

It's not a surprise, milegalize figured out the 4 year signature limit a while ago.

 

they might have to sue each county clerk to start verifying old signatures under the old rules though

[bobandtorey]

they might have to sue each county clerk to start verifying old signatures under the old rules though ?

 

sounds like that could take a lot of time well after November ?

[jamieuke]

Yes- MILegalize quit expecting the BOSC to formally change the dubious 1986 policy- a while ago.

 

The QVF came after 1986 and was created for the specific purpose of making situations, such as the one being discussed here, easier and more efficient.

 

Norm Shinkle - current BOSC member who along with the other R on the four member board voted against formally updating the 1986 policy- was a state senator at the time and voted in favor of the QVF.

 

Listen to the most recent Planet Green Trees broadcast- Jeff Hank explains elections history in Michigan and how we get to where we are and why the 1986 policy was probably invalidated with the creation of the QVF, and the constitutional issues it has, as well.

 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/planetgreentrees/2016/05/13/pgt-299-return-of-the-godfather

 

As it stands- county clerks may not even have a legal mandate to comply. A few have been asked and typically are not interested in the cost and time it would take. The process can be difficult and costly, but it can't be impossible for a campaign to undertake.

 

The interview with Jeff is a little long winded, but very informative for those who have an interest.

[t-pain]

they might have to sue each county clerk to start verifying old signatures under the old rules though ?

 

sounds like that could take a lot of time well after November ?

i like to count all eggs and all chickens and make sure i have all bases covered.

 

here is an uncovered base that needs to get covered.

milegalize should do this, but i guess anyone can file with the supreme court in this case.

 

but this michigan law does say "determination", and the board did not come to a decision (it was a deadlock)

 

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-168-479

168.479 Review of determination; mandamus, certiorari or other remedy.

Sec. 479.

 

Any person or persons, feeling themselves aggrieved by any determination made by said board (of state canvassers), may have such determination reviewed by mandamus, certiorari, or other appropriate remedy in the supreme court.

 

 

still, it would be interesting.