Jump to content

Mi Legalize Lose Petition Signature Court Battle

Recommended Posts

MI Legalize Lose Petition Signature Court Battle





LANSING, MI (WHTC) – The effort to have voters decide on legalizing recreational marijuana use in Michigan has hit another roadblock.

The state Court of Claims affirmed a ruling from the Board of Canvassers that rejected over 200 thousand petition signatures collected by the group MI Legalize because they had been gathered more than 180 days before the petition was filed with the state. That wiped out more than half of the 345 thousand petition signatures.

MI Legalize had sued, based on a 1971 state Supreme Court ruling, but the Court of Claims cited a 1986 high court decision that upheld the constitutionality of the Canvassers’ decision in rejecting the MI Legalize arguments. It was not immediately disclosed if MI Legalize will continue this legal battle by taking its case to higher courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Court says no marijuana ballot question; appeal planned





A campaign to put a marijuana-legalization question on Michigan ballots suffered a setback today that could keep the measure off November ballots.

The petition campaign called MI Legalize failed to submit enough valid petition signatures, according to a ruling by the Michigan Court of Claims.


Although MI Legalize submitted 354,000 signatures -- well over the 252,000 required -- the court agreed with a State Board of Canvassers decision in June, deciding that “more than 200,000 were collected more than 180 days before the petition was submitted” to the Secretary of State -- a violation of state law.


The MI Legalize lawsuit argued that the group had provided an easy way for the state to see that the 200,000 “stale” signatures were, in fact, valid. In addition, the lawsuit contended that the 180-day requirement was unconstitutional and unfair. But the court didn’t accept those arguments in granting a summary disposition of the case to the defendants -- Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, Elections Bureau Director Chris Thomas and the state Board of Canvassers.

“We’re disappointed but we always figured this would go to the state Supreme Court -- and that’s where we’re headed” with an emergency appeal, said Jeff Hank, a Lansing lawyer who is chairman of MI Legalize.


Yet, experts on state election law for months have said MI Legalize is unlikely to succeed this year. To get the measure on November ballots, the high court might need to override deadlines for printing and distributing absentee ballots. Municipal clerks start getting their local ballots proofed and printed around Sept. 9, and they are mailed to overseas military members around Sept. 24, according to the Bureau of Elections.


“Sometime between those dates, we’d have to have a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court,” Hank said. If that fails, he’d file an appeal on First Amendment constitutional grounds with the U.S. Supreme Court, Hank said.


“But then it would be 2018” at the earliest before the measure would get on state ballots. The ballot question calls for “taxing and regulating marijuana like alcohol"; and it specifies that taxes would go toward state road repairs, education funding and local government coffers, according to the MI Legalize website.


MI Legalize has spent 18 months and more than $1 million in its petition campaign to legalize recreational marijuana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MiNormL Should apologize. They and we all knew that 180 day rule was in effect. We and they also knew that anything that could be used against this ballot initiative would be. Matt Abel should resign as their leader.

its incredibly difficult to get that number of signatures in 180 days. they tried.


all is not lost. 180 day rule is unconstitutional. read the motions, briefs and election law history in the court documents that were filed, at milegalize site:




to quote a famous person




and then to federal.



remember, the legislature and attorney general and governor have tried messing with our election laws before and have failed pretty much every time.


they tried to block nader from getting on the ballot in 2004 and failed.

they tried to block the repeal of the emergency manager law by making a fuss at the font size, they failed.

just recently they tried to block straight party voting on the ballot, head up, THEY FAILED AGAIN.


just because they win in lower corrupt courts does not mean the war is over.


here is the simple argument why 180 day rule is unconstitutional. this argument will work in the supreme court because it is THE TRUTH. it is also an argument i thought up and passed to milegalize. so they now have the perfect concise logical posit.


if the 180 day law is constitutional, it means any limit placed by the legislature is constitutional.


therefor, the legislature could change the law to zero days collection time for signatures, negating the ballot initative michigan constitution all together.

simply, any limit means ANY AND ALL limits. which goes against the constitution.


the limit is 4 years between governor elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have signed the petition at the very beginning of our efforts to Legalize and create jobs in Michigan, PLEASE contact your Senator or House Rep and tell them your 1st amendment right have been violated and you want them to stand up for you and not make new laws to stop your thinking process or the ballot process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein


The first step to recovery is admitting there is a problem.


The solution however is simple.


Vote Every republican Out of office.


The ABROGATE MODEL will prevail with or without you.


Jump on board or get run over by the bus.

Edited by beourbud
Link to post
Share on other sites

hah borello just went with the AG opinion and totally ignored milegalize's brief.


he didnt even read CONSUMERS POWER CO. v. ATTY. GENERAL, which he quoted in his opinion. much like the AG didnt read it.


from yesterdays CoC order:

Contrary to the 1973 OAG, in Citizens for Capital Punishment v Sec of State, 414 Mich 913 (1982), the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order upholding the legislature’s enactment of statutes

governing the form of petitions and imposing certain signature requirements for proposing

constitutional amendments and initiating legislation.



MCL 168.472a; MSA 6.1472(1) is presumed to be constitutional. Hall v Calhoun Co Bd of Supervisors, 373 Mich. 642; 130 N.W.2d 414 (1964). A court will not declare a statute unconstitutional unless it is plain that it violates some provisions of the constitution and the constitutionality of the act will be supported by all possible presumptions not clearly inconsistent with the language and the subject matter. Oakland Co Taxpayers' League v Oakland Co Supervisors, 355 Mich. 305, 323; 94 N.W.2d 875 (1959). We conclude that both the Ingham Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals have correctly determined that this statute is constitutional.3

further more, borello quotes from the other case (and from the ag opinion)


This Court has carefully considered the arguments of plaintiff relative to this and all other

issues raised. This Court finds that plaintiffs have made compelling arguments relative to

whether our Supreme Court properly decided Consumers Power Co. Ultimately though, this

Court is legally bound to follow precedent set forth by our Supreme Court. And in Consumers


Power Co, our Supreme Court clearly held the very provisions which plaintiff seeks this Court to

hold unconstitutional constitutional. 426 Mich at 7-8. In so holding, this Court also notes that

plaintiff made a thoughtful effort to distinguish Consumers Power Co on the basis that it

involved a constitutional amendment initiative, and this case involves a legislative initiative.

Plaintiff highlights the difference in language between art 12, § 2 and art 2, § 9, the respective

constitutional provisions for the initiatives, and urges this Court to adopt a narrow interpretation.

However, contrary to plaintiff’s characterization of Consumers Power Co, our Supreme Court

did not limit its holding that the rebuttable presumption contained within MCL 168.472a was

constitutional merely because the case involved a constitutional amendment proposal. Rather,

our Supreme Court held that the plain language of MCL 168.472a applies to signatures on

petitions both to amend the constitution and to initiate legislation. Additionally, our Supreme

Court expressly stated, and without qualification, that “this statute is constitutional.” Consumers

Power Co, 426 Mich at 10.

Lastly, the plain language of art 2, § 9 and our Supreme Court’s reasoning in Consumers

Power Co and Citizens for Capital Punishment compel the same result reached in this case. Art

2, § 9 requires petitions signed by a certain number of registered electors in order to invoke the

initiative process. It also requires the Legislature to implement its provisions. As our Supreme

Court recognized, the purity of elections is an important state interest that is furthered by the

rebuttable presumption that signatures more than 180 days old are stale and void. Consumers

Power Co, 426 Mich at 7; Citizens for Capital Punishment, 414 Mich at 915. The statute is also

consistent with the Court’s interpretation of the purpose of the implementation directive in

Wolverine Golf Club, “to formulate the process by which initiative petitioned legislation shall

reach the legislature or the electorate[.]” Wolverine Golf Club, 384 Mich at 466. And as Consumers Power Co illustrates, the determination in Wolverine Golf Club that art 2, § 9 is self-

executing should not preclude the Legislature’s enactment of a statute imposing a rebuttable

presumption of staleness for signatures collected more than 180 days before the submission of

the petition. Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to relief on this issue.



borello didnt even read wolverine golf club either!


Wolverine Golf Club v. Secretary of State





heres what wolverine had to say:

As pointed out by Judge LESINSKI in the opinion below (1970), 24 Mich App 711, 725:


"It is settled law that the legislature may not act to impose additional obligations on a self-executing constitutional provision. Soutar v. St. Clair County Election Commission (1952), 334 Mich 258; Hamilton v. Secretary of State (1924), 227 Mich 111, 125:


"`"The only limitation, unless otherwise expressly indicated, on legislation supplementary to self-executing constitutional provisions is that the right guaranteed shall not be curtailed or any undue burdens placed thereon."'"

so borello said Art 2 sec 9 of the constitution (ballot initatives for legislation, not consitutional amendments) is self executing, quoted wolverine, which said self-executing constitutional provisions may not be curtailed or any undue burdens placed upon by the legislature.



there you have it.




i cant even find "Citizens for Capital Punishment v Sec of State" case at all.


"Citizens for Capital Punishment v Sec of State, 414 Mich 913 (1982)"


"capital punishment" not found in party name in the supreme court website search.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...