Jump to content

Milegalize Fails


Malamute

Recommended Posts

Michigan Supreme Court won't decide if Michigan gets marijuana legalization vote

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/09/michigan_supreme_court_wont_de_1.html

 

The Michigan Supreme Court won't hear arguments in a lawsuit regarding Michigan's vote on recreational marijuana use, according to a ruling today. 

"The application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court," an order bearing the names of the the seven Supreme Court justices issued on the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 7, reads. 

Jeffrey Hank, attorney for MI Legalize, sent a message and said "justice denied" in light of the Michigan Supreme Court ruling that it would not hear the case.

 

MI Legalize wants Michigan voters to decide on the November general election ballot if marijuana should be legal for people 21 and older. The group circulated a petition, which required 252,523 valid signatures.

MI Legalize turned in 354,000 signatures, but the Board of State Canvassers determined that not enough of those signatures were valid because some were collected outside of a 180-day signature window.

Wanting to avoid the difficult process in place of validating signatures through county clerks, organizers unsuccessfully attempted to get the Board of State Canvassers to establish an easier method of validating old signatures.

After MI Legalize turned in its signatures, the legislature changed Michigan law to limit the signature collection period to a strict 180 days.

MI Legalize filed a lawsuit against the state shortly after, claiming their signatures were valid.

Michigan's Court of Claims ruled the state had no obligation to accept the signatures. 

MI Legalize filed for appeal in the state appeals court, and soon after filed for an appeal in the state Supreme Court. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MIRS Breaking News - State Supreme Court Won't Hear Marijuana Legalization Petition Case -- 3:33 p.m.

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

The Michigan Supreme Court (MSC) today denied leave to appeal to attorney Jeffrey HANK in his quest to get legalized marijuana on the November ballot, but Hank today said a "likely appeal" to the nation's high court will follow. 

The MSC declined to grant leave to appeal in the case MILegalize v. Secretary of State, Bureau of Elections and Board of State Canvassers, which Hank filed after his group failed to gather enough valid signatures under the state's 180-day window, requiring the state to denied certification (See "Marijuana Legalization Group Sues To Get On Ballot," 6/16/16). 

Hank originally filed in the Court of Claims, but the suit was shot down on that first hurdle (See "Suit Contesting Petition Signature Window Shot Down," 8/24/16).

Today, the order issued by the MSC said the court wasn't persuaded the questions presented to the court should be reviewed. 

Hank emailed a copy of the orders out today and said a "likely appeal to SCOTUS to follow," a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court, something Hank has hinted at already (See "Hank: This Could Go To U.S. High Court," 8/25/16).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weak nonsense!

 

Weak, conservative, Republican, anti-democratic nonsense!

 

Republicans have been anti-democratic since day one. When this country was formed, a group of participants (Republicans) didn't want the right to vote extended to everyone. They wanted only people of means (property owners, wealthy families) to have the right to vote. They lost, but apparently they continue the fight to this day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesnt it seem odd the senate moved on 4209 after refusing to do so for sev years?

 

It almost seems as if the milegalize actions have forced the senate to get their version out instead. As if getting this on the books will somehow mitigate the threat of a citizen initiative. Timing just seems odd. Why did they decide to all of a sudden pass it?

 

I dont know, is milegalize even an option anymore? I would rather speak out against 4208, and wait for milegalize... It would be better option for pretty much every patient and caregiver. what's another year vs something that is barely a touch better than shiit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesnt it seem odd the senate moved on 4209 after refusing to do so for sev years?

 

It almost seems as if the milegalize actions have forced the senate to get their version out instead. As if getting this on the books will somehow mitigate the threat of a citizen initiative. Timing just seems odd. Why did they decide to all of a sudden pass it?

 

I dont know, is milegalize even an option anymore? I would rather speak out against 4208, and wait for milegalize... It would be better option for pretty much every patient and caregiver. what's another year vs something that is barely a touch better than shiit.

 

It had absolutely nothing to do with Milegalize.

 

They were planning to do these bills when summer break was over. Well it had just gotten over and they only have 9 days of session to work with.  This bill passed due to lobbying and influence efforts, as well as relentless persistence by Senator Jones of all people.  Go figure.

 

 

Milegalize is just desperate for some type of credit or that they did something worthwhile. It just wasn't this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks mal, appreciate the insight.

 

So, lets say the gov signs this bill as is and it becomes law.

 

Lets say milegalize continues in fed court and gets a favorable ruling (would they even continue?), and it gets on the ballot, be it this year or next.

 

Would the citizen initiative override the bill? How would such a contest play out? Is there still any hope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks mal, appreciate the insight.

 

So, lets say the gov signs this bill as is and it becomes law.

 

Lets say milegalize continues in fed court and gets a favorable ruling (would they even continue?), and it gets on the ballot, be it this year or next.

 

Would the citizen initiative override the bill? How would such a contest play out? Is there still any hope?

 

My understand from the legislature prospective is that these bills would also be the framework if MILegalize were to pass.  My guess is MILegalize will get on the ballot for 2018 as these laws are coming into full swing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/09/07/marijuana-legalization-michigan-supreme-court-ballots/89973862/

 

 

The Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal Wednesday to attorneys for the MI Legalize group, making it all but certain that November ballots in Michigan won’t include a marijuana question.

 

The state Supreme Court refused to accept the emergency appeal by Lansing lawyer Jeff Hank, in effect affirming rulings by lower courts that blocked the petition drive of MI Legalize, a group of activists who want marijuana to be made legal in Michigan.

 

The group waged a yearlong, $1-million campaign to get its marijuana question on fall ballots. But state election officials declared in June that at least 200,000 of the signatures MI Legalize submitted were “stale.”  That means they had been gathered outside of the state’s 180-day window for signatures, imposed in the 1980s on those conducting referendum petition drives.

 

MI Legalize then filed a lawsuit, but the state Court of  Claims and then the Michigan Court of Appeals both agreed with the Michigan Bureau of Elections.

 

Leaders of MI Legalize say they represent a majority of Michiganders who, according to statewide polls, want to see marijuana “taxed and regulated like alcohol,” according to the MI Legalize website. The group’s website and its board members also say that their lawsuit contesting the 180-day window is aimed at helping any similar group that wants to get its petition measure on state ballots but can't afford to hire the scores of paid petition circulators required to obtain enough signatures within 180 days.

 

Although MI Legalize submitted 354,000 signatures, well over the 252,000 required, state election officials declared that “more than 200,000 were collected more than 180 days before the petition was submitted” to the Secretary of State, according to a Court of Claims ruling on the lawsuit. In its lawsuit, MI Legalize argued that when volunteers submitted a truckload of signed petitions, they also provided the means for proving that the “stale” signatures were, in fact, valid. And the lawsuit said that the 180-day requirement was unconstitutional and unfair.

Even after seeing Wednesday's ruling, the leaders of MI Legalize refused to give up.

“I’m already working on an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Hank, who is chairman of MI Legalize — short for Michigan Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Committee.

 

Hanks said that because Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette is seeking an election ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, after lower courts allowed Michigan's tradition of straight-party voting to continue this fall, “then we would argue the same — that there’s still time, although not much,” to get the group’s marijuana measure on November ballots.

 

Practically speaking, the high court would need to override Michigan's deadlines for printing and distributing absentee ballots. Municipal clerks start getting their local ballots proofed and printed next week, and they are mailed to overseas military members around Sept. 24, according to the Bureau of Elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.freep.com/story/news/2016/09/13/marijuana-legalization-ballots/90329638/

 

 

Last-ditch legal efforts to put a marijuana-legalization question in front of Michigan voters this fall ended Tuesday in a federal court in Flint.

 

U.S. District Judge Linda Parker denied a motion for a temporary restraining order that aimed to stop the printing of ballots while the case was argued about whether to allow what state officials call “stale” petition signatures.

 

“Basically, what this sums up is that our question is not going to be on the ballot in November,” said Sean Myers of Newport, near Monroe, one of two plaintiffs who sued the state last week in federal court.

 

The other plaintiff was U.S. Marine veteran and medical-marijuana user Dakota Blue Serna of Dimondale in Eaton County, Myers said. According to the lawsuit, the two signed the petition of the campaign group called MI Legalize, requesting that the marijuana question be on November ballots. But they did so outside the 180-day window required by state election policy, their lawsuit says.

 

The case asked that the time limit be immediately overturned and that clerks across Michigan be ordered to add the marijuana measure to ballots, which are being drawn up and printed this week.

 

"We were asking for truly extraordinary relief," admitted Jeff Frazier, one of two lawyers who filed the lawsuit.

 

"So, basically, the judge said she didn’t believe there was time to probe this issue with the requisite degree of exactitude in time to get ballots mailed overseas to military people this month," Frazier said.

 

Although MI Legalize submitted 354,000 signatures — well over the 252,000 required — the Michigan Court of Claims 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 the state board's 180-day policy.

 

Frazier said that, despite Tuesday's reversal, he was buoyed by the words of the federal judge in Flint and the fact that she even granted a hearing to his side. The lawsuit's wording "prompted her to say she would love to get to the merits of this because, as she put it, 'This is a society shaper.'

"And in all of our previous maneuverings in state court, we never got a hearing," he said.

 

The MI Legalize group isn’t done, added its chairman, Lansing lawyer Jeff Hank.

“I’m taking our state case to the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s definitely happening next year," Hank said, although he conceded that "there's probably about a 6% chance they would hear this case."

 

Still, the group will continue seeking donations and aims to launch another petition drive although no date has been set, Hank said. He and others in the group have asserted that the 180-day window is a serious handicap to grassroots groups that depend on volunteers to collect signatures and can't afford to hire platoons of professional petition circulators.

 

The 180-day window was rushed by the Legislature into becoming state law on June 1 — the same day that MI Legalize turned in its truckload of signatures — although the limit does not apply retroactively to MI Legalize, state lawmakers acknowledged at the time. In a news release, Gov. Rick Snyder defended putting his signature on the bill that was almost universally criticized by Democrats.

 

"Establishing reasonable time limits on when signatures can be collected helps ensure the issues that make the ballot are the ones that matter most to Michiganders," Snyder said in the release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/09/michigan_marijuana_vote_hearin.html

 

 

Michigan marijuana vote kept off ballot with federal court ruling

 

 

A federal judge denied a court motion today meant to stop the printing of Michigan election ballots until signatures supporting marijuana legalization could be counted. 

The decision came at a hearing at noon today, Tuesday, Sept. 13, in U.S. District Court Judge Linda V. Parker's courtroom in Flint on two marijuana petitioners' bid to have their signatures counted, in hopes of allowing Michigan residents to vote on legalizing marijuana for people 21 and older. 

Plaintiffs Sean Michael Myers and Dakota Blue Serna both signed and circulated petitions to place a ballot question asking voters to legalize marijuana in Michigan and filed a federal lawsuit Thursday, Sept. 8.

 

Parker ruled after a hearing that went longer than an hour that there is not not enough time to stop the process of Michigan's election to place the issue on the ballot. 

"...it's really too late to have an effect," she said while ruling on the plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order to pause election processes. She noted a Sept. 24 deadline to send ballots to overseas voters, and a 40-day window that the state legislature has to be given to look at the ballot initiative before the election. 

 

MI Legalize turned in 354,000 signatures for the ballot issue —more than the total needed to qualify for the November ballot — but state rules making signatures older than 180 days void, blocked it from being added to the ballot.

 

The lawsuit sought a temporary restraining order, as well as preliminary and permanent injunction against the Michigan Secretary of State and other defendants.

 

Myers and Serna are both registered voters and signed petitions more than 180 days before they were filed with the state.

Their federal lawsuit argued that the rebuttal presumption, the statute that says signatures older than 180 days are presumed void, is unconstitutional, as well as its use.

 

"The 1986 Board of Canvassers policy to utilize the rebuttable presumption, which all parties acknowledge has never been utilized and is impossible for Plaintiff to comply with, is unconstitutional," the lawsuit reads, and attorney Thomas Lavigne argued in court.

 

"We the people are on our own on this one," Serna said after the ruling. "What is free speech when 354,000 Michigan citizens won't be heard?"

Besides the timeline issue, the judge based her ruling on an argument from the Michigan Attorney General's office that the case was "res adjudicata," or already determined by a lower court. 

 

Parker said the Michigan Court of Claims decision addressed constitutional claims brought by the plaintiffs in that court, and the same issues could not be brought to U.S. District Court. 

 

Parker also noted the timeline of the filing, and that the plaintiffs could have filed earlier, instead of waiting to hear from the Michigan Supreme Court in a separate filing by MI Legalize about the marijuana vote issue. 

 

Despite the ruling, the judge said, "I know we will see this again."

 

"We are not done," she said. "When I say we, I mean we the people. But it has to be done according to law."

 

The federal suit comes on the heels of a court battle that just ended in Michigan, as attorneys appealed the case to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court, both of which declined to hear arguments.

 

Attorney Jeffrey Hank, who represented MI Legalize in the state courts, said he is working on an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court with the same goal, of getting the signatures counted. He said the federal lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court could impact what happens with the U.S. Supreme Court filing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rekt.

 

one for schuette. well played. the best outcome for him as there are no more arguments for milegalize to stand on, in any court. except us sc , who would never hear it.

 

the only way to challenge the 180 law will be another's ballot initiative (since that 180 day law didn't apply to milegalize, milegalize can't challenge it's validity). fracking people tried but didn't have standing because they didn't submit signatures.

 

I tried to get milegalize to file earlier in other courts. oh well.

 

I doubt that would have worked either. looks like it was dismissed out of fed court. hah

 

schuette showed his hand in that one article, if you don't have enough signatures, you won't be able to challenge the 180 day law either, because it will be a "moot" issue. so you will have to spend a million dollars just collecting signatures, turn them In after they are older than 180 days. just to challenge the law...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

schuette showed his hand in that one article, if you don't have enough signatures, you won't be able to challenge the 180 day law either, because it will be a "moot" issue. so you will have to spend a million dollars just collecting signatures, turn them In after they are older than 180 days. just to challenge the law...

 

There are other ways.

Link to comment
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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...