Marijuana campaign sues state over ballot
Lawsuit asks for removal of Prop. 205 description
The campaign to legalize marijuana for recreational use in Arizona is suing state officials over the description of the ballot measure, saying it is “inaccurate and misleading.”
The lawsuit, brought by the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, asks the Maricopa County Superior Court to order the removal of state officials’ description of Proposition 205 from the voter publicity pamphlet. The secretary of state prepared the description of the ballot language for the pamphlet, and the attorney general approved it, according to the lawsuit.
The pamphlets are intended to inform voters of the impact of proposals, including how they would affect existing laws. The latest legal battle over Prop. 205 comes as a Sept. 1 deadline approaches to finalize the pamphlet’s language.
Prop. 205 would ask voters to legalize cannabis for recreational use and establish licensed shops that would tax sales of the drug, similar to the system established in Colorado. Among other things, the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act would allow adults 21 and older to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants in their homes.
“The publication of a publicity pamphlet and general election ballot containing false and misleading information will irreparably injure the Plaintiffs and all Arizona voters,” the complaint states.
Matt Roberts, spokesman for Secretary of State Michele Reagan, said of the complaint: “Election officials desire timely clarity from the court.”
Representatives of Attorney General Mark Brnovich did not respond to a request for comment.
The complaint, filed Monday, asserts the description of Prop. 205 for the pamphlet is misleading in three key ways:
1) The draft language, according to the complaint, states that people “over 21 years old” can use, carry, manufacture, give away or transport marijuana covered under the initiative, “but Proposition 205, in fact allows such conduct by individuals who are 21 years old — i.e., one year younger than indicated in the defendants’ draft ballot language.”
2) The campaign asserts the description inaccurately portrays how offenses will be handled under the proposed law, including recreational use in public.
3) And the campaign is critical of the lack of a description of how tax revenue collected from marijuana sales would be spent. “The description states that Proposition 205 would ‘levy a 15% tax on all marijuana and marijuana products’ — but misleadingly conceals from voters the required uses of the new revenues,” the complaint states.
The pro-marijuana campaign asserts that voters are “entitled” to know how the tax proceeds would be spent. Under Prop. 205, tax on retail sales would be allocated to education, including all-day kindergarten, and public health. Half of the money generated for education under the Arizona initiative would fund K-12 school operations and maintenance, and the other half would fund all-day kindergarten.
The campaign notes that of the most recent 25 citizen initiatives on the statewide ballot, 13 implemented new revenue and detailed how the money would be used. For 11 of the 13 measures, according to the lawsuit, “the descriptive title and/or the description of the effect of a ‘yes’ vote prepared by the Secretary of State included mention of both the new revenue source and the required uses of the proceeds.”
Kory Langhofer, attorney for the campaign, wrote that suggestions had been sent to Reagan’s office for consideration. “The Secretary of State’s Office responded that it would not make any of the changes or revisions requested by the Plaintiffs,” Langhofer wrote.