LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a proposed initiated act to legalize the medical use of marijuana is sufficient to appear on Arkansas’ Nov. 6 ballot.
If approved, the measure would establish a system for cultivating and distributing marijuana for qualifying patients through nonprofit dispensaries. Registered and qualified patients would be allowed to have up to 2 1/ 2 ounces of usable marijuana without being prosecuted by the state.
Patients could qualify if they have cancer, glaucoma, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/ AIDS), or hepatitis-C.
If voters approve the measure, Arkansas will be the first state in the South to legalize medical use of the drug. Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical use of marijuana, although possession of the drug is still a federal crime in every state.
A group opposing the measure, the Coalition to Preserve Arkansas Values, filed a lawsuit challenging the measure’s fitness to be on the ballot, asking the court to declare that the popular name and ballot title of the proposed act are not fair and complete, fail to inform voters about the proposal’s scope and impact, aren’t legally sufficient, and/or that the proposal will violate state and federal laws and constitutional guarantees.
The group’s directors include Family Council President Jerry Cox of Little Rock and Faith and Ethics Council Executive Director Larry Page of Roland.
Justice Karen Baker wrote the opinion. No justices dissented. In the Supreme Court the case is Cox v. Martin.
The coalition argued that the ballot title, at 384 words, is too long and voters would not have adequate time in the voting booth to review it. The coalition also argued that the title doesn’t give voters enough detail about what the law would do.
The ballot title is what voters see on the ballot.
“This court has declined to hold a ballot title insufficient on length alone, but length is one factor for the court to consider,” the opinion states. “The title informs the voters in an intelligible, honest and impartial manner. The ballot title is not unduly long, nor is it complex or misleading.”
The court also rejected the coalition’s argument that the title was insufficient because it does not define certain terms or uses terms that may be unfamiliar to voters.
The court cited its 2008 decision in Cox v. Daniel, in which some of the same petitioners challenged the sufficiency of an initiative to create a state lottery.
“The ultimate issue is whether the voter, while inside the voting booth, is able to reach an intelligent and informed decision for or against the proposal and understands the consequences of his of her vote based on the ballot title,” it states. “However, the ballot title is not required to include every detail, term, definition or how the law will work.”
The court also rejected the argument that the popular name of the act, the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Act, is misleading because the phrase medical marijuana is partisan and the word medical will lead voters to support the act.
The court refused to consider the argument that the act, if passed, would violate the state and federal constitutions. The opinion states that the coalition to Preserve Arkansas Values argued what the act might do, not what it would do as written.
“[The Coalition to Preserve Arkansas Values] has asked this court to hold the act unconstitutional based on hypothetical scenarios that may occur in the future, if the act becomes law,” it states.
A spokesman for the group supporting the legalization effort, Arkansans for Compassionate Care, said it is ready to move on.
“We’re happy to have the legal aspect of this behind us,” campaign strategist Chris Kell said. “This is it, the Supreme Court has the final say on it, this was a yes or no issue. We were just waiting on that last hurdle.”
At a news conference at the Capitol, members of the Coalition to Preserve Arkansas Value said they were disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision.
“The court has done a disservice to the citizens of Arkansas by not dealing with this flawed measure,” Cox said.
He said the coalition will speak at churches and civic groups over the next five weeks in an attempt to defeat the proposal.
Page said he hopes other groups, such as law enforcement, will publicly object to the measure.
“It’s bad law, based on bad science and driven by bad motives,” Page said.
Gov. Mike Beebe reiterated Thursday that he won’t vote for the measure, adding that he has a “gut feeling” voters won’t support it either.
“I don’t think so, but you never know,” Beebe said.
He said he is worried about administrative costs associated with setting up regulations.
“It’s going to require a whole lot of administration from the Health Department, I don’t know where we are going to get it from,” Beebe said.
He said he has asked for an estimate of the cost and awaits a response.
Department spokesman Ann Russell said the department has sought advice from health agencies in states where medical use of marijuana is legal. She said the department will use the information it gathers to estimate the cost. Russell said that estimate should be available in the next few weeks.
The proposed act states that fees on dispensaries and fees to apply for a registry card should be set by the Department of Health to “generate revenues sufficient to implement and administer” the act.
“I think what the governor has issue with is the upfront cost,” Kell said. “Once it’s up and running the dispensaries are nonprofit, and the money will go back to the department to cover the overhead cost.”
The act allows the department to accept donations, and Kell said groups such as the Marijuana Policy Project might provide the money. The Washington, D.C.-based group has largely funded the campaign.
Front Section, Pages 1 on 09/28/2012