Signatures for medical marijuana act sufficient, report says

A comparison of the two State Medical Marijuana proposals
A comparison of the two State Medical Marijuana proposals

The Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act has enough valid signatures to remain on the Nov. 8 general election ballot, a special master appointed by the Arkansas Supreme Court said Tuesday in a written report.

[INTERACTIVE MAP: Click here for a look at how laws related to marijuana have evolved over the past two decades.]

The special master's report followed his investigation into claims made in a lawsuit against the proposal. The Supreme Court will make its final decision after further briefs in the case are filed in mid-October. Regardless of the decision, the proposal will appear on ballots; a decision against it would mean that votes on the act wouldn't be counted.

John Robbins, a retired judge who reviewed evidence for the court, questioned about 2,087 signatures collected on petitions by Arkansans for Compassionate Care, the group backing the proposed act that would allow Arkansans with certain medical conditions to use the drug, which is illegal under federal law.

Kara Benca, a Little Rock-based lawyer who filed the lawsuit, had claimed that about 15,000 signatures were invalid. About 10,000 signatures -- previously approved by Secretary of State Mark Martin's office -- would need to be ruled invalid to prevent votes from counting for the proposed act.

Melissa Fults, campaign director for Arkansans for Compassionate Care, said the report represents a major legal hurdle cleared by the group.

"I am thrilled that the special master has ruled in our favor," she said. "My hope is that the Supreme Court will uphold this ruling and Arkansas will have medical cannabis for patients after Nov. 8."

Justices had previously ruled in favor of the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act in a separate complaint filed by Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana, which claimed that the words used to summarize the medical marijuana proposal on ballots were misleading. Earlier Tuesday, the court said it won't reconsider its unanimous ruling on that lawsuit, in response to a petition from the opposing group.

Three other ballot issues -- all proposed state constitutional amendments -- also await decisions by the justices. One of those amendments is a competing marijuana proposal known as the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment. A major difference between the two marijuana proposals is that the act has a "grow your own" provision and the amendment doesn't.

Benca could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

In her lawsuit against the proposed act, Benca had said Arkansans for Compassionate Care failed to properly name and educate its signature gatherers, failed to provide necessary documentation to Martin's office and failed to document if signature gatherers were paid or unpaid volunteers.

More than half of the signatures Benca identified as faulty had to do with special requirements for paid canvassers.

But "the proof was undisputed that most of the Sponsor's canvassers were volunteers and many of the canvassers who had been reported as 'paid,' as well as many who had checked that they were 'paid,' were only to be paid if sufficient funds were contributed to the petition drive in the future," wrote Robbins, the special master, in his report.

Benca never disputed that many of the canvassers of the "paid" list went unpaid and did not identify which canvassers fell in what category, according to the report.

"Consequently, I cannot find how many, if any, of these 8,620 signatures should be disqualified" due to special requirements for paid canvassers, Robbins wrote.

On several other matters, Robbins found that there were technical and clerical errors, but not enough to warrant invalidation.

He did disqualify 2,087 signatures because signature gatherers used business addresses. They must use their home address for the signatures to count, he said.

However, he said that those signatures should only be removed if the Arkansas Supreme Court believes changes in law that occurred during the signature collection process should be held against signature gatherers.

David Couch, a Little Rock lawyer who is backing the competing Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment, has said he shared information with Benca relevant to the lawsuit.

During questioning before the special master last week, Heidi Gay, a National Ballot Access owner, said she was owed about $30,000 by supporters of the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment for the work she did finding errors in the signature pages of petitions for the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act. National Ballot Access is a Georgia company that is hired to gather signatures for petitions.

The errors Gay found were cited in the lawsuit against the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act.

The state Supreme Court has been reluctant to knock proposals off the ballot in recent years.

In 2014, the Supreme Court rejected efforts to block two measures, one that would increase the minimum wage and another that would legalize alcohol sales throughout the state.

A medical marijuana ballot measure in 2012 fought off a ballot title challenge from a coalition that included Family Council President Jerry Cox and Faith and Ethics Council Executive Director Larry Page. The measure failed to pass in the general election.

Twenty-five states, plus Washington, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico, have enacted laws to allow marijuana use for medical purposes. No Southern state currently allows medical marijuana.

Seven ballot issues have been approved for the Nov. 8 ballot. The Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment is Issue 6. The Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act is Issue 7.

The campaign against both measures is ongoing.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson and Lt. Gov. Tim Griffin are holding a news conference at 10:30 a.m. today at the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce alongside several Arkansas chief executives to "explain how these initiatives will hurt job creation in Arkansas by hampering the quality of our workforce," according to a news release.

A Section on 09/28/2016

Upcoming Events