LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — On Monday, the Arkansas Supreme Court decided against counting votes for a proposed ballot initiative intended to expand the state’s medical marijuana program, citing that the language of the proposal was misleading.
The court made a controversial 4-3 ruling, indicating that the initiative did not adequately inform voters about its potential effects on a constitutional amendment from 2016 that originally legalized medical marijuana. The proposed amendment sought to widen the categorization of medical professionals authorized to certify patients for medical cannabis, broaden the list of qualifying conditions, and extend the validity of medical cannabis cards to three years.
Despite the ruling, the initiative will still be included on the ballot due to the deadline for certification having already passed; however, officials will disregard any votes pertaining to it. Early voting in Arkansas commenced on Monday.
In conjunction with this ruling, the justices dismissed claims from election officials that the initiative’s organizers had not obtained enough signatures for ballot placement. Justice Shawn Womack, part of the majority opinion, stated that the proposed measure did not clarify to voters that it would eliminate the Legislature’s capacity to modify the 2016 medical marijuana amendment.
Moreover, the court noted that the ballot measure failed to inform voters that its approval would legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for any purpose if marijuana were to become legal federally.
The coalition driving the initiative, Arkansans for Patient Access, expressed intentions to persist in their efforts to enhance the medical marijuana program, claiming that the signatures they collected demonstrated significant public backing.
The group expressed their disappointment with the court’s ruling, stating, “It appears that political interests have prevailed over legal standards.”
The controversy escalated after Secretary of State John Thurston claimed that the initiative’s sponsors had gathered insufficient signatures for ballot qualification. The opposition group Protect Arkansas Kids raised concerns regarding the language of the ballot measure and intervened in the judicial proceedings.
Thurston’s office opted to disregard a portion of the gathered signatures, asserting that the initiative’s organizers did not adhere to procedural regulations regarding paid signature collectors.
Earlier this year, a similar issue arose when the state rejected petitions supporting an anti-abortion measure on comparable grounds.
In July, state officials ruled that the group did not meet the necessary signature requirements but gave an extra 30 days for petition circulation. However, the officials later indicated that any additional signatures collected by paid gatherers would not be considered if the required information was submitted by the canvassing firm rather than the measure’s sponsors.
The court ruled last Thursday that this decision was incorrect, acknowledging that state law permits a diverse group of individuals to be recognized as sponsors of such measures.
In contrast, Justice Cody Hiland dissented, arguing that the court was neglecting established legal precedents by labeling the measure’s wording as misleading. “This court has maintained consistent criteria for assessing the validity of popular names and ballot titles for many years, and today’s ruling diverges from those established standards,” Hiland asserted.
Approximately half of the states in the U.S. permit recreational marijuana use, and several others have legalized it for medical purposes. These figures may increase following the upcoming November elections, where voters in Florida, North Dakota, and South Dakota will consider legalizing recreational marijuana, and two medical marijuana proposals will be presented on Nebraska’s ballot.
The court made a controversial 4-3 ruling, indicating that the initiative did not adequately inform voters about its potential effects on a constitutional amendment from 2016 that originally legalized medical marijuana. The proposed amendment sought to widen the categorization of medical professionals authorized to certify patients for medical cannabis, broaden the list of qualifying conditions, and extend the validity of medical cannabis cards to three years.
Despite the ruling, the initiative will still be included on the ballot due to the deadline for certification having already passed; however, officials will disregard any votes pertaining to it. Early voting in Arkansas commenced on Monday.
In conjunction with this ruling, the justices dismissed claims from election officials that the initiative’s organizers had not obtained enough signatures for ballot placement. Justice Shawn Womack, part of the majority opinion, stated that the proposed measure did not clarify to voters that it would eliminate the Legislature’s capacity to modify the 2016 medical marijuana amendment.
Moreover, the court noted that the ballot measure failed to inform voters that its approval would legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for any purpose if marijuana were to become legal federally.
The coalition driving the initiative, Arkansans for Patient Access, expressed intentions to persist in their efforts to enhance the medical marijuana program, claiming that the signatures they collected demonstrated significant public backing.
The group expressed their disappointment with the court’s ruling, stating, “It appears that political interests have prevailed over legal standards.”
The controversy escalated after Secretary of State John Thurston claimed that the initiative’s sponsors had gathered insufficient signatures for ballot qualification. The opposition group Protect Arkansas Kids raised concerns regarding the language of the ballot measure and intervened in the judicial proceedings.
Thurston’s office opted to disregard a portion of the gathered signatures, asserting that the initiative’s organizers did not adhere to procedural regulations regarding paid signature collectors.
Earlier this year, a similar issue arose when the state rejected petitions supporting an anti-abortion measure on comparable grounds.
In July, state officials ruled that the group did not meet the necessary signature requirements but gave an extra 30 days for petition circulation. However, the officials later indicated that any additional signatures collected by paid gatherers would not be considered if the required information was submitted by the canvassing firm rather than the measure’s sponsors.
The court ruled last Thursday that this decision was incorrect, acknowledging that state law permits a diverse group of individuals to be recognized as sponsors of such measures.
In contrast, Justice Cody Hiland dissented, arguing that the court was neglecting established legal precedents by labeling the measure’s wording as misleading. “This court has maintained consistent criteria for assessing the validity of popular names and ballot titles for many years, and today’s ruling diverges from those established standards,” Hiland asserted.
Approximately half of the states in the U.S. permit recreational marijuana use, and several others have legalized it for medical purposes. These figures may increase following the upcoming November elections, where voters in Florida, North Dakota, and South Dakota will consider legalizing recreational marijuana, and two medical marijuana proposals will be presented on Nebraska’s ballot.