About the Petition Drive

• Petition Drive
• '02 Initiative
• Medical Marijuana Law

 

Read on to learn more about the initiative and the battles it took to get to this point.

On November 9, 2004, the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana (CRCM) turned in 84,665 signatures for its statutory initiative, 57,887 of which we estimate to be valid. The secretary of state has until December 1 to notify CRCM of whether the petitioners have deposited the required number of valid signatures (at least 51,337). The initiative would require the state to tax and regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol.

Once the measure is certified as having a sufficient number of signatures, the legislature will be required to consider the measure during its 2005 legislative session. If the legislature does not enact the measure as is, the initiative will be placed on the November 2006 ballot.
Learn more about the initiative here.

Attorney general strikes marijuana initiative!

On Monday, December 20, 2004, Nevada's Attorney General Brian Sandoval announced in a written opinion that the secretary of state should increase the total number of signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the 2006 ballot from 51,337 to 83,156.

This stand contradicts months of statements and assurances to the contrary by the secretary of state. And, of course, this post hoc revision of the rules was announced only after the signature drive was over and it was too late to do anything differently.

CRCM, along with the ACLU, has filed to contest this decision. In a letter to Secretary of State Heller dated January 3, 2005, our attorneys laid out our case, pointing out the inconsistencies in the state's publication, inconsistent prior decisions by the secretary of state regarding other initiatives, and the fact that the attorney general based his opinion on a case interpreting a different section of the Nevada Constitution.

This letter marks the beginning of CRCM's efforts to overturn this undemocratic decision and re-enfranchise hundreds of thousands of Nevadans.

CRCM, MPP, and the ACLU file in federal court

On December 20, 2004, Nevada Secretary of State Dean Heller increased the number of signatures needed to qualify an initiative for the 2006 ballot from 51,337 to 83,156. Heller's move disqualified every proposed ballot measure, including the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana's (CRCM's) initiative — which would regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol — even though CRCM submitted over 69,000 valid signatures just 11 days earlier.

Heller's move contradicted the "2004 Initiative and Referendum Guide" published by the state, months of statements by the secretary of state, and the prior conduct of the department. He also acted after the proposed initiatives were filed and it was too late for anything to be done.

In response, on January 12, 2005, CRCM, the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), and the Nevada ACLU filed suit against Heller in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas and asked the court for an emergency injunction. CRCM and its co-plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Heller's arbitrary conduct, which strips the right of Nevadans to vote on these initiatives, violates the U.S. Constitution in at least three ways:

1. Heller's unannounced and arbitrary changes to established election procedures, contradicting all previous official statements, violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment;
2. Heller's decision to enforce election regulations differently against plaintiffs than he had against similarly situated petitioners in 2000 violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment; and
3. By striking the initiatives and denying citizens an opportunity to vote on them, Heller unfairly burdened plaintiffs' core political speech, violating the First Amendment.

We have asked the court to declare that Heller's acts have violated our rights, to permanently prohibit Heller from implementing his flawed scheme, and to award compensatory or punitive damages as the court may see fit.

You can read a copy of CRCM's complaint here.

In addition to filing the complaint, we have moved for a preliminary injunction, which would force the secretary of state to send the initiative to the legislature when it convenes on February 7. The Nevada Constitution requires the secretary of state to transmit initiative petitions to the legislature when it convenes. The legislature then has 40 days in which to consider the petitions. If the legislature fails to adopt the proposal, the initiative will be placed on the ballot. An injunction will ensure that CRCM's initiative will be dealt with in a timely fashion and that CRCM's petition is not later challenged for having failed to abide by these regulations.

You can read CRCM's Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Consolidation here, and you can read CRCM's exhibits to the motion here. A copy of Heller's response is here, and a copy of CRCM's reply is here.

We are moving aggressively on this matter. Heller's actions have betrayed all sense of fairness and robbed the people of Nevada of their voice. Through our lawsuit, we intend to give it back.

Court foils Heller's attempt to delay justice

On January 21, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge James C. Mahan denied Secretary of State Dean Heller's attempt to postpone a January 28 hearing on Heller's decision to disqualify the initiative petitions submitted by the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana (CRCM). However, in a minor concession, the court gave Heller three additional days to complete his brief.

CRCM, MPP, and the ACLU of Nevada had sued Heller in federal court, alleging that his decision to disqualify the initiative violated plaintiffs' right to due process and free speech and asking that Heller forward the initiative to the legislature. The court agreed to schedule the hearing on January 28 so that, if the plaintiffs prevail, the measure can be transmitted to the legislature by the constitutional deadline of February 7. Heller's January 19 motion called the schedule "fundamentally unfair," complaining that CRCM's "allegations are complex in nature and cite to numerous cases." The court ruled against him.

You can read a copy of Secretary Heller's motion here, a copy of CRCM's response here, and a copy of Judge Mahan's ruling here.

Judge orders marijuana initiative on 2006 ballot

In a major victory, Federal District Court Judge James Mahan issued an injunction on January 28, ordering Secretary of State Dean Heller to immediately send the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana's (CRCM's) initiative petition to the legislature when it opens on February 7. The legislature will have 40 days to pass the initiative into law or place it unamended on Nevada's ballot in November 2006.

In his ruling, Judge Mahan said that Heller's processes and procedures are flawed and that the 2002 General Election figures should have been used to determine the number of signatures necessary for ballot initiatives, not those of the 2004 Election. He further noted that Heller and Nevada Attorney General Sandoval's decisions violated CRCM's due process and First Amendment rights.

Legislature to consider marijuana petition

Following a sweeping court victory and the decision by the state of Nevada not to appeal, CRCM's initiative to regulate marijuana was finally introduced to the Nevada Assembly on March 2. The legislature has a 40-day window, from February 7, to either adopt the initiative without amendment or send it to the people for a vote on the 2006 ballot.

While the legislature is unlikely to adopt the initiative, this is the first time in years that a state legislative body will debate the merits of taxing and regulating marijuana. In fact, the first hearing on the initiative has already been scheduled for Thursday, March 10, at 8:00 a.m. in front of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Marijuana regulation hearing in legislature!

On March 10, the Marijuana Policy Project's Rob Kampia testified before the Assembly Committee on the Judiciary about I.P. 3, the CRCM-sponsored initiative to tax and regulate marijuana. Joining Kampia to testify in support of I.P. 3 were University of Southern California Professor Mitch Earleywine and Jack Cole, a 26-year veteran of the New Jersey highway patrol and the executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).

This hearing was historic for the state and the nation — rarely have legislatures had an open discussion on the merits of marijuana regulation — and Kampia and company corrected a host of misconceptions associated with taxing and regulating marijuana. They also explained the benefits that regulating marijuana would bring to the state, including increased tax revenues and better law enforcement.

In contrast, the opposition addressed the general use of drugs in society — not marijuana use. They peppered their testimony with anecdotal evidence and hid behind the smokescreen of the "message" that passage of I.P. 3 might send to children. But as Kampia noted in rebuttal, everyone admits that the current system is broken, but it is only the supporters of I.P. 3 who are offering any solutions.

Marijuana regulation initiative on 2006 ballot!

The Marijuana Policy Project's marijuana regulation initiative is officially on Nevada's 2006 ballot. The initiative would remove all penalties for marijuana use by adults aged 21 and older, as well as create a system for the legal cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana to adults.

After a federal judge in January ordered the Nevada government to place MPP's initiative on Nevada's 2006 ballot, the initiative was sent to the state legislature when it convened on February 7. The legislature was then required to consider our proposal and either pass it into law themselves (unamended) within 40 days or place it on the November 2006 ballot (unamended) so Nevadans can vote on it.

On March 10, the legislature debated MPP's initiative ... the first time in years that any state legislature has debated regulating marijuana. The legislature had until March 18 to either pass MPP's proposal or place it on the November 2006 ballot. It took no action, so the initiative now goes on the ballot.