Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
U.S. District Judge Phil Pro on Monday ruled the initiative petition statute passed by the 2007 Legislature is just as unconstitutional as the statute it replaced.
Historically, Nevada required initiative proponents get signatures of at least 10 percent of the number of people who voted in the last election in 13 of 17 counties to qualify for the ballot.
After that was challenged and ruled unconstitutional in federal court, lawmakers put in a new rule.
The new rule required proponents to gather signatures in each county in proportion to that county's percentage of the total statewide population and a statewide total of at least 10 percent of the turnout in the previous general election - in this election year, 58,628 signatures.
Organizers of the Marijuana Policy Project and ACLU sued saying that creates an even bigger violation of one-man, one-vote standards than the old rule.
Using that system, 1.37 million Clark County voters made up about two-thirds of the state population so petition circulators would have to come up with 40,364 signatures to qualify the ballot question there.
In Washoe, 339,486 was the population so 9,961 signatures would be needed to qualify there.
But only 1,651 live in Eureka county and just 971 in Esmeralda. Circulators would need 49 signers in Eureka and just 29 in Esmeralda.
The plaintiffs said that rule allows a couple of tiny counties to prevent a question from going before the voters even if it is supported by a lopsided majority of statewide voters.
In a 27-page decision issued Monday, Pro agreed, saying that dilutes the power of an urban voter's signature in comparison to the power of a voter in a tiny county.
"One voter's vote in Clark County under the County Population Rule weighs substantially less than one voter's vote in any other Nevada county," he wrote.
He said the rule is based on numbers of counties, not numbers of people and wrote that, "A system that gives counties of unequal population equal power violates equal protection."
In the U.S., he said, the only place the Constitution endorses that type of unequal treatment is the assignment of two U.S. Senators for each state no matter what its population.
He granted the motion for summary judgment, declared the new law unconstitutional and enjoined Secretary of State Ross Miller from enforcing it.
The decision will have no impact on this November's election because the Marijuana Policy Project did not circulate a petition to legalize the use of pot this year. Group officials said one reason they didn't was that new law which they thought would make it extremely difficult to qualify any petition in some of Nevada's rural counties.
Neal Levine of the Marijuana Policy Project urged the state to drop the fight and not appeal.
"This is now the second time we've defeated the state on the exact same issue," he said in a statement. "How many more times do you think it's going to take before they stop passing unconstitutional initiative laws?"
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Nevada Appeal
Author: Geoff Dornan
Copyright: 2008 Nevada Appeal
Contact: gdornan@nevadaappeal.com
Website: Initiative process rules ruled unconstitutional - again | NevadaAppeal.com
Historically, Nevada required initiative proponents get signatures of at least 10 percent of the number of people who voted in the last election in 13 of 17 counties to qualify for the ballot.
After that was challenged and ruled unconstitutional in federal court, lawmakers put in a new rule.
The new rule required proponents to gather signatures in each county in proportion to that county's percentage of the total statewide population and a statewide total of at least 10 percent of the turnout in the previous general election - in this election year, 58,628 signatures.
Organizers of the Marijuana Policy Project and ACLU sued saying that creates an even bigger violation of one-man, one-vote standards than the old rule.
Using that system, 1.37 million Clark County voters made up about two-thirds of the state population so petition circulators would have to come up with 40,364 signatures to qualify the ballot question there.
In Washoe, 339,486 was the population so 9,961 signatures would be needed to qualify there.
But only 1,651 live in Eureka county and just 971 in Esmeralda. Circulators would need 49 signers in Eureka and just 29 in Esmeralda.
The plaintiffs said that rule allows a couple of tiny counties to prevent a question from going before the voters even if it is supported by a lopsided majority of statewide voters.
In a 27-page decision issued Monday, Pro agreed, saying that dilutes the power of an urban voter's signature in comparison to the power of a voter in a tiny county.
"One voter's vote in Clark County under the County Population Rule weighs substantially less than one voter's vote in any other Nevada county," he wrote.
He said the rule is based on numbers of counties, not numbers of people and wrote that, "A system that gives counties of unequal population equal power violates equal protection."
In the U.S., he said, the only place the Constitution endorses that type of unequal treatment is the assignment of two U.S. Senators for each state no matter what its population.
He granted the motion for summary judgment, declared the new law unconstitutional and enjoined Secretary of State Ross Miller from enforcing it.
The decision will have no impact on this November's election because the Marijuana Policy Project did not circulate a petition to legalize the use of pot this year. Group officials said one reason they didn't was that new law which they thought would make it extremely difficult to qualify any petition in some of Nevada's rural counties.
Neal Levine of the Marijuana Policy Project urged the state to drop the fight and not appeal.
"This is now the second time we've defeated the state on the exact same issue," he said in a statement. "How many more times do you think it's going to take before they stop passing unconstitutional initiative laws?"
News Hawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Nevada Appeal
Author: Geoff Dornan
Copyright: 2008 Nevada Appeal
Contact: gdornan@nevadaappeal.com
Website: Initiative process rules ruled unconstitutional - again | NevadaAppeal.com
