Katelyn Baker
Well-Known Member
The Supreme Court of Ohio has definitively quashed a marijuana initiative that proponents were seeking to place on November's ballot in the Cincinnati neighborhood of Norwood.
Political action committee Sensible Norwood sought a writ of mandamus that would force the Hamilton County Board of Elections to place a proposed "Sensible Marihuana Ordinance" on the ballot in the city of Norwood.
The proposal sought to change ordinances regarding the use and sale of marijuana and hashish.
The high court, in a per curiam opinion, held that the ordinance would enact a felony and that it attempted to place administrative restrictions on the enforcement of existing laws.
Citing the Ohio Revised Code, Section 715.67, the Supreme Court noted that a municipal corporation may make violations of any of its ordinances a misdemeanor and then enforce those rules.
"However, the power to define and classify and prescribe punishment for felonies committed within the state is lodged in the General Assembly," the high court wrote. "The proposed ordinance purports to enact felony offenses and impose penalties for possessing or using marijuana and hashish."
Part of the proposal establishes an offense for the possession of marijuana, but later on states, "If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds 200 grams, possession of marijuana is a fifth-degree felony drug abuse offense."
The proposed ordinance also states that persons convicted of violating the section "shall not be fined and no incarceration, probation, nor any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed."
"Although the proposed ordinance specifically prohibits any punishment for the offense, the language also states that the offense is a felony," the Supreme Court wrote. "Because the authority to define and to propose penalties for felonies is limited to the General Assembly, relators are not entitled to have a proposed ordinance that purports to enact a felony offense placed on the ballot."
The high court also held that administrative actions are not subject to initiative. Only those proposals that attempt to enact a law, ordinance or regulation are subject to initiatives, not those that seek to enact a law already in existence.
"In applying this test to the proposed ordinance, we conclude that significant portions of the proposed ordinance attempt to govern the execution of existing law rather than enact new law," the court held.
Sections of the proposal that would prohibit Norwood police from reporting the possession or sale of marijuana and prohibit the city attorney from prosecuting those offenses are "distinctly administrative," the court held. It also cited sections that would prohibit forfeiture based on violations of the ordinance and that would prohibit the suspension of a driver's license.
Sensible Norwood claimed that the provisions are legislative because its proposal would repeal and replace the city's current criminal law.
"However, the language reaches far beyond the enforcement of the proposed ordinance and attempts to prohibit the enforcement of existing state and federal controlled-substance laws," the Supreme Court wrote. "These provisions are clearly administrative."
The high court held that the board of elections properly refused to the place the proposal on the ballot and that Sensible Norwood was not entitled to a writ of mandamus because it did not establish a clear legal right or legal duty on the part of the part of elections.
"As we have previously acknowledged, election officials serve as gatekeepers, to ensure that only those measures that actually constitute initiatives or referenda are placed on the ballot," the high court wrote. "The Sensible Norwood proposed ordinance was properly rejected by the board of elections because it attempts to enact provisions that are beyond the scope of a municipality's authority to enact."
The decision was unanimous.
The case is cited State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5919.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Supreme Court Of Ohio - Marijuana Ballot Proposal For Cincinnati Neighborhood Struck Down By Justices
Author: Annie Yamson
Contact: (614) 228-6397
Photo Credit: Open Range Stock
Website: The Daily Reporter
Political action committee Sensible Norwood sought a writ of mandamus that would force the Hamilton County Board of Elections to place a proposed "Sensible Marihuana Ordinance" on the ballot in the city of Norwood.
The proposal sought to change ordinances regarding the use and sale of marijuana and hashish.
The high court, in a per curiam opinion, held that the ordinance would enact a felony and that it attempted to place administrative restrictions on the enforcement of existing laws.
Citing the Ohio Revised Code, Section 715.67, the Supreme Court noted that a municipal corporation may make violations of any of its ordinances a misdemeanor and then enforce those rules.
"However, the power to define and classify and prescribe punishment for felonies committed within the state is lodged in the General Assembly," the high court wrote. "The proposed ordinance purports to enact felony offenses and impose penalties for possessing or using marijuana and hashish."
Part of the proposal establishes an offense for the possession of marijuana, but later on states, "If the amount of the drug involved equals or exceeds 200 grams, possession of marijuana is a fifth-degree felony drug abuse offense."
The proposed ordinance also states that persons convicted of violating the section "shall not be fined and no incarceration, probation, nor any other punitive or rehabilitative measure shall be imposed."
"Although the proposed ordinance specifically prohibits any punishment for the offense, the language also states that the offense is a felony," the Supreme Court wrote. "Because the authority to define and to propose penalties for felonies is limited to the General Assembly, relators are not entitled to have a proposed ordinance that purports to enact a felony offense placed on the ballot."
The high court also held that administrative actions are not subject to initiative. Only those proposals that attempt to enact a law, ordinance or regulation are subject to initiatives, not those that seek to enact a law already in existence.
"In applying this test to the proposed ordinance, we conclude that significant portions of the proposed ordinance attempt to govern the execution of existing law rather than enact new law," the court held.
Sections of the proposal that would prohibit Norwood police from reporting the possession or sale of marijuana and prohibit the city attorney from prosecuting those offenses are "distinctly administrative," the court held. It also cited sections that would prohibit forfeiture based on violations of the ordinance and that would prohibit the suspension of a driver's license.
Sensible Norwood claimed that the provisions are legislative because its proposal would repeal and replace the city's current criminal law.
"However, the language reaches far beyond the enforcement of the proposed ordinance and attempts to prohibit the enforcement of existing state and federal controlled-substance laws," the Supreme Court wrote. "These provisions are clearly administrative."
The high court held that the board of elections properly refused to the place the proposal on the ballot and that Sensible Norwood was not entitled to a writ of mandamus because it did not establish a clear legal right or legal duty on the part of the part of elections.
"As we have previously acknowledged, election officials serve as gatekeepers, to ensure that only those measures that actually constitute initiatives or referenda are placed on the ballot," the high court wrote. "The Sensible Norwood proposed ordinance was properly rejected by the board of elections because it attempts to enact provisions that are beyond the scope of a municipality's authority to enact."
The decision was unanimous.
The case is cited State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5919.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Supreme Court Of Ohio - Marijuana Ballot Proposal For Cincinnati Neighborhood Struck Down By Justices
Author: Annie Yamson
Contact: (614) 228-6397
Photo Credit: Open Range Stock
Website: The Daily Reporter
