Mississippi justices toss voter-backed marijuana initiative

ap ^

[algore]

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — Mississippi will remain in the minority of states without a medical marijuana program after the state Supreme Court on Friday overturned an initiative that voters approved last fall — a decision that also limits other citizen-led efforts to put issues on the statewide ballot.

At the heart of the ruling is the fact that initiatives need signatures from five congressional districts to get on the ballot, but because of Mississippi’s stagnant population, the state only has four districts.

Six justices ruled that the medical marijuana initiative is void because the state’s initiative process is outdated. Three justices dissented.

The initiative process was added to the Mississippi Constitution in the 1990s as Section 273. It requires petitioners trying to get any initiative on the ballot to gather one-fifth of signatures from each congressional district. Mississippi had five congressional districts at the time that was written. But the state dropped to four districts after the 2000 Census, and language dealing with the initiative process was never updated.

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice James Maxwell wrote that he believes the secretary of state correctly put Initiative 65 on the ballot. Maxwell wrote that the majority opinion “confidently and correctly points out” that the Supreme Court cannot amend the state constitution.

“Yet the majority does just that — stepping completely outside of Mississippi law — to employ an interpretation that not only amends but judicially kills Mississippi’s citizen initiative process,” Maxwell wrote.

[algore]

Citizen sheep, your Initiatives mean a lot to us, we promise and pinkie swear

[who_would_fardels_bear]

The good news is that it will force the Mississippi politicians to actually do their job and update the law.

I imagine their too busy collecting bribes from lobbyists and grandstanding on trendy issues to actually show up and do their effing jobs.

[Svartalfiar]

The initiative process was added to the Mississippi Constitution in the 1990s as Section 273. It requires petitioners trying to get any initiative on the ballot to gather one-fifth of signatures from each congressional district. Mississippi had five congressional districts at the time that was written. But the state dropped to four districts after the 2000 Census, and language dealing with the initiative process was never updated.

From each Congressional district? Or from five Congressional districts? How exactly was the law worded? If it says "five", then yea, I agree with the judges and the law needs fixin'. If it says "each", and the judges are applying that to the districts that existed at the time (five then instead of four now), then they need to be disbarred and shot. Obviously the districts will change, possibly go up or down in number. Also, those five districts are still there, they just aren't legally recognized as those five distinct groups anymore. So as long as the signatures were widely enough gathered, they should still have 1/5 from each geographical area that used to be such five districts. Did these judges look at where every single signature came from to ensure they weren't so spread?

[JohnBrowdie]

the FR dope corner is so angry they’re thinking about smashing their doritos. maybe after a nap.

what, what did you say?

[kingu]

The fatal flaw in the law was basing it off of congressional districts rather than state designations.

[algore]

According to the Mississippi Constitution, “The signatures of the qualified electors from any congressional district shall not exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of signatures required to qualify an initiative petition for placement upon the ballot.” However, since 2001 redistricting, Mississippi only has four US House Districts. While this seems to cap signatures at 4/5 of the required amount, a 2009 attorney general’s opinion argued that signatures should be distributed among the five districts in existence when initiative and referendum processes were established in 1992.

[algore]

Now that I think about this, it would still have been nearly impossible to get exactly the same amount of valid signatures from each congressional dist even when they had 5

I have heard the state of Wa has similar initiative rules that allow the court to invalidate any citizen initiative at will

[Farcesensitive]

This stupid ruling will do nothing but cause chaos.
If using the old district lines wasn’t good enough (which it should have been) then they should have ruled that signatures had to be equally divided between however many districts there currently are.

[Ron H.]

the FR dope corner is so angry they’re thinking about smashing their doritos. maybe after a nap.

what, what did you say?

Heh heh heh........ after munchie time.

[Islander7]

Good! The issue, as presented on the ballot, was designed to confuse voters to pass some version of it regardless. If it is again brought up for a vote, it should be in plain language with a simple yes or no. Not worded in the rigged and deceptive multiple choice of the first vote.

[Svartalfiar]

According to the Mississippi Constitution, “The signatures of the qualified electors from any congressional district shall not exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of signatures required to qualify an initiative petition for placement upon the ballot.” However, since 2001 redistricting, Mississippi only has four US House Districts. .

Yea, that certainly is worded to not allow any citizen initiatives now. Even so, that was a stupid methodology back then - you would need to have an exactly equal amount of signatures from each district. If it was 10M, 10M, 10M, 10M, and 10,001, then that would be invalid as that last district exceeds the 1/5 cap. If it was worded as a minimum (each district must be at least 1/5 the minimum total signatures required), that would make more sense. For the current problem and in general.
Heck, that wording means that even if all five districts were equal, but they all exceeded the minimum needed by 10%, that would be an invalid referendum...


While this seems to cap signatures at 4/5 of the required amount, a 2009 attorney general’s opinion argued that signatures should be distributed among the five districts in existence when initiative and referendum processes were established in 1992

While this is how I phrased it in my first post, your actual text doesn't support this. Those 5 districts no longer actually exists - there's just geographical boundaries where they used to be. "From each Congressional district" can't be defined as any past districting, that can only really be legally read as the current setup. Or you open all sorts of issues with ANYTHING that depends on Congressional districts - people will pick and choose any past configuration to support what they currently want to do, whichever best helps them. Obviously not doable.

[discostu]

No it won’t. Quite the opposite. Politicians hate that the people can get stuff on the ballot and maybe even pass it. Politicians want to do all the law writing and budget spending, they don’t care about the voice of the people. From where they sit this is great news, Mississippi no longer has ballot initiatives, politicians are in charge.

[Svartalfiar]

If using the old district lines wasn’t good enough (which it should have been) then they should have ruled that signatures had to be equally divided between however many districts there currently are.

And that would be judicial activism, with them rewriting the law to fit what outcome they decided on.

Old district lines don't work - The law specifies the signatures must be split between Congressional districts, not geographical areas that used to be Congressional districts.

Ruling they need to be split rewrites the law - it states that each district cannot contribute more than 1/5 of the minimum needed for the ballot to pass. Changing that to 1/4 or 1/# is something the Legislature has to do, not something judges even can do.

[Svartalfiar]

This stupid ruling will do nothing but cause chaos.

Forgot to add - it's not a stupid ruling, it was an extremely stupidly written law. See my post 11 for why it was dumb even back when MI had five districts.

[Vaduz]

There goes their bad of weed for a vote initiative.

[NobleFree]

the FR dope corner is so angry

I'm assuming you mean pro-legalizers; I'm not the least bit angry (although mildly appalled at how badly Section 273 was written) since the tide continues to roll liberty's way.

[NobleFree]

The full language, from https://www.sos.ms.gov/Education-Publications/Documents/Downloads/Mississippi_Constitution.pdf, is below. As long as EACH of FIVE districts contributed AT LEAST 1/5 of the total required number, the initiative would have qualified. (Still doesn’t work for only four districts.)

“The signatures of the qualified electors from any congressional
district shall not exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of signatures
required to qualify an initiative petition for placement upon the ballot.
If an initiative petition contains signatures from a single congressional
district which exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of required
signatures, the excess number of signatures from that congressional district
shall not be considered by the Secretary of State in determining whether
the petition qualifies for placement on the ballot.”

[Farcesensitive]

The ruling rewrites the law no matter how you rule.
And this ruling does away with citizen initiatives which is a much greater rewriting of the law.

[jmacusa]

And as soon as some drunken lout has finished beating his wife's face to a pulp he'll chime in too.

[Svartalfiar]

If an initiative petition contains signatures from a single congressional district which exceed one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of required signatures, the excess number of signatures from that congressional district shall not be considered by the Secretary of State in determining whether the petition qualifies for placement on the ballot

Ah, algore's post didn't include that follow-on sentence. So scratch the parts of my post about each district needing to be exactly equal. BUT, you are correct that with less than five districts, the wording of the Constitution does not allow for citizen initiatives at all. A very simple (odd) oversight that should not have happened when the law was written.