Posted on 02/17/2003 8:36:37 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
Alaska Libertarians file suit over rejected hemp initiative
[February 17] Alaska Libertarians and other anti-drug war activists have filed a lawsuit against the state's lieutenant governor for rejecting an initiative to decriminalize hemp.
On January 28, the Free Hemp in Alaska (FHA) organization filed a lawsuit in Superior Court in Anchorage to force the state to place the initiative on the August 2004 ballot.
In the lawsuit, FHA attorney Ken Jacobus argued that initiative backers filed enough signatures to qualify the measure, even though they failed to follow all of the state's record-keeping rules.
"Why disenfranchise thousands of voters?" asked FHA Chair Scot Dunnachie. "Maybe it's because the lieutenant governor is afraid of letting the democratic process work."
If passed by voters, the initiative would legalize hemp farming and end the prosecution of adults for marijuana offenses. It would also allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana like alcohol or tobacco.
FHA activists had turned in 51,000 signatures -- compiled into 484 petition books -- on November 14, 2002. According to state law, only 28,782 signatures are required to qualify an initiative.
However, Lt. Governor Loren Leman notified the FHA on January 14 that the initiative had been rejected, saying the state Division of Elections could not verify 194 of the 484 petition books. That left the FHA 7,045 signatures short of the legal requirement.
The Division of Elections said the FHA did not file so-called accountability reports with the 194 rejected petition booklets. The reports identify the person who circulated the petitions contained in that booklet.
But the FHA argued in its lawsuit that such accountability reports have been rendered moot by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Originally, sponsor accountability forms were important because they let initiative backers know if anyone circulating a petition was not a registered voter," said Alvin A. Anders, the FHA treasurer and past LP candidate for lieutenant governor.
"But in 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation ruled that you did not have to be a registered voter to petition your government," he said. "This ruling makes sponsor accountability forms a waste of taxpayer money, a waste of election officials' time, and a ridiculous reason to disenfranchise thousands of voters."
In addition, the Constitutional right to petition the government trumps the state's requirement for accountability reports, argued Jacobus.
"When you balance this Constitutional right against an administrative requirement, the Constitutional right wins," he said.
Had the Division of Elections checked the remaining 194 petition books, the initiative would have almost certainly qualified, since the other petitions had a validity rate of 78%, said Anders.
That's why "voters should be given the chance to decide," said Tim Hinterberger, the primary sponsor of the initiative and an associate professor in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Alaska (Anchorage.
Listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Hinterberger, Anders, and Dunnachie.
_ _ _ _ _ m _ ?
Hey, at least they're up front about it. All or nothing.
If they had restricted the issue to Medical MJ or to Industrial Hemp, the WOD fascists would all accuse them of "creating a backdoor to legalization of all drugs".
I personally see nothing wrong with legalizing Marijuana.
_ _ _ _ _ m _ ?
H o t L a m b
O l d C o m b
T o o D u m b
W a r C a m p
W e t D a m p
B i g L u m p
H o t D a m n
R e d L a m p
O l d B o m b
They claim their initiative to legalize pot commerce should have been placed on the ballot. They cite as authority a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution should overrule state law and thereby force the state to allow non-registered persons to gather signatures for state-wide initiatives.
Here's the hubris and duplicity...
In order to get their initiative on the ballot, the Libertarians are running to court to argue that whenever provisions of the U.S. Constitution conflict with state law, that the Supremacy Clause controls and the Constitution wins. "Tenth Amendment? We don't need no stinkin' Tenth Amendment!"
(You read that right, folks. That is the LP, the Party of Principle, arguing for the supremacy of federal rights over state rights!!!)
But if they are ever successful in passing their initiative to engage in the marijuana trade and the DEA objects, the Libertarians will be the first ones running back to the same court to argue the opposite, that whenever provisions of the U.S. Constitution conflict with state law, that the Tenth Amendment controls and state law wins. "Supremacy Clause? We don't need no stinkin' Supremacy Clause!"
Well, which one is it, Libertarians? Does the Supremacy Clause trump the Tenth Amendment, or not? Or does it just depend on the meaning of "is"?
--Boot Hill
It depends on which interpretation puts dope in their pockets the f'ustest with the mostest.
Paw prints from seals, bears, and wolves don't qualify as "signatures."
Good try, though, dopeheads.
More like "Doobiethink."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.