Florida voters will have the opportunity to legalize recreational marijuana at the ballot box this November, after the state Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge brought by the state's attorney general and ruled that the proposal didn't violate a state rule restricting ballot measures to only one subject.The ruling comes after the high court twice rejected earlier efforts to put the question on a ballot after finding those two proposals to be misleading. This November's ballot question requires a supermajority approval of 60% from voters in order to pass. The state's highest court determined in a 5-2 decision that the ballot initiative did not violate Florida's single-subject rule, which holds that a ballot measure cannot ask voters to weigh in on more than one topic in a single vote, simply because it sought to legalize pot and regulate its sale. "Allowing businesses to distribute personal-use marijuana, and authorizing individuals to possess it, are logically and naturally related as part of a dominant plan or scheme," Justice Jamie R. Grosshans wrote for the majority. "Legalization of marijuana presumes the product will be available for the consumer." The opinion continued, "Selling and possessing marijuana appear, for better or worse, directly connected, and we cannot say that an amendment addressing both components violates the single-subject requirement." The majority also rejected an argument advanced by the measure's opponents that the ballot initiative deceived voters by implying that the recreational ballot question would authorize new businesses to sell marijuana beyond those already licensed under the existing medical cannabis program. "We do not believe the summary would confuse a voter into thinking that the Legislature is required to authorize additional licenses or that the amendment itself establishes a licensing scheme," the majority opinion said. Finally, the justices repudiated the claim advanced by the initiative's opponents that the ballot measure was "facially invalid" under the U.S. Constitution due to the federal prohibition on marijuana in the Controlled Substances Act. "We decline to make that broad finding here," Justice Grosshans wrote. "A detailed analysis of the potential conflict between sections of this amendment and federal law is a task far afield from the core purpose of this advisory proceeding under the Florida Constitution." In a dissent, Justice Renatha Francis wrote that the ballot initiative both misled voters and violated the single-subject rule. The dissent criticized the majority for adopting a "malleable standard" in finding that there was a shared purpose in legalizing cannabis and regulating its sale. "As it relates to this case, personal use and commercialization of marijuana aren't even two sides of the same coin," Justice Francis wrote. "If the matters directly connected to the 'subjects' are different, it's plain to me that the subjects themselves are different." The dissent continued, "At bottom, using marijuana as an individual and growing it for commercial sale and consumption implicate different criminal and regulatory schemes." In another dissent, Justice Meredith Sasso argued that the ballot initiative deceived voters by suggesting that it would, on its own, pave the way for other entities to begin selling legal marijuana in Florida, when this would actually require an act of the state Legislature. "Rather than being forthcoming with voters and explaining that the Legislature may choose to replicate the medical marijuana market by limiting entities that may sell marijuana to [medical marijuana treatment centers], the ballot summary instead suggests that the initiative affirmatively 'allows' other state licensed entities to sell," Justice Sasso wrote. Monday's ruling comes after the Florida Supreme Court, in 2021, killed two previous efforts to put a recreational cannabis legalization question before voters. Florida's Republican attorney general, Ashley Moody, brought this latest challenge to the proposed constitutional amendment in May 2023, saying that it failed to meet "substantive and technical requirements" under the state law. The Florida Chamber of Commerce joined Moody in opposition to the measure, claiming during oral arguments in November that it violated the single-subject rule by both legalizing personal use and possession of cannabis and by containing prongs about regulating its commercial sales. Support for the ballot initiative has come primarily from the Sunshine State's largest medical marijuana company, Trulieve, which has 134 dispensaries in the state and last week sold more than one-third of all legal medical marijuana in Florida, according to the state Department of Health's Office of Medical Marijuana. The company has poured approximately $40 million into the political action committee behind the effort, Smart & Safe Florida, according to documents collected by Florida's Department of State. Trulieve CEO Kim Rivers said in a statement on Monday, "We are thankful that the court has correctly ruled the ballot initiative and summary language meets the standards for single subject and clarity. We look forward to supporting this campaign as it heads to the ballot this fall." Rivers' statement continued, "Trulieve was the primary financial supporter of the initiative during the signature gathering effort and subsequent court challenge and is a proud supporter, alongside a strong coalition of other companies, of the next important phase to educate Floridians on the amendment and secure a yes vote on Amendment 3 this November." If approved by a 60% majority of voters in November, the initiative would take effect six months after Election Day and would amend the state constitution to legalize the recreational use of cannabis. Currently, medical dispensaries licensed in the state are authorized to sell cannabis products only to registered patients, and cannabis use and possession outside the medical marijuana program is still illegal. The proposal approved Monday does not include provisions for expungement of cannabis convictions or for allowing home cultivation of marijuana. The Florida justices' ruling was applauded by marijuana legalization advocates, who noted that the Sunshine State's 60% threshold for approval represented the next major challenge for reformers. "This is one of the most important cannabis legalization campaigns in recent years," said Matthew Schweich, executive director of the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project. "We have the opportunity to end the injustice of cannabis prohibition for over 22 million Americans." Also on Monday, the Florida Supreme Court allowed a ballot initiative that would preserve abortion access to be placed before voters. In response to the two rulings, Moody wrote on Twitter that the decisions highlight "the difficulties and divisiveness of allowing vague and misleading initiatives on the ballot." Moody continued, "We have argued from the beginning that these two new constitutional initiatives will mislead voters. We maintain that it will be an uphill battle to educate them. However, we respect the court's decisions." The marijuana legalization measure had the support of the libertarian think tank Cato Institute and the Medical Marijuana Business Association of Florida, both of which filed briefs urging the court to send the initiative to voters. The ACLU of Florida filed a brief that did not take a position on the merits of cannabis legalization, but urged the state Supreme Court to stop inserting itself into the ballot initiative process by deciding which proposed amendments are valid. In opposition, the Drug Free America Foundation, a nongovernmental organization that opposes cannabis legalization and advocates for drug abstinence, filed a brief arguing an amendment would be invalid because it conflicts with federal law. Smart & Safe Florida is represented by Glenn Burhans Jr. of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson PA, Dan Humphrey, John F. Bash, Ellyde R. Thompson and Rachel G. Frank of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and Barry Richard. The Office of the Attorney General of Florida is represented by its own Ashley Moody, Henry C. Whitaker, Jeffrey Paul DeSousa and Daniel W. Bell. The case is Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General Re: Adult Personal Use of Marijuana, case number SC23-0682, in the Supreme Court of the State of Florida.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Categories |