ResponsibleOhio Goes to Supreme Court Over Ballot Language

ResponsibleOhio

The battle for legal marijuana in Ohio is becoming more interesting and contentious as the state creeps closer to the 2015 November election. Earlier this month, the Ohio Ballot Board released ballot language for the proposed marijuana measure, Issue 3.

However, the group pushing the initiative, ResponsibleOhio, was quick to denounce the ballot language as false and misleading, leading the group to file a lawsuit with the Ohio Supreme Court over the issue on Aug. 27, 2015.

The suit was filed by former Ohio Supreme Court Justice and ResponsibleOhio Attorney, Andy Douglas.

“The language and title assigned to Issue 3 is demonstrably false,” Douglas told the Toledo Blade. “After receiving public comment, the ballot board and Secretary [of State Jon] Husted crafted the language and title with intent to mislead, deceive, and defraud the voters.”

In the complaint filed with the Supreme Court, Douglas details various omissions and contradictions between the ballot language and the actual amendment that it is supposed to represent.

For example, the ballot language for Issue 3 says that persons 21 years or older would be allowed to “purchase, grow, possess, use, transport and share over one-half pound of marijuana or its equivalent in marijuana-infused products at a time.”

However, the actual language of the measure clearly states that individuals would only be allowed to purchase one ounce at a time. Individuals are allowed to keep up to eight ounces in their home, but they cannot purchase, transport, or share that amount at one time.

“To place the word ‘purchase’ in his original submission,” writes Douglas, “…was clearly intentional and fraudulent as no place in the actual language of the Proposed Amendment is there any language that supports the notion that any more than a single ounce of marijuana may be purchased.”

Perhaps the biggest sticking point for ResponsibleOhio is the use of the words “monopoly” and “endows exclusive rights.” ResponsibleOhio claims that these words are prejudicial and are intended to frighten voters away from the measure.

Furthermore, the group contends that the term “monopoly” is factually incorrect. “The Proposed Amendment does not establish a ‘monopoly.’ A monopoly is commonly defined as control or advantage obtained by supplier or producer over a commercial market…”

Since Issue 3 would grant growing rights to 10 pre-selected growing sites, not one, the term monopoly would be incorrect. A more correct term would be oligopoly, but even that could be called into question since Issue 3 has mechanisms in place to allow for additional grow sites should demand exceed supply.

Unlike other cases, the Supreme Court will be working with a very short timeline to hear this case.  The ballot language must be finalized before Oct. 6, which is when residents will be able to start voting.

If you wish to stay up to date with this lawsuit as the facts develop, you can sign up for automatic e-mail alerts online with the Ohio Supreme Court’s website. For those interested, the case number is 2015-1411.

 

William Sumner is a freelance writer and marijuana journalist located in Panama City, FL. Passionate about writing, William is dedicated to journalistic integrity and providing quality insight on current events. You can follow him on Twitter @W_Sumner.

Related posts

Top