USA
Judge orders Brighton to put marijuana proposal to voters
Jennifer Eberbach, Livingston Daily
Fri, August 19, 2022
Marijuana businesses in Pinckney may make the long held secrecy of pot use a thing of the past.
A Livingston County judge ordered the city of Brighton to allow voters to decide whether recreational marijuana stores can open in the city after the city's clerk rejected signed ballot petitions from a citizen's group earlier this month on a technicality.
The city won't appeal Chief Circuit Court Judge Michael Hatty's order to put the question on the Nov. 8 ballot. A motion to appeal Hatty's decision failed in a 4-3 vote after council members went into a closed session to discuss it.
Mayor Pro Tem Jim Bohn said Friday city officials will hold a special meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Monday to review and approve ballot language.
"We have to comply with putting together ballot language," to submit to the county clerk, Bohn said.
City Clerk Tara Brown said Thursday she had not yet certified the petition because she had not yet received a copy of Hatty's final opinion and was waiting to see how city officials would decide to proceed.
A message seeking further comment was left with Brown Friday morning.
The Say Yes to Brighton Committee circulated ballot petitions to repeal the city's ban on adult-use retail marijuana establishments and allow at least two dispensaries to operate in the city.
The committee successfully collected 746 signatures, enough to get it on the ballot, and submitted petitions to Brown on Aug. 1, according to Livingston County court records.
MORE: Food Truck Fridays in downtown Pinckney expects biggest event yet on Friday
On Aug. 5, Brown notified the committee she had rejected the petitions due to a formatting issue that did not strictly comply with state election law.
The committee sued the city, its elections department and Brown, requesting an emergency hearing.
"Defendants (the city and Brown) are hereby enjoined from printing any ballots for the November 2022 general election that do not include the ballot question proposed by the Say Yes to Brighton Committee," Hatty wrote in an order signed Tuesday.
The city and Brown had an opportunity late Wednesday afternoon to make a case for why Hatty should not rule in the committee's favor at a show cause hearing.
John Janiszewski, an attorney representing Say Yes to Brighton Committee, with Detroit-based law firm Dykema Gossett, said Hatty ruled in the committee's favor at the hearing, upholding the terms of his previous order.
The judge's ruling "compels the city clerk to affirmatively act in a manner consistent with his ruling, meaning they have to certify everything and place the language on the ballot," Janiszewski said.
Messages seeking comment were left Thursday morning with Hatty's office and the city's attorney Michael Homier.
According to the ballot petition, voters would be asked whether to initiate an ordinance in the city that would allow for two adult-use retail marijuana establishments in the city, effective Dec. 1.
The petition language said the dispensaries would be allowed to offer delivery, drive-thru and exterior walk-up windows. The establishments would not be allowed within 800 feet of a public or private grade school or parks larger than 1 acre.
Will proposal make Nov. 8 ballot?
Livingston County Elections Coordinator Joseph Bridgman told the Livingston Daily Thursday that county elections officials are aware of the matter, but had not received any official notification from the city or court.
A message seeking further comment was left with Bridgman Friday morning.
The deadline for ballot language to be certified was Tuesday, and local clerks receiving ballot wording must forward it to the county clerk within two days of receiving it, he said Thursday.
Bridgman said the big question is whether the proposal will make it on the Nov. 8 ballot now that the deadlines have passed.
"At this point, the city hasn't certified it to us to be on the ballot."
Brown said she believes there would time to get it on the Nov. 8 ballot, depending on when the ballots are printed.
"It’s all a tight timeline, we’ll have to investigate that," she said.
In 2018, about 56% of voters in the city supported a state proposal that legalized recreational marijuana for adults 21 and older in the state.
Committee calls rejection 'frivolous'
"This is a frivolous attempt to disenfranchise the voters of the City of Brighton and should be rejected by the Court," the committee's attorneys argued in court documents.
Attorneys for the city argued Brown "properly performed her duties" and asked the court to dismiss the suit.
MORE: Howell nonprofit steps in to revive rundown motel in Howell Township
The city and Brown argued that a warning required to appear on ballot petitions was in the wrong place on the petitions.
The warning, which says if a petition circulator does not comply with election law, any signatures they collected will be invalid, appears on the upper right side of the petitions.
The city argued that the petitions were rejected because the warning should have appeared below a checkbox indicating whether the signature collector was paid or a volunteer.
In a letter Brown sent to the committee on Aug. 5, she said the petitions were rejected as "insufficient" due to the formatting issue.
"My job is pretty black and white, it’s to follow the law," Brown said Thursday. "That’s what I have to follow. I have no opinion on the matter, of course, because that's up for the voters to decide and not me."
City officials previously considered lifting the city's ban on marijuana businesses and creating an ordinance that would determine where in the city they could go and other regulations. They ultimately decided to reaffirm the ban.
Bohn said he was in favor of the city creating its own ordinance.
"I think the city needs to try to control their own destiny and have an ordinance," he said. "My view is we should try to get ahead of this and control where these would be best placed."
He said the process for creating an ordinance takes time and likely could not be done before the general election.
"With this one, I believe the train has left the station. It's basically fast-tracked, and we're heading down the home stretch now," he said.
Contact Livingston Daily reporter Jennifer Eberbach at jeberbach@livingstondaily.com.
This article originally appeared on Livingston Daily: Brighton ordered to put recreational marijuana proposal to voters
Jennifer Eberbach, Livingston Daily
Fri, August 19, 2022
Marijuana businesses in Pinckney may make the long held secrecy of pot use a thing of the past.
A Livingston County judge ordered the city of Brighton to allow voters to decide whether recreational marijuana stores can open in the city after the city's clerk rejected signed ballot petitions from a citizen's group earlier this month on a technicality.
The city won't appeal Chief Circuit Court Judge Michael Hatty's order to put the question on the Nov. 8 ballot. A motion to appeal Hatty's decision failed in a 4-3 vote after council members went into a closed session to discuss it.
Mayor Pro Tem Jim Bohn said Friday city officials will hold a special meeting at 7:30 p.m. on Monday to review and approve ballot language.
"We have to comply with putting together ballot language," to submit to the county clerk, Bohn said.
City Clerk Tara Brown said Thursday she had not yet certified the petition because she had not yet received a copy of Hatty's final opinion and was waiting to see how city officials would decide to proceed.
A message seeking further comment was left with Brown Friday morning.
The Say Yes to Brighton Committee circulated ballot petitions to repeal the city's ban on adult-use retail marijuana establishments and allow at least two dispensaries to operate in the city.
The committee successfully collected 746 signatures, enough to get it on the ballot, and submitted petitions to Brown on Aug. 1, according to Livingston County court records.
MORE: Food Truck Fridays in downtown Pinckney expects biggest event yet on Friday
On Aug. 5, Brown notified the committee she had rejected the petitions due to a formatting issue that did not strictly comply with state election law.
The committee sued the city, its elections department and Brown, requesting an emergency hearing.
"Defendants (the city and Brown) are hereby enjoined from printing any ballots for the November 2022 general election that do not include the ballot question proposed by the Say Yes to Brighton Committee," Hatty wrote in an order signed Tuesday.
The city and Brown had an opportunity late Wednesday afternoon to make a case for why Hatty should not rule in the committee's favor at a show cause hearing.
John Janiszewski, an attorney representing Say Yes to Brighton Committee, with Detroit-based law firm Dykema Gossett, said Hatty ruled in the committee's favor at the hearing, upholding the terms of his previous order.
The judge's ruling "compels the city clerk to affirmatively act in a manner consistent with his ruling, meaning they have to certify everything and place the language on the ballot," Janiszewski said.
Messages seeking comment were left Thursday morning with Hatty's office and the city's attorney Michael Homier.
According to the ballot petition, voters would be asked whether to initiate an ordinance in the city that would allow for two adult-use retail marijuana establishments in the city, effective Dec. 1.
The petition language said the dispensaries would be allowed to offer delivery, drive-thru and exterior walk-up windows. The establishments would not be allowed within 800 feet of a public or private grade school or parks larger than 1 acre.
Will proposal make Nov. 8 ballot?
Livingston County Elections Coordinator Joseph Bridgman told the Livingston Daily Thursday that county elections officials are aware of the matter, but had not received any official notification from the city or court.
A message seeking further comment was left with Bridgman Friday morning.
The deadline for ballot language to be certified was Tuesday, and local clerks receiving ballot wording must forward it to the county clerk within two days of receiving it, he said Thursday.
Bridgman said the big question is whether the proposal will make it on the Nov. 8 ballot now that the deadlines have passed.
"At this point, the city hasn't certified it to us to be on the ballot."
Brown said she believes there would time to get it on the Nov. 8 ballot, depending on when the ballots are printed.
"It’s all a tight timeline, we’ll have to investigate that," she said.
In 2018, about 56% of voters in the city supported a state proposal that legalized recreational marijuana for adults 21 and older in the state.
Committee calls rejection 'frivolous'
"This is a frivolous attempt to disenfranchise the voters of the City of Brighton and should be rejected by the Court," the committee's attorneys argued in court documents.
Attorneys for the city argued Brown "properly performed her duties" and asked the court to dismiss the suit.
MORE: Howell nonprofit steps in to revive rundown motel in Howell Township
The city and Brown argued that a warning required to appear on ballot petitions was in the wrong place on the petitions.
The warning, which says if a petition circulator does not comply with election law, any signatures they collected will be invalid, appears on the upper right side of the petitions.
The city argued that the petitions were rejected because the warning should have appeared below a checkbox indicating whether the signature collector was paid or a volunteer.
In a letter Brown sent to the committee on Aug. 5, she said the petitions were rejected as "insufficient" due to the formatting issue.
"My job is pretty black and white, it’s to follow the law," Brown said Thursday. "That’s what I have to follow. I have no opinion on the matter, of course, because that's up for the voters to decide and not me."
City officials previously considered lifting the city's ban on marijuana businesses and creating an ordinance that would determine where in the city they could go and other regulations. They ultimately decided to reaffirm the ban.
Bohn said he was in favor of the city creating its own ordinance.
"I think the city needs to try to control their own destiny and have an ordinance," he said. "My view is we should try to get ahead of this and control where these would be best placed."
He said the process for creating an ordinance takes time and likely could not be done before the general election.
"With this one, I believe the train has left the station. It's basically fast-tracked, and we're heading down the home stretch now," he said.
Contact Livingston Daily reporter Jennifer Eberbach at jeberbach@livingstondaily.com.
This article originally appeared on Livingston Daily: Brighton ordered to put recreational marijuana proposal to voters
No comments:
Post a Comment