Overriding the Overrulers of the Recreational Marijuana Vote

[XLFD]

Tonight the Scottville City Commission had the first reading of an ordinance designed to opt out of having recreational marijuana retail facilities in the city limits.  Earlier, in December, you may have remembered they unanimously passed a resolution to do so, but it was found they needed something stronger, like the ordinance Ludington had passed unanimously at their December 17 meeting banning such retail facilities.  Between those two municipalities, Amber Township looks poised to do the same beginning tomorrow.  You can presume they will opt out being that 53% of the voters in the township voted against Proposal 1 legalizing marijuana.

Yet that wasn't the case in either of the two cities, where Ludington passed Proposal 1 with 54.5% of the votes, and Scottville passed the measure with 58.1% of the vote, with a combined vote close to how it passed statewide (55.9%).  Another surprise is that the PM Township only had 40.6% of their voters approve recreational marijuana, only 2 in 5, and has yet to consider anything regarding opting out.

America is a democratic republic, where elected representatives are supposed to reflect the will of the people.  The popular mandate in November was quite clear, recreational marijuana (RM) won by double digits even with a rather complicated ballot proposal.  It was no secret, however, that with legalization the retail establishments would follow. 

So why is the Scottville Commission deciding to opt out when almost three out of five electors voted to opt in to that future?  Conversely, why isn't PM Township considering opting out when a higher percentage of their voters made it clear that they wanted nothing to do with recreational weed? 

When representative democracies fail, there is a mechanism available to the voters to redress the damage:  the initiative.  Proposal 1, initiated law itself, offers the electorate the direct ability to initiate an override of a ban on RM facilities (an opt out).  It also allows the same voter initiative to opt out if the governing body does not (like the PM Twp. case).

Section 6 of the new law states:  "Individuals may petition to initiate an ordinance to provide for the number of marihuana establishments allowed within a municipality or to completely prohibit marihuana establishments within a municipality, and such ordinance shall be submitted to the electors of the municipality at the next regular election when a petition is signed by qualified electors in the municipality in a number greater than 5% of the votes cast for governor by qualified electors in the municipality at the last gubernatorial election."

Simplified, if a local petition committee organizes and gets enough signatures, they can reverse a RM retail facility ban by their representatives, or alternately, create a ban on such establishments if their representatives fail to do so.  If they are able to get a majority of votes in the next regular election on the amount of facilities expressed in the proposal (none to unlimited).  

Specifically, since there were 3556 votes for governor in the six wards of Ludington, 5% of that number is 177.8, so at least 178 confirmed signatures of voters registered in Ludington are needed for any initiated petition.  In Scottville, where 402 people cast votes for governor, only 21 signatures are needed.  PM Township had 1300 votes for governor, a petition with 65 votes to ban retail facilities could be made.  

Such petitions must still follow Michigan election law and the city/township code they are made in, although the required signatures will probably be a bit lower than the usual number needed for a general initiative.  In Ludington, Section 7.5 of their code explains the procedure which basically amounts to assembling a 5 member petition committee, drafting a proposal delineating the number of facilities allowed, getting the signatures, having the city clerk certify the petition as sufficient, getting the council to either pass it unchanged within 60 days, repeal the opt-out ordinance, or send it to the voters.

If the latter happens, and there is no regular elections scheduled within a year, the council must decide on a special election before that year deadline.  An ambitious petition committee may be able to get the initiated proposal before the City of Ludington voters in the May special election, where they are already voting on whether to accept the raising of the school's debt millage to pay for the proposed renovations to Ludington schools. 

The Ludington Torch dares citizens of Ludington and Scottville (with similar initiative procedures) to challenge their elected local representatives and send a message that your vote 'for' or 'against' something actually means 'something' and start the initiative process if they go against the will of the local voters.  When nearly two-thirds of the voters in the Fourth and Sixth Ward vote for proposal one, it should be automatic that a councilor would respect that mandate, rather than remain quiet and vote against the will of those who elected them to the post.  Oops, those two councilors were appointed by their peers on the council, so they can surely rationalize their vote following the will of their electors.

Oh, how many drinking establishments do we have in the downtown, and yet our leaders want more and more events centered around drinking alcohol in order to bring in more money. December's weed-prudes are every-day's alcohol-pushers.  Approving the expansion of Brrrrewfest with ardor then railing against marijuana retail businesses with the same ardor.

Personally, the author has no use for recreational marijuana or pot-retail facilities and is greatly prone to ridicule and/or pity the recreational marijuana users he interacts with, but I would quickly sign a Ludington petition that would allow any number of marijuana retailers in the city.  The integrity of our republic and of the popular vote is more important to me than any belief I have in the dangers of marijuana.  Nor do I appreciate the precedent of the city council telling the public what legitimately conceived businesses can exist in Ludington, and which cannot.  

[Willy]

The voters had their way. The law legalizes weed and gives municipalities the right to opt out of the sales end of it. Everything is as it should be and is going according to the law. The same voters who approved legal weed also voted for their representatives to prevent pot shops from springing up all over town. This is what pot smokers approved. By the way there was a mandate to approve weed but no mandate for municipalities to allow it to be sold inside City limits.

[XLFD]

Correct, but the initiated law did provide for an expedited, lawful, way by the citizens to reverse the decision of a council acting against the will of the locals by making the initiative process easier to achieve.

As noted this process could go either way.  If the PM Twp. Board does not opt out and passively allows marijuana retail businesses to crop up, petitioners could submit a petition to opt out, and they would likely win since only 2 in 5 voted for Prop 1.  

It must also be noted that Scottville will move forward with an ordinance to opt out, a decision made at last night's meeting.   Kudos to Commissioner Sue Petipren who from my own personal contacts with her likely is against RM, but voted against the ordinance claiming:  “I have a problem that we have gone this far, and both wards have shown us that they want … marijuana, and as a commissioner, I feel we need to go with their wishes.  I hear (constituents) crying for medical marijuana, and I want to support that.”

When Mayor Bruce Krieger tried to claim that 55 of 56 citizens he talked with was against medical marijuana (a 2008 initiative that passed with 60% of the vote in Mason County with increasing acceptance since) she defended her stance:  “There’s no question that they want it,” Petipren replied. “And I would like to support that.”  Recent polling of older Michiganders (50-80 y.o.), a demographic that runs counter to RM, shows 80% approve medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. 

It's a rare local politician nowadays that actually listens and heeds the will of the local voters, rather than one who caves into official peer pressure; we need some of those in Ludington.  On all issues where the voter's will is known.

[Willy]

At least one thing has been revealed by this election.  We now know where most of the potheads in Ludington live.

[XLFD]

I believe there's a bit of truth to that statement, since the areas I would associate with drug involvement in Ludington would be in the wards which passed the proposal rather handily.  

[snide]

This bunch of head-in the-sand commissioners think you should just get drunk ...as God intended.

[XLFD]

Let's just say that you won't see these guys ever considering an opt-out plan for serving alcoholic beverages at DDA-sponsored events.

[Freedom Seeker]

I was shocked that the news almost gloated over the report that more than 1300? inebriated individuals rode the buses/taxis home from new years ball drop.  Glad they weren't driving, but imo it shows how much alcohol is going on.  Latest DDA minutes give a hint at how much DDA contributes to the rides?  I realize this subsidy comes from the business DDA tax, but are all the DDA employees and DPW workers also paid out of DDA funds or are they mixed together in such a way that the homeowning taxpayer ends up funding DDA drunken revelries by paying salaries/overtime of DPW employees?  Brrewfest and St patties drinking events next!!  Yay, go team!!   I guess this is what is considered bringing business to Ludington.  I personally won't smoke recreational marijuana cause I believe any smoke in the lungs is not healthy but I think it a bit hypocritical that Ludington opts out of the recreational shops that may provide other alternative-type marijuana products.  What would the DDA think of having marijuana-baked goods festival?  They could call it Brownies in the Snowflakes.  It'd be about the same as promoting drinking alcohol at the brrewfest, wouldn't it?