>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <003101bf01d7$13cb24e0$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: AC turned on in DC's medical marijuana inititive >Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 06:09:44 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Yet another crack in the once-impregnable federal damning of medical >marijuana. The reign in falling hard. Can The Flood be far behind? > >My ark's ready. How about yours? > >Enjoy, > >Noah McWilliams > > > >================ > >Marijuana Vote To Be Released >Judge Unlocks D.C. Election Tally > >By Bill Miller Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, September 18, 1999; >Page B01 >http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-09/18/087l-091899-idx.html > >A federal judge ruled yesterday that Congress can no longer block the >release of election results on a District initiative to legalize the >medical use of marijuana. > >U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts's ruling clears the way for D.C. >voters to finally learn the outcome of a highly publicized election in >November that generated a fierce legal battle involving Congress, the >D.C. government, the American Civil Liberties Union and a host of >initiative supporters. A congressional amendment had kept the vote from >being made public in what city officials and activists contended was a >flagrant attack on citizens' rights. > >"Congress may have entirely understandable motives for attempting to curb >drug possession, use, and distribution in the District," the judge >declared in his 24-page opinion. "That does not change the fact that >keeping a veil over the results of a properly conducted referendum would >cut short public expression about the topic of drug legalization--either >pro, con or neutral." > >D.C. officials said they hoped to release the results as quickly as >possible, perhaps early next week. They said they needed additional time >to thoroughly review the decision and to convene a meeting of the D.C. >Board of Elections and Ethics. > >"Today's court decision is a clear and decisive win for self-government in >the District of Columbia," said Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D). "At long >last, the voters will be heard on this public health issue." > >Arthur Spitzer, the ACLU's legal director was pleased. "All I can say is, >'Bravo for Judge Roberts,' " said Spitzer, who argued the matter before >Roberts in a flurry of briefs and at a packed hearing in December. > >Initiative 59 would change D.C. law to legalize the possession, use, >cultivation and distribution of marijuana if recommended by a physician >for serious illnesses. Under current D.C. law, possession of marijuana is >a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of $1,000. > >The court dispute stemmed from an amendment Congress tacked onto last >year's D.C. appropriations bill that prohibited the District from >conducting any ballot initiative that would "legalize or otherwise reduce" > penalties for users of marijuana. The measure, sponsored by Rep. Robert >L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), was passed less than two weeks before the election. > >Because ballots already were printed by the time Congress acted, the vote >still took place; more than 137,000 people cast ballots. A computer >automatically tallied results but didn't put out the Initiative 59 count. > >That led to the lawsuit, filed by the ACLU on behalf of initiative >supporters. The suit asked for a court order requiring D.C. officials to >reveal the outcome and to certify the result. In an unusual twist, the >D.C. government sided with the parties filing the lawsuit. > >Arguing on behalf of Congress, the Justice Department contended Congress >did not overstep its bounds because it has authority over all aspects of >D.C. government and had a right to block a medical marijuana law either >before or after the election. > >Justice Department lawyers did not return telephone messages yesterday. > >Roberts, a former federal prosecutor who joined the bench last year, ruled >the Barr amendment did not specifically prohibit the counting, release >and certification of the vote, and so those actions could move forward. >But if the Barr amendment could be construed as an attempt to keep the >results secret and uncertified, Roberts said the measure would infringe >upon voters' rights. Congress, he said, has no right to prevent political >speech, despite its "unique relationship" in the governance of the >District. > >Once the election results are certified, Congress has 30 days either to do > nothing--and let the measure take effect, if it passed, or overturn it. > >Barr and his House colleagues acted again this summer, tacking an >amendment onto the fiscal 2000 D.C. appropriations bill to block the >legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The Senate passed the >amendment as part of the budget package Thursday. The White House has >threatened to veto the budget bill because of concerns about amendments. > > > > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: