Jason is correct on one count. The Minneapolis City Attorney advised the City Council that they have the authority (and many would argue the responsibility) to reject a charter amendment if it conflicts with state or federal law. The "Medicinal Marijuana" amendment clearly did so and it was rejected by the City Council.
Jason is mistaken on three other counts. First, the Charter Commission does not have the authority to reject charter proposals no matter how outrageous or unlawful! There is nothing that the Charter Commission can do if petitioners want to proceed with collecting signatures. At that point, all the Charter Commission can do is to make sure the proposed amendment is correct as to form and length and does not conflict with other charter provisions. The petitioners were advised that state law makes is unlawful to sell and distribute marijuana (for any reason)and that their proposed amendment certainly would conflict - and they already knew that. The petitioners did generate enough signatures and the Charter Commission did bring the petitions to the City Council as required. Second, adding language that "activated" the amendment only if state or federal law was changed to allow the sale or distribution of marijuana still did not change the fact that the City Charter would be amended to authorize something that state law forbids. There was widespread agreement that using a "Trojan horse mechanism" such as this "activation" clause was a terrible precedent and ought to be rejected. Jason can argue all he wants that the "activation" clause made the amendment acceptable but the opinion of the City Attorney citing precedents in state law made it clear that Jason's argument does not hold up. Third, the Charter Commission did not "recommend that City Council prevent the question from being placed on the November ballot". We advised the City Council of the legal issues that had been raised and addressed but that they alone had the authority to decided what to do with the petition. We also advised that in our opinion, this was an issue that should be addressed by ordinance and not by charter but that was not sufficient reason for rejecting the petition. A final point. No one was "disenfranchised" by this decision. In fact, during testimony on this issue, it was evident that many signers - no one knows how many - thought they were signing a petition to legalize marijuana or at least legalize "medicinal marijuana" when in fact this would have done neither. Some of the petition organizers acknowledged that this effort was intended as a "referendum" on medicinal marijuana in an effort to "wake up" or to "put on notice" legislators that there was support for the legalization of medicinal marijuana in Minneapolis. In my opinion, the City Charter of Minneapolis ought not to be abused in this manner. Jim Bernstein Fulton Minneapolis Charter Commission -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason Samuels Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 12:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [Mpls] Council Members Goodman, Johnson & Medicinal Marijuana I also will not debate the merits of medical marijuana, but I must again correct Jim Bernstein's assertions about the Minneapolis petition. (For those unfamiliar with this issue: Last summer, a group that I coordinated submitted a charter amendment proposal through citizen initiative. After following all of the steps required by law to properly structure our proposal, we gathered and submitted petitions containing the signatures of 5% of the registered voters in the city. While the signatures were being certified by the Minneapolis Elections office, the Charter Commission, led by Jim Bernstein, voted to recommend that City Council prevent the question from being placed on the November ballot. At the Commission's request, the City Attorney's office issued an opinion stating that City Council has the power to keep a charter amendment question off of the ballot if (in their opinion) the measure conflicts with state or federal law. On August 20, 2004, City Council voted 8-4 to keep our proposal off of the ballot.) Mr. Bernstein's continued assertion that our proposal would authorize by charter an activity that is forbidden by state law is false. The amendment we put forth is explicitly worded to require that the city authorize, license and regulate the distribution of medical marijuana TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. The amendment is thus specifically structured to make city action contingent upon changes in state and federal law, and therefore does not force the city into any legal conflict. The intent of our amendment is to require that the city react to the legalization of medical marijuana by implementing municipal regulation. Unfortunately, Jim Bernstein refuses to acknowledge this contingency as valid. Instead he steadfastly ignores the amendment's true intent, and has used his position of leadership to assert that it is illegal. It was disappointing that City Council sided with the Charter Commission in August, but the real travesty in this story is that our petition was railroaded after the effort was complete. Any conflicts which would prevent placement of the initiative on the ballot should have been addressed when the Charter Commission approved the petition's language in late-2003. In November, Minneapolis voters were prevented from deciding upon an initiative which 12,500 residents of this city signed petitions for. Jim Bernstein led the effort to disenfranchise these voters, and residents of the 13th Ward should keep that in mind when considering him as a candidate for City Council. Jason Samuels Whittier Administrative Coordinator, Citizens Organized for Harm Reduction ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:49:13 -0600 From: "Jim Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [email protected], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250" I am not going to debate whether or not medicinal marijuana should be legal or not but I do need to correct Mr. Halfhill's assertion about council members Goodman and Johnson. Their opposition to the "referendum" (which was actually a charter proposal and not a referendum!) was not based on opposition to medicinal marihuana as such, but to amending the city charter to allow activity which is forbidden by state law. And, both agreed that if state law did allow cities to regulate the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, it should be done properly by ordinance and not by charter amendment. Council Member Goodman said quite emphatically that she believes use of marijuana for medicinal purposes should be lawful and fully supports efforts to make it so! Currently, the sale and distribution of marijuana is illegal in the state of Minnesota. The Minneapolis City Charter cannot permit what state law forbids! Jim Bernstein Fulton Chair, Minneapolis Charter Commission REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005 REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
