Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Nashville-Davidson County Metro Marijuana Decriminalization Initiative (August 2015)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Not on Ballot
Proposed ballot measures that were not on a ballot
This measure was not put
on an election ballot


Voting on Marijuana
Marijuana Leaf-smaller.gif
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

A Marijuana Decriminalization Initiative was not on the ballot for voters within the limits of the consolidated city-county metropolitan government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, on August 6, 2015. The initiative failed to qualify for the ballot because the group behind the initiative did not submit any petitions by the deadline on May 18, 2015.[1]

If approved, this initiative -- which was being sponsored by the Tennessee branch of NORML -- would have amended the metro charter to prevent any metro tax dollars from being used for the criminal prosecution of an adult for the possession of less than 2 ounces of marijuana.[2][3]

The initiative was designed to work around state law, which outlawed all marijuana use and possession. The proposed Nashville initiative would have simply prohibited the city-county government from using any public funds to enforce or prosecute against marijuana possession, rather than trying to legalize it, which would have put the local laws in conflict with state law. The initiative also contained a "private right of action" clause designed to provide citizens with standing to sue the metro government if it violated the initiative, receiving, if the suit was successful, $1,000 in damages and compensation for all attorney's fees and court costs.[2]

Support

Supporters

The Tennessee branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) was behind the initiative.[4]

Arguments in favor

Doak Patton, president of TN-NORML, said, "We would like to see resources devoted toward violent criminals, thieves and people who are needing to be locked away instead of nonviolent offenders. That's one of the reasons we've been pushing this."[2]

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in Tennessee

NORML activists needed to collect 6,877 valid signatures by a deadline on May 18, 2015, in order to qualify the initiative for the city-county's election on August 6, 2015. The signature requirement for the metro was calculated from ten percent of the number of votes cast by Nashville-Davidson County voters in the last general election. The members of TN-NORML working to circulate this initiative failed to submit any signatures by the deadline. The group announced that it had collected only 4,000 signatures, well short of the minimum threshold.[1][3]

Electronic signatures lawsuit

When activists originally proposed the signature petition campaign, they announced that the group wanted to use electronic signatures to help qualify the initiative for the ballot. The Davidson County election commission, a committee of five members responsible for approving signature petitions for charter amendments, said they would not allow electronic signatures. On January 15, 2014, this led Tennessee NORML, joined by an organization called Democracy Nashville, to file a lawsuit against the Davidson County election commission in Davidson County Chancery Court seeking to require the commission to accept electronic signatures. According to Daniel Horwitz, an attorney representing initiative petitioners, the lawsuit was based on the state's Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, which states that "if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law." In a 2012 opinion, however, former Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper (D) gave the opinion that this law was designed to apply to other, more individual uses of signatures and did not require election commissions to accept signatures collected via the internet for an initiative petition.[3]

Since this lawsuit was based on a state law, the outcome could have had a resounding effect on local petition processes throughout the state. It could have resulted in the possibility of using electronic signatures to put measures before voters wherever the initiative and referendum powers were allowed, thereby making the initiative process much more accessible.

Related measures

See also

External links

Additional reading

Footnotes