Our View

Our View

DQ of pot measure shows merits of tough initiative policy

There seems to be a new controversy brewing over the recent Arkansas Supreme Court ruling disqualifying a ballot issue on legalizing medical marijuana and it focuses on a state law that puts our very own Sen. Keith Ingram, D-West Memphis, right smack dab in the middle.

Justice Courtney Goodson said she believed the court had absolutely no choice but to disqualify the Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act, citing a state law she said places undue burdens on the citizen-driven initiative process.

In her opinion, Justice Goodson said Act 1413 of 2013 “imposes arduous and burdensome requirements to the procedures for circulating and filing petitions for initiatives and referenda.”

“By enacting such obstacles, the act imposes a chilling effect on the rights of our citizens to initiate laws,” Justice Goodson said in a concurring opinion as she joined with the court’s 5-member majority in disqualifying Issue 7 three days after the start of early voting.

The ruling, based on Ingram’s sponsored law, outraged supporters who gathered for a protest outside the state Supreme Court recently following the ruling saying it invoked Donald Group’s allegations of a rigged election.

Lawmakers who backed Ingram’s sponsored measure say they have reduced the chances of Arkansas’ laws being changed through fraudulent means.

Let us point out that Act 1413 was passed in response to irregularities in petitions that were submitted in support of ballot measures in 2012. At that time the law required that paid canvassers register with the secretary of state before collecting signatures.

Then, last year lawmakers passed Act 1219 of 2015, which just added more restrictions, including a requirement that every paid canvasser under go a criminal background check conducted by the Arkansas State Police and that every paid canvasser sign an oath that he or she has never been convicted of a felony or any offense involving of election laws, fraud, forgery or identification theft.

One of the reasons Ingram gave in his reasons for sponsoring the legislation was based on a situation in 2012 pertaining to a proposed casino proposal. He said in Mississippi County, just north of Crittenden County canvassers simply turned in signature pages one after another that were all in alphabetical order.

Ingram said, “They just went through the phone book. It was the darnedest thing you’ve ever seen. It just to where it was out of control.”

In 2013, Act 1413 was the subject of a lawsuit which was struck down by the Supreme Court.

When questioned about the law Ingram said, “When you’re talking about our constitution, you’re talking about something that’s very serious and has wide-ranging impact.”

An important point needs to be brought up regarding this latest controversy. We have to concur with Ingram in that our constitution is very serious and at no time should it be tampered with through illicit activity by self-serving interest groups pushing radical agendas.

As we’ve repeatedly pointed out, these highly controversial marijuana issues should be highly scrutinized and any hint whatsoever of wrongdoing as to the petition process should be seriously addressed. This applies to any proposed initiative and involves our state constitution, including those sponsored by politicians. While seemingly unfair by critics and Justice Goodson, it is our opinion Act 1413 and Act 1219 are legitimate based on previous improprieties caused by the lack of safeguards in the process.