Katelyn Baker
Well-Known Member
The future of commercial marijuana in Pueblo County will be up to the voters.
District Judge Jill Mattoon on Monday granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by pro-pot group Growing Pueblo's Future that deemed the petition circulated by anti-pot organization Citizens for a Healthy Pueblo was unconstitutional.
A motion to amend the complaint by the pro-pot group was denied as well.
The ballot question will ask voters to decide if the sale and growing of commercial marijuana in Pueblo County should be ousted.
The pro-pot group said it will not appeal the judge's decision.
Daniel Oldenburg, a member of and legal counsel for Citizens for a Healthy Pueblo, said the group is pleased with the court's decision.
"The court recognized principles of fundamental fairness and halted the marijuana industry's attempt to deny the citizens of Pueblo County the right to vote and make their community a safer, healthier place," Oldenburg said.
"Growing Pueblo's Future engaged in unprecedented tactics to keep the people of Pueblo from the polls. Their insidious efforts to change the law (increasing the signature threshold to 15 percent) and then attempting to apply the new legislation retroactively failed to pass judicial scrutiny. We look forward to seeing our initiative referred to the ballot and the voice of the people heard."
Growing Pueblo's Future representatives said they will continue to fight for the industry.
"We look forward to a robust campaign explaining to the citizens of Pueblo how closing down existing grows, infused product manufacturers and stores would severely harm the local economy and destroy 1,300 jobs, send the construction industry back to 2008, while sending tax revenue to communities up north," said Kyle Forti, spokesperson for Growing Pueblo's Future.
On April 21, Growing Pueblo's Future filed a lawsuit against Pueblo County Clerk and Recorder Gilbert "Bo" Ortiz and members of the anti-pot group claiming that the is unconstitutional and violates Amendment 64, the 2012 constitutional change that legalized retail marijuana in Colorado.
Pueblo County attorney Greg Styduhar and Oldenburg, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Mattoon Granted the motion Monday.
Denver lawyer David Fine, council for Growing Pueblo's Future, was asking Mattoon to amend the complaint in lieu of new Colorado legislation.
The state Legislature passed House Bill 1261 on June 10, requiring 15 percent of all registered voters as a signature requirement for this type of issue.
The petition as it remains now, requires the signatures of 5 percent of the registered electorate. Citizens for a Healthy Pueblo turned more than 9,000 petitions over to Ortiz on June 15, which met the requirements.
In her court order released Monday, Mattoon said the defendants' motions to dismiss involve a purely legal question: Does Amendment 64 require counties to deviate from the default 5 percent?
Mattoon said she maintained that Amendment 64 is clear as written and must be read in harmony.
She said the court notes that Colorado laws specific to alcohol regulation impose numerous requirements and prohibitions that are not applicable to retail marijuana establishments, and the mention of alcohol regulation did not necessarily demonstrate an intent to engraft all alcohol regulations directly into Amendment 64.
"Amendment 64 authorizes a county-wide initiated measure but prescribes no specific signature threshold," Mattoon said.
"Because the signature threshold applies as a matter of law, even accepting all allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted."
Mattoon in regard to the motion to amend the complaint said, "Because changing the signature requirement at this stage would modify the petitioners' pre-existing rights and obligations, the court holds that House Bill 16-1261 does not apply here."
The judge said the right to a 5 percent signature threshold accrued when the petitioners filed notice of their initiated measure and sought approval as to form - and before the adoption of HB1261.
"By filing on April 8, 2016, the co-defendants' rights and the Clerk's obligations in connection with the signature threshold were defined as of that day."
She also said HB1261 does not apply retroactively, it does not alter the signature threshold in this case.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Judge Dismisses Pro-Pot Group's Suit
Author: Anthony A. Mestas
Contact: (719) 544-3520
Photo Credit: Salwan Georges
Website: The Pueblo Chieftain
District Judge Jill Mattoon on Monday granted a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by pro-pot group Growing Pueblo's Future that deemed the petition circulated by anti-pot organization Citizens for a Healthy Pueblo was unconstitutional.
A motion to amend the complaint by the pro-pot group was denied as well.
The ballot question will ask voters to decide if the sale and growing of commercial marijuana in Pueblo County should be ousted.
The pro-pot group said it will not appeal the judge's decision.
Daniel Oldenburg, a member of and legal counsel for Citizens for a Healthy Pueblo, said the group is pleased with the court's decision.
"The court recognized principles of fundamental fairness and halted the marijuana industry's attempt to deny the citizens of Pueblo County the right to vote and make their community a safer, healthier place," Oldenburg said.
"Growing Pueblo's Future engaged in unprecedented tactics to keep the people of Pueblo from the polls. Their insidious efforts to change the law (increasing the signature threshold to 15 percent) and then attempting to apply the new legislation retroactively failed to pass judicial scrutiny. We look forward to seeing our initiative referred to the ballot and the voice of the people heard."
Growing Pueblo's Future representatives said they will continue to fight for the industry.
"We look forward to a robust campaign explaining to the citizens of Pueblo how closing down existing grows, infused product manufacturers and stores would severely harm the local economy and destroy 1,300 jobs, send the construction industry back to 2008, while sending tax revenue to communities up north," said Kyle Forti, spokesperson for Growing Pueblo's Future.
On April 21, Growing Pueblo's Future filed a lawsuit against Pueblo County Clerk and Recorder Gilbert "Bo" Ortiz and members of the anti-pot group claiming that the is unconstitutional and violates Amendment 64, the 2012 constitutional change that legalized retail marijuana in Colorado.
Pueblo County attorney Greg Styduhar and Oldenburg, filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Mattoon Granted the motion Monday.
Denver lawyer David Fine, council for Growing Pueblo's Future, was asking Mattoon to amend the complaint in lieu of new Colorado legislation.
The state Legislature passed House Bill 1261 on June 10, requiring 15 percent of all registered voters as a signature requirement for this type of issue.
The petition as it remains now, requires the signatures of 5 percent of the registered electorate. Citizens for a Healthy Pueblo turned more than 9,000 petitions over to Ortiz on June 15, which met the requirements.
In her court order released Monday, Mattoon said the defendants' motions to dismiss involve a purely legal question: Does Amendment 64 require counties to deviate from the default 5 percent?
Mattoon said she maintained that Amendment 64 is clear as written and must be read in harmony.
She said the court notes that Colorado laws specific to alcohol regulation impose numerous requirements and prohibitions that are not applicable to retail marijuana establishments, and the mention of alcohol regulation did not necessarily demonstrate an intent to engraft all alcohol regulations directly into Amendment 64.
"Amendment 64 authorizes a county-wide initiated measure but prescribes no specific signature threshold," Mattoon said.
"Because the signature threshold applies as a matter of law, even accepting all allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the amended complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted."
Mattoon in regard to the motion to amend the complaint said, "Because changing the signature requirement at this stage would modify the petitioners' pre-existing rights and obligations, the court holds that House Bill 16-1261 does not apply here."
The judge said the right to a 5 percent signature threshold accrued when the petitioners filed notice of their initiated measure and sought approval as to form - and before the adoption of HB1261.
"By filing on April 8, 2016, the co-defendants' rights and the Clerk's obligations in connection with the signature threshold were defined as of that day."
She also said HB1261 does not apply retroactively, it does not alter the signature threshold in this case.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Judge Dismisses Pro-Pot Group's Suit
Author: Anthony A. Mestas
Contact: (719) 544-3520
Photo Credit: Salwan Georges
Website: The Pueblo Chieftain
