65A - RPT - REGARDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA INITIATIVE

Home Browse Search

offering marijuana in exchange for cash "donations" - are likely unlawful. (People ex rel Lungren v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1383, 1390.) The initiative denies equal protection to two different classes: 1) collectives and cooperatives that did not illegally set up shop prior to December 31, 2011, and 2) licensed physicians actively treating their patients. At a minimum, the offending restrictions should be stricken from the applicant requirements set forth in the initiative. Legal Challenges California courts recognize and protect the rights of the people to directly initiate change through the initiative process. (MCH Financinq Limited Partnership v. City of Santee (2005) 125 Cal..App.4th 1372, 1381.) Although courts have the discretion to determine validity before the election "[e]ven grave doubts as to the constitutionality of an initiative measure do not compel a court to determine its validity prior to its submission to the electorate." (Gavle v. Hamm (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 250, 256.) Accordingly, a court may not deny the right to vote on an initiative unless there is "compelling showing" that it is "clear beyond question" that the proposed measure is legally invalid. (McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 332.) Legal challenges are initiated by a petition for writ of mandate that seeks to invalidate the initiative measure; and sometimes by a complaint for declaratory relief which asks the court to determine the measure's legal status. (See e.g., Citizens for Jobs and the Economv v. County of Orange (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1311 [Opponents sought injunctive and declaratory relief and writ of mandate to prevent county from implementing voter-approved initiative].) Although persons or entities with legal standing have the right to seek judicial relief, the affected public agency may also ask a court to determine the contest or otherwise determine the validity of the initiative measure. Id, at 1316. County was sued as a defendant and filed its own cross- complaint to contest the validity of certain spending and procedural restrictions imposed by the measure]. If an invalid provision of an initiative or ordinance is severable, the court will strike the invalid provision from the ordinance and the remaining provisions will be given effect. When the initiative contains a severability clause, an invalid provision is severable if it is grammatically, functionally and volitionally (i.e., voters would have adopted the initiative without the offending provision) separable. (MCH Financing, supra at 1393.) 9 65A-15