{"id":79236,"date":"2024-11-26T16:24:01","date_gmt":"2024-11-27T00:24:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2024\/11\/26\/nebraska-judge-dismisses-legal-challenges-to-voter-approved-medical-marijuana-measures\/"},"modified":"2024-11-27T19:46:34","modified_gmt":"2024-11-28T03:46:34","slug":"nebraska-judge-dismisses-legal-challenges-to-voter-approved-medical-marijuana-measures","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2024\/11\/26\/nebraska-judge-dismisses-legal-challenges-to-voter-approved-medical-marijuana-measures\/","title":{"rendered":"Nebraska Judge Dismisses Legal Challenges To Voter-Approved Medical Marijuana Measures"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

\u201cThe petitions fulfill all constitutional and statutory requirements and are thus, legally sufficient under Nebraska law.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

By Zach Wendling, Nebraska Examiner<\/strong><\/p>\n

A Lancaster County District Court judge has dismissed major legal challenges against Nebraska\u2019s two medical cannabis petitions<\/a>, although the ruling is likely to be appealed.<\/p>\n

District Judge Susan Strong, in a 57-page order Tuesday afternoon, said the \u201ccase was about numbers.\u201d However, the lawsuit brought by John Kuehn, a former state senator and former State Board of Health member, and aided by Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen and the Nebraska Attorney General\u2019s Office fell \u201cwell short\u201d of invalidating enough petition signatures secured for ballot access by this summer, Strong concluded.<\/p>\n

The Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana campaign had two measures on the ballot, one to legalize medical cannabis and the other to regulate it. The measures passed with 71 percent and 67 percent voter approval, respectively.<\/p>\n

The campaign needed 86,499 valid signatures on each petition. When Evnen certified the measures for the November ballot, he said they both exceeded that number by almost 3,500.<\/p>\n

Strong ruled Tuesday that the \u201cpresumption of validity\u201d was lost for 711 signatures on the legalization petition and 826 on the regulatory petition.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn a record of this size, it is likely, perhaps inevitable, that the Court has made some mathematical errors,\u201d Strong wrote. \u201cIt is also possible that the Court missed a few petitions that should lose their presumption of validity under this Court\u2019s reasoning.\u201d<\/p>\n

Strong cautioned that the judgment wasn\u2019t based on the inclusion or exclusion of a few petitions and that, either way, Evnen and Kuehn \u201cwould still fall short\u201d of challenged signatures.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe petitions fulfill all constitutional and statutory requirements and are thus, legally sufficient under Nebraska law,\u201d Strong wrote.<\/p>\n

AG\u2019s Office, campaign weigh in<\/strong><\/p>\n

A spokesperson for the Nebraska Attorney General\u2019s Office, which represented Evnen, said in a text, \u201cWe appreciate the Court\u2019s time and thoughtful consideration in deciding this matter. We are reviewing the decision and considering next steps.\u201d<\/p>\n

Strong and multiple attorneys involved had noted the case was likely to be appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, no matter the outcome.<\/p>\n

Eggers said that the campaign is pleased with Strong\u2019s ruling and hopes that the election results will be upheld, soon ushering in safe, regulated treatments.<\/p>\n

\u201cMany years of hard work have gone into this effort\u2014from volunteers, patients and families across the state,\u201d Eggers said in a statement. \u201cKnowing that another mother will soon have an option for her suffering child makes it all worthwhile.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kuehn\u2019s attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n

The legal arguments<\/strong><\/p>\n

The arguments from Kuehn and Evnen asked Strong to extend alleged instances of circulator fraud or improper notarizations to all petition pages that those individuals touched. For example, all of Egbert\u2019s petitions or all signatures that a \u201cmalfeasant\u201d notary oversaw.<\/p>\n

Strong said she was \u201creluctant to create an apparently novel rule of imputation\u201d and said she believed the court should exercise \u201cgreat caution\u201d before relying upon non-Nebraska cases.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe only reliable guides to resolving this case are the Constitution and statutes of Nebraska, along with the cases interpreting those texts,\u201d Strong wrote.<\/p>\n

The AG\u2019s Office said Strong should abide by Barkley v. Pool, a 1919 Nebraska Supreme Court case that dealt with fraud against a referendum petition seeking to block women\u2019s suffrage. The justices said that once a circulator\u2019s oath was impeached\u2014in that case, three circulators forged signatures and then lied about doing so under oath\u2014it could be extended to other acts.<\/p>\n

Evnen\u2019s attorneys also pointed to a 1992 opinion from the Nebraska Attorney General\u2019s Office that said Barkley should apply to notaries. Strong noted that opinion is not binding.<\/p>\n

Strong said the Legislature hasn\u2019t created such a rule, but even if it had, Strong said she had \u201cserious doubts\u201d about whether such a rule would help carry out the petition process.<\/p>\n

\u201cBy implication, courts do not have the power to create new rules for the initiative process,\u201d Strong said. \u201cIf the Plaintiff and Secretary\u2019s proposed rule of imputation exists, it must be found in the statutes. It is simply not there.\u201d<\/p>\n

Even if courts had that power, Strong said, she would not apply the standard because Evnen and Kuehn failed to prove there were \u201cwidespread\u201d or \u201cpervasive\u201d instances of fraud or malfeasance.<\/p>\n

Circulator fraud and bad notarizations<\/strong><\/p>\n

Strong did extend observed fraud to all other petitions for one paid circulator: Michael Egbert of Grand Island. However, she declined to do so with other circulators or for any notaries.<\/p>\n

Those signatures from Egbert\u2014487 on the legalization petition and 541 on the regulatory petition \u2014represented more than a majority of the signatures that Strong said lost the presumption of validity but could later be rehabilitated, if necessary.<\/p>\n

Egbert admitted under oath to using a phone book to illegally add voters and later forge their signatures. He said prosecutors promised him his testimony wouldn\u2019t be used against him. Egbert pleaded guilty Nov. 8 to a Class I misdemeanor and $250 fine. He was initially charged with a felony.<\/p>\n

Strong said there were five categories of improper notarizations:<\/p>\n