Pubdate: Tue, 11 Sep 2012
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2012 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122

PANEL ERRED IN BLUE BOOK EDITS

Backers of a marijuana amendment are right to object to a legislative
committee's omissions.

Supporters of a marijuana-legalization amendment have every right to
cry foul over a decision last week to remove key arguments in favor of
their measure from this year's ballot information booklet.

Voters should see all important arguments both for and against an
amendment, not just a select few.

It's not that we favor Amendment 64. We haven't taken a position on
the measure and in fact raised questions several months ago about the
wisdom of adding such language to the state constitution.

But there's no question that several of the most common arguments made
on behalf of it have been edited from the blue book that goes to voters.

Worse, the legislative committee that took out the language did so
more or less by accident. At least six of its members didn't realize
what was happening and later voted unsuccessfully to restore the language.

The measure's supporters responded by asking a court to stop the state
from printing the blue book without the language. Although a hearing
Monday failed to resolve the matter, it will be taken up again Wednesday.

As the amendment's backers point out, the constitution requires the
state to present a "fair and impartial analysis" of each amendment.
It's hard to see how that could be done without providing voters with
the best arguments on both sides- and that's precisely what the blue
book usually does.

In this case, however, the committee removed the following language:
"The use of marijuana by adults may be less harmful than the use of
alcohol or tobacco, both of which are already legal for adults to use
and are regulated by the state. Furthermore, marijuana may be
beneficial for individuals with certain debilitating conditions. The
consequences of burdening adults with a criminal record for the
possession of small amounts of marijuana are too severe, and there are
better uses for state resources than prosecuting such low-level crimes."

The committee voted unanimously to remove those three sentences, which
were part of a longer paragraph. But a number of its members thought
those arguments were going to reappear in a separate paragraph. And no
wonder: Sen. Mark Scheffel, R-Parker, who offered the fateful motion,
indicated he was trying to "tackle this paragraph in two parts"- but
then never returned to the issue after the first vote.

The committee is within its rights to edit the blue book if it can
muster a supermajority. Yet Scheffel's motion apparently would have
failed to get the needed number if everyone had understood his intentions.

We're not suggesting Amendment 64's destiny could turn on a few
missing phrases. But many voters do in fact look to the blue book for
information, and there is absolutely no reason it shouldn't fairly
reflect the best arguments by both sides-no matter how contentious
the issue. Thanks to the clumsy work of a legislative committee,
however, this year it may not.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt