Pubdate: Tue, 19 Aug 2014
Source: Albuquerque Journal (NM)
Copyright: 2014 Albuquerque Journal
Contact:  http://www.abqjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/10
Author: T.S. Last and Dan McKay
Page: A1

ABQ COUNCIL AGREES TO PUT POT ISSUE TO VOTE

But Measure Faces Mayoral Veto and Lack of Space on Ballot

Petitioners calling for decriminalization of possession of small 
amounts of marijuana have filed enough valid voter signatures to put 
a proposal on the ballot in Santa Fe, the city clerk has confirmed.

Proponents are aiming to have the question go before city voters as 
part of the November general election.

In Albuquerque, however, the picture is not so clear. The City 
Council late Monday narrowly agreed to ask voters whether they 
support reducing marijuana penalties.

But the measure still faces at least two potential challenges - the 
possibility of a mayoral veto and a shortage of space on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Albuquerque city councilors voted 5-4 along party lines to move the 
marijuana proposal forward, with Democrats in the majority.

By that same vote, they also approved an election resolution that 
seeks to put five different proposals on the fall ballot - ranging 
from a tax increase to fund services to help people struggling with 
mental illness and addiction to a rather mundane bond proposal. The 
marijuana measure is included in that resolution.

It would take six votes to override a veto if Mayor Richard Berry 
sides with his fellow Republicans and rejects the resolution.

Representatives of the Berry administration said late Monday they 
don't support either the marijuana proposal or the tax increase.

There's another challenge, too. Even if the resolution stands, County 
Clerk Maggie Toulouse Oliver said there isn't enough room on the 
ballot for all five questions. It would be up to the Bernalillo 
County Commission to decide which of the measures make it.

The questions that don't make it could go before voters in a special 
election, which would cost $500,000; during a February schools 
election if legal questions are sorted out; or during the regularly 
scheduled city election in October 2015.

Making history

Santa Fe City Clerk Yolanda Vigil, meanwhile, said Monday her office 
has verified 5,754 valid signatures of registered Santa Fe voters. 
The petition required 5,673 valid signatures, which was based on 
one-third of the voter turnout in the March mayoral election.

Vigil said a total of 10,925 signatures of people supporting the 
proposal were turned into her office over the course of the past 
month. Most of the 5,171 signatures that were rejected had addresses 
outside the city limits, didn't match voting records, weren't names 
of registered voters or were illegible, she said.

The petition drive was led by ProgressNow New Mexico and the Drug 
Policy Alliance of New Mexico.

Organizers said they were excited to see their initiative become the 
first to advance since the city adopted rules for citizen initiatives 
in its city charter in 2008.

"The important part is we're making history in Santa Fe and around 
the state - that people are ready to have a voice in marijuana 
reform," said Emily Kaltenbach, state director of Drug Policy Alliance.

Under state law, first-time offenders in possession of less than an 
ounce of marijuana are charged with a petty misdemeanor punishable by 
a fine of $50 to $100 and imprisonment of not more than 15 days. The 
proposal calls for possession to be treated as a civil infraction, 
requiring no jail time and punishable by a fine of no more than $25.

Kaltenbach said Santa Feans would rather see taxpayer dollars be 
spent by law enforcement on more pressing crimes. As it is, those 
caught in possession could suffer the consequences of having a 
criminal charge mar their records and prevent them from getting hired 
for a job or obtaining a scholarship, she said.

Even though nearly half the signatures were thrown out, Pat Davis of 
ProgressNow New Mexico said the number of people who signed is 
testament to changing attitudes about marijuana reform.

"We had close to 11,000 names - twice what was required to get this 
done," he said. "It shows that people are really excited about this."

The next step is for the County Commission to take action at its Aug. 
26 meeting to allow the question to appear on the November ballot.

"I think that's more of a formality than anything," Kaltenbach said.

Any action taken by the commission that day would be contingent on 
what happens the following day when the matter comes before the City 
Council. The council will hold a public hearing on the proposal 
during its Aug. 27 meeting.

The council has the option of putting the question to voters or 
approving pot decriminalization right away, on its own.

"We don't anticipate any problems," Davis said of getting the 
question placed on the November ballot. "We don't anticipate the 
(County) Commission would disenfranchise their voters by not allowing 
this. The legal questions and concerns of the secretary of state and 
that others have brought up have been resolved."

The county clerk has said that any action taken by the commission 
would have to take place by Sept. 9, the deadline to have the local 
version of the November ballot competed for printing.

State and federal law would be unaffected by the change if Santa Fe 
adopted the decriminalization measure. Police officers would have 
discretion as to whether to charge violations under the city 
ordinance, handled in municipal court, or under state statute, 
adjudicated in magistrate court.

However, the petition called for possession of small amounts of 
marijuana and instruments used to ingest it to be considered "a 
lowest law enforcement priority."

A similar petition effort in Albuquerque recently failed to achieve 
the required number of valid signatures, though supporters disputed 
thousands of the signatures that were thrown out.

There's also debate over whether the proposed marijuana ordinance, if 
enacted, would be pre-empted by state law, anyway. Cities generally 
have the freedom to enact laws that are at least as strict as, but 
not more lenient than, the state's. The relaxed pot penalties in 
Albuquerque would be vulnerable to a legal challenge, according to an 
assistant city attorney.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom