Pubdate: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 Source: Columbus Dispatch (OH) Copyright: 2015 The Columbus Dispatch Contact: http://www.dispatch.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/93 Author: Alan Johnson RESOLUTION MAY DERAIL POT PLAN State lawmakers are rushing to throw a constitutional obstacle in the path of supporters of a marijuana legalization campaign. The plan rolled out on Tuesday is backed by top legislative leaders, but critics say it may go too far in trying to derail the fast-moving marijuana plan engineered by the group ResponsibleOhio. House Joint Resolution 4 received a hearing on Tuesday, just hours after being introduced by state Reps. Ryan Smith, R-Bidwell, and Mike Curtin, D-Marble Cliff. It would make it harder, but not impossible, for a "monopoly or special economic interest" to submit a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution. ResponsibleOhio's marijuana-legalization proposal, which seems likely to be on the Nov. 3 ballot, is not mentioned in the bipartisan resolution, but it is clearly the target. The pot proposal would give individuals and groups that invest in the campaign a monopoly to establish 10 for-profit, marijuana-growing sites across the state. Smith testified to the Ohio House Government Accountability and Oversight Committee on Tuesday that his and Curtin's proposal would prevent "self-serving monopolies" like ResponsibleOhio from easily accessing the constitution for economic benefit. Not acting, Smith said, would be a "tremendous moral failure and injustice to the citizens of this great state." Curtin said the proposal, which would require a two-step, multiyear process for economic-based amendments, would combat the "growing and worrisome trend" of allowing monopolies to gain access to "the bedrock of our state constitution." The legislature has until Aug. 3 to place issues on the fall ballot, but lawmakers must move more quickly because they plan to recess for the summer at the end of June once the biennial budget is passed. Rep. Kathleen Clyde, D-Kent, expressed concern at Tuesday's hearing about the "broadness of the language" of the resolution and how other ballot issues might be caught up in it in the future if it passes. That complaint was echoed by Douglas Berman, an Ohio State University law professor who teaches a course in marijuana law. He said there are fundamental problems with the approach, including whether it is "constitutional to pass a constitutional amendment restricting your ability to pass a constitutional amendment." "The effort to block it this way strikes me as the worst of all possible worlds," Berman added. "If they're against the substantive policy in this amendment, why not go out and campaign against it rather than force voters to attack the messenger through a new constitutional rule?" The Smith-Curtin plan would ask Ohioans to vote to "prohibit an initiated constitutional amendment that would grant a monopoly or a special economic interest, privilege, benefit, right, or license to any person or entity and to modify the procedure to propose a law or a constitutional amendment by initiative petition." Monopoly interests would have to first seek voter approval at one election to bypass the economic-interest ban, and then pursue a second vote later on the issue itself. ResponsibleOhio Executive Director Ian James said in a statement that state lawmakers have long "stalled on an issue that the majority of Ohioans now support. These politicians trusted the voters enough to elect them, but when faced with an issue they disagree with, lawmakers want to deny voters the right to decide. No other state has done this; no other state has passed a constitutional amendment to limit voters' rights." Attorney Steven H. Steinglass, former dean of the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, said the Ohio Constitution dictates that if two "contradictory" issues appear on the same ballot and both are approved, the one with the most votes prevails. He said that happened just once previously, in 1918. Steinglass, an adviser to the Ohio Constitutional Modernization Commission, said the interaction of the two issues if both make it on the ballot is legally complicated. He said it's possible that if both issues pass, a court could rule that marijuana is legal in Ohio, but would not be limited to monopoly ownership. The proposal is similar to one suggested last month by state Auditor Dave Yost. He said the Smith-Curtin proposal would "keep the fingers of moneyed special interests out of the constitution and give the initiative process back to the people." Senate President Keith Faber, R-Celina, and House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger, R-Clarksville, both signaled support for the resolution. Dispatch Reporter Jim Siegel contributed to this story. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom