"Even if the the court ultimately rules against the plaintiffs and allows the petition to be placed on the ballot, this litigation challenge has already served a vital public purpose."
By Christine Baily, C Bailey Law LLC
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) heard oral arguments Monday in Caroline Pineau, et al. v. Attorney General and Secretary of State, SJC-13927, a challenge to a ballot initiative that would repeal the state's adult-use cannabis statutes — Chapters 94G and 64N of the General Laws — while claiming to preserve the medical program.
The initiative, titled "An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy," requires the attorney general under Article 48 of the state Constitution to certify that it meets constitutional requirements and to draft a "fair" and "concise" voter summary. Plaintiffs — cannabis social equity grant recipients and registered Massachusetts voters — are represented by Vicente LLP's Adam Fine and Tim Swain. Fine argued that the petition improperly combines unrelated and contradictory policies, would eliminate the state's social equity mandate, the Social Equity Trust Fund, and host community agreement requirements, and would increase penalties for simple possession.
The Massachusetts Cannabis Coalition (MCC), the state's largest cannabis industry group, participated as amicus curiae. MCC's brief argued that the attorney general certified a summary based on an outdated version of state law, leaving voters unaware of the full scope of amendments the initiative would make. MCC also contended that both the petition and summary misstate the initiative's medical impact: the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) has treated the adult and medical programs as interrelated, so repealing adult-use statutes would inevitably harm medical patients and eliminate the requirement that municipalities enter host community agreements with applicants.
Based on Monday's argument, the court appeared unlikely to rule for the plaintiffs. Justices acknowledged that ruling against the attorney general would deny voters their constitutional right to enact legislation via the ballot box. A decision is expected by June.
"By filing this amicus brief, MCC is standing up for both the cannabis industry and the will of the voters," said Dominguez, the group's executive director. "Our voters deserve to know that the ballot question in front of them will dismantle a legalized industry that they voted to create and that, if passed, will recriminalize simple cannabis possession, minimize patient access and move consumers into the illicit market and away from a regulated and taxed system with strong public health and safety protections."
"And this is all before any mention of the ballot question's downstream effects of killing thousands of jobs, hundreds of local businesses and billions in needed tax revenue for our cities and towns," he added.
Regardless of the outcome, the litigation has placed the petition's omissions on public record, giving Massachusetts voters documented cause to vote "No" in November should the measure appear on the ballot.
Christine Baily, a former general counsel to the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, is an experienced legal strategist and regulatory expert specializing in the cannabis industry. Through C Baily Law LLC, she provides comprehensive legal services, and through Grey Birch Associates, she offers court-appointed receivership and turnaround support for distressed corporate assets.