A Nebraska district court judge has rejected a legal challenge that sought to invalidate a pair of citizen-initiated measures regulating the possession, use, and production of medical cannabis.
Voters on Election Day overwhelmingly approved both measures, despite the ongoing litigation. Seventy-one percent of voters decided in favor of Measure 437, which permits qualified patients to possess and use cannabis. Sixty-seven percent of voters backed Measure 438, which establishes a regulated system for the production and distribution of medical cannabis.
Opponents of the initiative campaign argued that advocates had fraudulently gathered some of the signatures necessary to qualify the measures for the ballot. The judge rejected their argument, finding: “To prevail in this action, the plaintiff and Secretary had to show that more than 3,463 signatures on the Legalization Petition and 3,357 signatures on the Regulatory Petition are invalid. The Plaintiff and Secretary are well short.” Fewer than 1,000 signatures for each petition were ruled invalid.
Crista Eggars, the statewide campaign manager for Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, praised the ruling, stating: “Many years of hard work have gone into this effort — from volunteers, patients and families across the state. Knowing that another mother will soon have an option for her suffering child makes it all worthwhile.”
The challenge in Nebraska is the latest in a series of legal efforts spearheaded by marijuana legalization opponents. Since 2020, groups opposing marijuana policy reforms have successfully litigated against a number of cannabis-related ballot measures, resulting in those measures either being struck from the ballot or having the election results set aside.
“Whether or not one personally supports or opposes cannabis legalization, these cynical and undemocratic tactics ought to be a cause of deep concern,” NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano wrote in an op-ed addressing the trend. “In a healthy and functioning democracy, elected officials represent the views of the electorate. They should not consistently seek to undermine them.”
A spokesperson for the Nebraska Attorney General told the Associated Press that the office’s lawyers were reviewing the ruling and considering whether to file an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Related
Medical Disclaimer:
The information provided in these blog posts is intended for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified healthcare provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. The use of any information provided in these blog posts is solely at your own risk. The authors and the website do not recommend or endorse any specific products, treatments, or procedures mentioned. Reliance on any information in these blog posts is solely at your own discretion.
