COLUMBUS – Ohio’s top elections official says a proposal in the Statehouse to prohibit marijuana monopolies would cancel out a proposed citizens’ initiative that would create them.
READ MORE: In the Columbus Dispatch
“It is clear that the marijuana proposal from ResponsibleOhio and the anti-monopoly language proposed by the General Assembly are in conflict with each other,” wrote Secretary of State Jon Husted in a statement issued by his office Friday morning. “In such cases, the Ohio constitution clearly establishes a resolution to this conflict by declaring that the amendment that receives the greater number of votes prevails.”
ResponsibleOhio claims it has more than enough petition signatures to place its constitutional amendment on the Nov. 3 ballot, though it has not received final approval yet. The proposal establishes specific locations where marijuana can be grown for sale in Ohio for medicinal or recreational use.
“Specifically, the section of the ResponsibleOhio proposal that creates a private marijuana monopoly directly conflicts with the General Assembly’s proposal, which seeks to prohibit the creation of such commercial monopolies,” Husted said.
The House resolution banning monopolies underwent its initial hearings at the Statehouse this week.
The issue is not as simple as merely adopting the ballot measure which receives the largest number of “yes” votes, Husted says.
“The Ohio Constitution also stipulates that a citizen-initiated petition will go into effect 30 days after passage, whereas the constitution makes no mention of any delay for initiatives placed before the voters by the General Assembly,” he wrote.
If both measures are approved, the legislature’s anti-monopoly resolution take effect first and would serve as “an effective roadblock to ResponsibleOhio’s amendment taking effect,” he wrote.
“In either circumstance, should the legislature’s amendment be approved at the ballot box, it will establish dominance and prevent ResponsibleOhio’s provision from taking a place in the state’s constitution,” Husted stated.
In his statement Husted cited two sections of the Ohio Constitution:
Article 16, Section 1: “If the majority of the electors voting on the same shall adopt such amendments the same shall become a part of the constitution.”
Article 2, Section 1B: “Any proposed law or amendment to the constitution submitted to the electors as provided in 1a and 1b, if approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon, shall take effect thirty days after the election at which it was approved and shall be published by the secretary of state.”