22 - Laserfiche WebLink

SB 1262 Senate Bill-Bill Analysis Page 11 of 18 grant a 'right' of convenient access to marijuana for medicinal use; or override the zoning, licensing, and police powers of local jurisdictions; or mandate local accommodation of medical marijuana cooperatives, collectives, or dispensaries." (Id. at pp. 762-763.) 3)California Constitutional Limitations on Legislative Regulation of Medical Marijuana . Because the CUA was enacted by voter initiative, the Legislature may not amend the statute without subsequent voter approval unless the initiative permits such amendment, and then only upon whatever conditions the voters attached to the Legislature's amendatory powers. (People v. Superior Court (Pearson) (2010) 48 Ca1.4th 564, 568; see also Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (c) .) The California Constitution states, "The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval." (Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (c) .) Therefore, unless the initiative expressly authorizes the Legislature to amend, only the voters may alter statutes created by initiative. Proposition 215 is silent as to the Legislature's authority to amend that proposition. The purpose of California's constitutional limitation on the Legislature's power to amend initiative statutes is to protect the people's initiative powers by precluding the Legislature from undoing what the people have done, without the electorate's consent. Courts have a duty to jealously guard SB 1262 Page 15 the people's initiative power and, hence, to apply a liberal construction to this power wherever it is challenged in order that the right to resort to the initiative process is not improperly annulled by a legislative body. (Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1473.) Yet, despite the strict bar on the Legislature's authority to amend initiative statutes, judicial decisions have recognized that the Legislature is not thereby precluded from enacting laws addressing the general subject matter of an initiative. The Legislature remains free to address a "related but distinct area" or a matter that an initiative measure "does not specifically authorize or prohibit." (People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Cal. 4th 1008, 1025-1026.) As noted above, the California Supreme Court has previously ruled on the Legislature's ability to regulate the use of medical marijuana because it was an initiative. In People v. Kelly, supra, 47 Ca1.4th 1008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Legislative restriction on the number of plants a person may possess was unconstitutional as it interfered with the rights established by the initiative. Although the Legislature may be able to clarify or expand the rights established in Proposition 215, it may not enact legislation that interferes with the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. (Id. at 1044.) But, as the Supreme Court recognized in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health s Wellness Center, supra, 56 Ca1.4th 729, the CUA and the MMPA are limited exceptions to the state's criminal sanctions and nuisance laws. (Id. at pp. 739, 744-746.) The CUA and MMPA are silent on zoning, licensing, and police powers of jurisdictions. (Id. at p. 762-763.) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_1251-1300/sb_1262_cfa_20140626_I I I950_asm_comm.htm I 7/3/2014