Timeline details Marijuana votes and regulations (Delta County, Colorado)

2000 Amendment 20: Medical Marijuana

Cannabis / Marijuana Plant.
Image KVNF/2012

            Colorado’s General Assembly referred Amendment 20 to the voters for the November 2000failed in Delta County, with 60.34% of the electorate voting against the referred measure. Orchard City largely followed the county results, with 59.78% voting against the referred measure.
election. While the amendment passed with 53.5% of the vote state-wide, the amendment overwhelmingly

            Amendment 20 is codified in article XVIII, section 14 of the Colorado Constitution and provides legalized limited amounts of medical marijuana for patients and their primary caregivers. An informal rule between the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Drug Enforcement Agency limited primary caregivers to five patients.

            Amendment 20 has a provision whereby people who need marijuana for medical purposes may obtain the drug free of charge.

2006 Amendment 44: Recreational Marijuana

            The first attempt to legalise recreation marijuana was brought before the Colorado electorate in November 2006. Amendment 44 failed state-wide with 58.92% voting no. In Delta County, 68.78% voted against legalising marijuana for recreational purposes. In Orchard City, 75.15% of the voters said no to decriminalising marijuana for recreational purposes.

If passed, Amendment 44 would have changed state law to allow people over 21 to possess an ounce or less of marijuana without legal penalty. Colorado at the time had a law which imposed $100 fine for simple possession of an ounce or less.

2009 CO Dept of Public Health & Environment caregiver limit rejected

           

            In July 2009, the Colorado Board of Health, by one vote, rejected the adoption of limiting caregivers to a max of five patients. The failure to adopt this formal rule effectively approved the dispensary model for Colorado.

2009 First Medical Marijuana Dispensary opens in Orchard City

            In July 2009, following the failure of the Health Department to adopt the five patient rule, the Grand Mesa Herbal Dispensary, LLC, becomes the first retail medical marijuana dispensary to open in Orchard City.

            At the time, “the LLC’s registered agent, Jay, told the DCI. ‘I was asked by a local oncologist to start the dispensary,’ When asked about the town’s proposed moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries, Jay said, “I’ve lived here (in Orchard City) 17 years, We all know this is a conservative area. I have a license. My plan was to open a location in Telluride. Telluride is an adult town, and I thought they would legalize it (marijuana) there the way Breckenridge did.’”

2009 Ogden Memorandum

            On October 19, 2009, Deputy United States Attorney General, David W. Ogden, issued a memorandum to prosecutors and federal agents saying it was not the policy of the Obama Administration to prosecute medical marijuana patients and caregivers who are in compliance with state law. The effect of the Ogden Memorandum was the “Green Rush” and medical marijuana dispensaries businesses popping up all over Colorado, including Orchard City.

2009 Moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries (Orchard City)

Orchard City adopted its first moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries on November 18, 2009. The moratorium was for 180 days to provide the town the ability to research and discuss the issue.

2010 Ext Moratorium on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (Orchard City)

In May 2010, Ordinance 2010-03 was adopted by Orchard City Trustees which extended the 2009 moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries.

Between the two moratoriums, “Grand Mesa Herbal Dispensary, moved and expanded its operation from a sequestered site on Fruitgrowers road to a highly visible location on Highway 65.  The town's moratorium had not included any prohibition against existing marijuana dispensaries expanding their operations.”

2011 Orchard City bans medical marijuana facilities

On July 1, 2011, Orchard City Trustees formally banned medical marijuana facilities.

2011 Delta (City) Referred Measure A

            In July 2011, the City of Delta held a special election to consider whether an ordinance to prohibit medical marijuana businesses from operating from within the jurisdiction of the city. The referred measure passed with 68% voting for the prohibition of medical marijuana businesses.

           

2012 Amendment 64: Recreational Marijuana

            In 2012 a super majority of Coloradoans, 55%, voted to legalise personal use and regulation of marijuana. The amendment provides for licensing of cultivation facilities, product manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and retail stores. Local governments have the authority to regulate or prohibit such facilities.

            In Delta County, voters soundly rejected Amendment 64, voting 55.8% against legalisation. Precincts 9 and 10, which are the Town of Orchard City, voted 60% against legalising of cannabis.

2013 Ordinances prohibiting retail pot passed by every municipality in Delta County

            In the summer of 2013, Orchard City trustees approved Ordinance 2013-01, prohibiting retail marijuana, which had been under draft and revision form since November 2012. At the public hearing to consider whether to adopt the ordinance, only one member of the public spoke against prohibiting retail marijuana. The other members of the public were adamantly for prohibiting retail sales within the town limits. The ordinance passed unanimously.

            The ordinance prohibits commercial marijuana cultivation, product manufacturing, testing facilities, and retail marijuana stores. Crawford, Cedaredge, Delta, Hotchkiss and Paonia also adopted similar ordinances during 2013.

            In August 2013, the Hotchkiss Town Council enacted an ordinance which banned commercial marijuana enterprises from entering the town’s jurisdiction. The ordinance also carried a criminal penalty for violating the commercial prohibition of a fine of $999 and not more than one year in the county jail.

            Delta’s City Council, in mid-August 2013, also voted unanimously to “opt-out” of Amendment 64 and prohibit retail sales. Within the City of Delta, 56% of the population voted against the amendment and in 2011, 68% of the population had voted locally to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries.

2013 Proposition AA: Taxes on the Sale of Marijuana

            In November 2013, 65.27% of Coloradoans overwhelmingly approved a taxing measure to treat recreational cannabis like any other business. The General Assembly referred proposition implements a 15 percent marijuana excise tax, plus a 10 percent state sales tax.

            The tax was a bit less popular in Delta County than around the state, as 57.42% of the citizens voted in favour of Proposition AA.

2014 Paonia Ballot Questions 2B and 2C

            In November of 2014, voters in Paonia were asked whether the town should establish and operate a retail marijuana cultivation facility (2B) and whether the town could tax the unprocessed retail marijuana and amend the tax as an increase or decrease, not to exceed a total local tax of 10% (2C).

            In Paonia, 53% of the voters rejected Question 2B and 62% voted for Question 2C. After the vote, many attributed the rejection to a campaign launched by a group of high school and middle school students. The students walked door-to-door campaigning against Question 2B.

2015 Proposition BB: Marijuana TABOR Refund Measure

            Colorado law required the vote because the revenue exceeded the initial estimate. The overall revenue was more than voters approved for a marijuana tax in 2013. TABOR requires a projection to be made in a tax’s first year. The voters, with 69.39% voting in favour, allowed the state keep a surplus in pot tax revenue. The measure allowed Colorado to keep $66 million in surplus revenue. The vast majority of these monies will be used for schools.

            Delta County voted 63% in favour of allowing the state to keep the excess collected.

2016 Hotchkiss Ballot Issue 2A

            In April 2016, Hotchkiss voters considered whether to allow medical marijuana centers, optional cultivation operations, and possible sale of medical marijuana –infused products within the town’s jurisdiction.

            Ballot measure 2A was rejected by the voters, with 54% voting against allowing medical marijuana dispensaries and the optional cultivation operations.

2017 Proposed licencing of commercial cultivation and retail dispensaries

            On February 1, 2017, the Orchard City Trustees held a work session where the topic was means to enhance the town’s revenue stream. The trustees stressed the town was not going broke in the short term, but medium and long term forecasts predicted significant budgetary shortfalls. Trustee Dick Kirkpatrick drafted a report which proposed among other alternatives the recommendation the town licence commercial cultivation operations and retail marijuana dispensaries. 
            Over 100 residences turned up for the work session and nearly two dozen publicly stated their opposition to commercial cultivation and retail marijuana operations. Those who expressed their opposition included the County Sheriff, a former naval officer, former trustees, business leaders, and retirees. Few spoke in favour  of marijuana, they included: marijuana industry representatives from Denver, locals who hoped to make their fortune in the “Green Rush”, and residents who saw revenue from marijuana licencing fees as a means to generate revenue without raising water fees or establishing a sales tax.   

UPDATE:

            The Orchard City Board of Trustees, during their Sept. 13, 2017 regular meeting, voted to rescind the decision to repeal the 2011 and 2013 prohibitions on medical and commercial marijuana businesses within the town limits.

            Also during the Sept. 13th regular meeting, the board voted to referrer three measures to the April 2018 ballot. Each of the three questions will ask voters a yes/no question about preferences for revenue generation. The three questions are: 1) implementing a sales tax in town; 2) implementing a property tax in town; and 3) allowing marijuana business that would produce tax revenue for town government.

---

A version of this research was published in the Delta County Independent on 1 March 2017, Surface Creek Section.

Amendment 71 pinches our ability to govern ourselves

A lot of folks have told me they are voting for Amendment 71 because it will make the state Constitution harder to change. The reality is Amendment 71 will kill the constitutional initiative system in Colorado, as it creates draconian barriers to direct democracy preventing ordinary Coloradoans from exercising an important constitutional right.

Deciding big constitutional ideas by ballot is a Colorado tradition that goes back over a century. Often times Colorado voters are faced with deciding tough issues that legislators cannot or will not address themselves. Such issues have included: term limits, campaign finance, legalization of marijuana, and limitations on state expenditures (TABOR). Coloradoans have also used initiatives to ban the 1976 Winter Olympics, prohibit underground nuclear explosions, and ban state funded abortion, along with making Colorado a right-to-work state in 1958, legalizing the sale of alcohol in 1932, and creating the power to recall politicians.

Out of all these initiatives, very few are actually approved by the voters. see table

The direct initiative process was not part of the original state constitution in 1876, but became law in the early 1900s when a group of voters got frustrated by the state government being overly influenced by big industries, such as railroads and timber.

In 1912, the first year the right was available in Colorado, voters weighted in on 32 initiatives. Commencing with that first election, some pundits have complained about the process being too easy and a tool used by various voter groups. Lobbyists and special interests enjoy a cozy relationship with representative state government and democracy (via constitutional initiatives) challenges their chokehold on government.

A major shift occurred in 1988 when a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held, in Meyer v. Grant, that under the political speech doctrine of the 1st Amendment, petition circulators could be paid. Prior to this holding, it was a felony in Colorado to pay signature gatherers. While the rate of initiatives making the ballot has increased, success at the ballot box has decreased since the Meyer decision.

There are two opposing theories of the constitution. One view is that the constitution is an expression of the founders and should rarely, if ever, be touched, leaving tremendous leverage for interpretation by the elected and appointed political actors. The other view treats the constitution as an expression of “We the People” and offers some flexibility and the ability for the people to govern themselves.

Regardless of the underlying theory, the foundational document of government ought to be fairly hard to amend. Is the state worse off because the people have too much power?

Colorado is unique, in that, citizens, through the initiative process may bypass the state legislature and place a statute (called proposition) or state constitution (called amendment) question directly on the ballot. Only 24 states (mostly in the West) allow for the initiative process and of these, only 16 allow citizens to directly amend their constitution.

Amendment 71, ironically, seeks to use the current initiative process to make future initiatives more difficult. The amendment calls for collecting a certain number of signatures from each state senate district (there are 35 in Colorado) just to place future amendments on the ballot. Once on the ballot, the amendment then requires a super majority of 55 percent for the initiative to pass. These restrictions are not in place if an initiative seeks to repeal part of the state constitution.

The complexity of Amendment 71 is a bit tough to swallow. Look at all the trouble a few Republican U.S. Senate candidates had earlier this year attempting to petition onto ballots in seven congressional districts. Imagine spreading that out across 35 senate districts!

If an issue is disliked in one or two districts, those districts would have an effective veto, thus depriving the people the ability to decide if the idea is germane or not.

Whether you love participating in democracy or not, one thing is for sure, Coloradans have, and should continue to enjoy, the ability of “We the People,” to freely exercise direct lawmaking power on proposals to change the state constitution.

If an initiative is bad, Coloradoans have proven they are more than capable of voting down amendments. In fact, only one out of five passed over the past five years.

Looking at some of the more recent constitutional initiatives, none would have passed with the supermajority (55 percent) vote tally as required by the proposed Amendment 71, except one. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights passed in 1992 with only 53.6 percent, but would have failed under the current proposal. Amendment 23 which mandated more funding for k-12 education passed in 2000 with 52.7 percent. It also would have failed. Ironically, Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana in 2012 with 55.3 percent of the vote, would still have become law.

Amendment 71 opens the door for opponents to nix the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). The supermajority element does not apply if the initiative seeks to repeal a part of the state constitution. Thus, a progressive billionaire could fund a successful repeal with a vote tally of 50 percent plus one.

The ability of the citizens to directly participate in governing is an effective check on the power of the political class. For the average Coloradan, unduly restricting ballot access, as Amendment 71 does, means a critical democratic tool is only accessible to ultra-big-money interests who can afford the higher costs associated with the complicated signature gathering process.

These are the reasons why I am voting no on Amendment 71: Draconian restrictions on direct democracy, hard to meet signature requirements, and a double-standard for repeal vs. new provisions which would prevent ordinary citizens from an important right. For the good of Colorado vote no on Amendment 71.

Matt Soper, a CMU alumnus and Delta County resident, holds law degrees from University of Edinburgh and the University of New Hampshire. 

_________________________________________

M Soper, "Amendment 71 pinches our ability to govern ourselves" The Daily Sentinel (Grand Junction, Colo.) 16 October 2016 print. B7. online. <http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/amendment-71-pinches-our-ability-to-govern-ourselv>; accessed 16 October 2017 

Tyranny of the majority: Is secession a justified response?

From Colorado counties proposing secession to Crimea voting to break-away from Ukraine; and from Venice adopting unofficial independence status to Scotland wanting to dissolve the 307 year-old marriage with England – Who’d have thought we are living in an age of social contract renewal?

Over the past four months – majorities in 5 out of 11 counties voted to become the 51st US State; an

unbelievable 96% of Crimeans voted to join Russia; 89% of Venetians voted to create independent city-state within Italy; and in September Scottish voters will take to the polls to decide whether to become a free and independent country.

Opponents of these secessionist movements have quickly taken to the bully pulpit to point out the unconstitutionality of these votes. What if it’s illegal to vote for smaller regions, such as a county, to secede from lager entities, such as states or nations? Does a law make separatists feelings “go-away”?

Secessionist ideas do not begin at the ballot box or in a parliamentary chamber. The ideas of dissolving the bands that tie one region to another begin with disaccord and minority dissatisfaction – tyranny of the majority. Where one political party dominates and punishes the opposition or one geo-cultural group forces its views onto another.

Under the US Constitution, no mention is made of an acceptable dissolution of the union. The Civil War and the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. White (1869) arguably established the Constitution ordained a perpetual and indissoluble union.

In 1776, when the founders declared independence from the United Kingdom, that act was in violation of the British Constitution’s supremacy of parliament. If there had been any doubt of Parliament’s authority, The Declaratory Act of 1766, which asserted the right of Parliament to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever," would have settled the question.

To consider our founders revolutionaries seems abhorrent. The situation was an impasse, Parliament told the colonists to ‘go pound sand’ and the colonists responded by crafting a legal justification based on social contract theory, tyranny of the majority, and natural law.

Colorado counties which proposed secession; orange is where measure passed. 

As for the Colorado counties wanting to follow the West Virginia Model, that dream ended when the 69^th Colorado General Assembly adjourned on May 7^th.

Under Article 4 §3 of the US Constitution, no new state can be created from within an existing state without the consent of both the state’s general assembly and Congress.

Without the Colorado legislature taking action, our state will remain intact. Remaining united is not to say the dissatisfaction with the Democrats who control the governor’s office and legislature has gone away.

Similar to Colorado, the Crimea and Venice referendums were a protest to majority tyrannizing the minority. Unlike Colorado, Crimea’s vote was unconstitutional. Venice’s ballot was unofficial.

The Ukrainian Constitution specifically states in Article 73: “Alterations to the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum.”

Many have argued the Crimea referendum was illegal according to Public International Law.

Firstly, under the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), four requires must be satisfied to be considered an independent nation: permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations.

Secondly, a country must be recognised by another country.

Crimea, a peninsula region in the Black Sea. 

The Crimean referendum asked voters whether they wanted to join Russia as a federal subject or restore the 1992 Crimean Constitution which granted greater authority to the regional parliament. With 83% voter turn-out, 96% voted in-favor of joining Russia. This act was certainly illegal under the Ukrainian Constitution, but as for International law, the jury is still out.

The Venice ballot asked voter whether they wanted to secede from Italy and become and independent city-state. With 65% of the region voting, a whopping 89% or 2.1 million people voted in-favor of breaking away from Rome! The Italian Government had no fear of Venice actually breaking away, as the referendum had been unofficial.

Much like rural Colorado having difficult with Denver listening; Crimea has a Kiev problem; Venice a Rome problem; and Scotland, an English problem.

On September 18^th, Scots will take to the polls to decide their fate. Legally, Scotland has the same problem the American Colonists had with the British Constitution, namely the supremacy of parliament.

The UK Parliament in London has the ability to enact or resend any legislation, including the grant of independence. The Edinburgh Agreement, merely a gentleman’s handshake, is where the UK Parliament has pre-agreed to acquiesce to the outcome of the referendum.

While the votes remain to be cast, one thing is certain, laws banning secession don’t make secessionist ideas go away. Revolution and civil war should be avoided. Elections, whether official or unofficial; lawful or unlawful should be a wake-up call to majority-leaders who are unwilling to respect the ideologies, customs, or traditions of minority constituencies.

27 yr old takes seat as Orchard City's newest trustee

At age 27, Matt Soper was elected the youngest trustee in Orchard City’s 100 year history. Soper credited his historic election victory to his commitment to cultivating innovative solutions to challenging problems facing our community, fiscally conservative principles, and maintaining a great town in which folks can live, work, and retire.

Soper said, “To me the town's job is to deliver water at affordable rates, provide for emergency response, and otherwise get out of the way so that businesses can grow and folks can enjoy their lives.”

Soper came in fourth, behind incumbents Jimmie Boyd and Marsha Thomas and former Trustee Craig Fuller in the April 3, 2012 municipal election. 

“Of the 401 votes I received, I’m most proud of the support from my 97 year old, great-aunt, Merle Payne, who was the long time deputy county clerk in Delta. She always said she hoped to live long enough to see me elected to a public office,” Soper commented. 

Orchard City Trustee Matt Soper

Orchard City, the second largest municipality in Delta County, is home to 3,100 residents and is the largest municipality in terms of square miles in Delta County. Orchard City was legally incorporated on 11 May 1912 to raise a bond in order to deliver clean water to the residences of the growing communities of Austin, Cory and Eckert. Each historic community continues to retain its own post office, zip code, and unique identity. 

On Wednesday, 11 April 2012 at 7:00 PM, Matt Soper was sworn-in as trustee at the Orchard City Town Hall, located at 9661 2100 Road, Austin, Colorado.