Judge rejects lawsuit: Marijuana measure will be on Arizona ballot

• Prop. 205 would legalize marijuana for recreational use

The marijuana legalization effort will appear on the November ballot, after a legal challenge by its opponents was tossed.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jo Lynn Gentry dismissed the lawsuit brought by 13 individuals and groups, including Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Republican Rep. Paul Boyer, a Tempe school board member, and others. The group says it will appeal Gentry's decision.

The measure, known as Proposition 205, asks Arizona voters to legalize cannabis for recreational use and establish licensed outlets where sales of the drug would be taxed, similar to the system established in Colorado. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act would allow adults 21 and older in Arizona to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants in their homes.

Foes argued in court last week that supporters of legalization are deceiving voters with their pitch of the measure. An attorney argued a 100-word summary of the initiative failed to adequately summarize the measure's impact on laws affecting motorists, child custody, workplaces and licensing of certain professions.

In her decision, Gentry disagreed, writing: "Plaintiffs demonstrated no ability to prepare a summary that would comply with the 100-word limit and with their objections. Plaintiffs, nonetheless, persist in asserting that omitting these provisions from the summary along with what they consider misstatements about the provisions that were included makes the summary fraudulent. Plaintiffs’ position is in essence that the summary should have more fully described what the initiative will do but do not explain how they could do it better. Instead, Plaintiffs simply argue that such a summary creates a risk of confusion and unfairness and threatens the integrity of the initiative process."

Gentry wrote that the initiative's required 100-word summary for voters "substantially complies with the law," and would even with a stricter application of the compliance requirement.

She also rejected their argument because of the Legislature's recent changes to the election code affecting citizens' ability to sue to keep such measure off the ballot. "Whether wittingly or not, the legislature eliminated a means by which initiative petitions can be challenged," the judge wrote.

She also rebuffed foes' arguments that the initiative failed to provide its own immediate self-funding. Prop. 205 proposes to use money from the state's 2010 voter-approved medical-marijuana program initially.

Arizona Proposition 205 sparks 'green rush' for medical-marijuana licenses

An attorney for the measure argued the effort was targeted solely because of opponents' political and ideological views on marijuana. The attorney also told the judge that opponents' arguments were dismissive of the will of Arizona voters' and of their ability to research and determine the effects of the law based on the summary and the text of the initiative, which is publicly available.

In her decision, Gentry pointed out that during arguments last week, "both sides acknowledged their confidence in the ability of the voters to read and discern the merits of the initiative."

Prop. 205 qualified earlier this month for the general election ballot.

In a statement, J.P. Holyoak, chairman of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, said he was pleased with the judge's decision. He said the lawsuit is a way for marijuana opponents to deplete the campaign resources of the pro-effort.

"This frivolous lawsuit was meant to waste the campaign's resources," Holyoak said. "After the case is concluded we will be asking the court to recover our costs from these litigious people. We've said from the beginning this was a frivolous lawsuit and Judge Gentry dismissed each and every frivolous claim. It is time to let the voters decide."

The chairman of the Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, which is running the anti-marijuana campaign, said in a statement he disagrees with the ruling. Glenn Hamer, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which is helping fund the anti-legalization campaign, said in a statement he hopes that "on appeal, the court will reject this end-run around the law."

Follow the reporter on Twitter and Facebook. Reach her at yvonne.wingett@arizonarepublic.com or 602-444-4712.