Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
County of Nevada
B. SCOIT THOMSEN,
Presiding Judge
LINDA J. SLOVEN,
Assistant Presiding Judge
THOMAS M. ANDERSON,Judge
ROBERT L. TAMlEITI,Judge
CANDACE S. HEIDELBERGER,
Judge
YVETTE DURANT,
Commissioner
To:
Subject:
Date:
No. of Pages
__q~--'
Please see the attached Ruling on OSC Re Preliminary Injunction; Order Thereon
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I'.
II
I
I
FILED
MAR 17 2016
J/
6
7
10
11
FORREST HURD,
12
Petitioner,
13
vs.
RULING ON OSC re
PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION;
ORDER THEREON
14
15
16
Res ondents,
I
I
17
1s11-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned on March 17,
2016, at 1:00 pm, in Dept. 4. Attorney Heather Burke appeared for and with Petitioner.
Assistant County Counsel Amanda Uhrhammer and Deputy County Counsel Scott McLeran
appeared for Respondents. Following argument, the Court now rules as follows:
Petitioner's OSC re Preliminary Injunction is denied.
Background
In 2012, Ordinance 2349 was passed by the County to regulate the location and size of
indoor and outdoor medical marijuana cultivation.
I
I
On January 12, 2016, the County passed Urgency Ordinance 2405. This ordinance
amended sections G-IV 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 of the County Code. In sum, it banned all
Due to the passing of Ordinance 2405, Section 5.4(C) currently provides that
cultivation may be undertaken only by (1) a qualified patient who occupies a legal residence
on the parcel being grown on as the primary place of residence; (2) a primary caregiver on
behalf of his qualified patient but only on a legal parcel with a legal residence which is
occupied by the patient or primary caregiver as his primary place of residence; (3) in
10
Additionally, due to the passing of Ordinance 2405, Section 5.4(E) currently sets forth
11
limits: (1) outdoor marijuana cultivation in any amount is prohibited and cultivation within
12
any detached accessory structure that does not meet the definition of indoor shall also be
13
considered outdoor cultivation and is prohibited; (2) marijuana may be cultivated only on legal
14
parcels zoned for residential or rural uses, 12 plants per parcel and one contiguous cultivation
15
area; (3) commercial cannabis activity in any amount or quantity on property located within
16
17
Now, the County seeks to present Measure W (Resolution 16-038) to the voters for the
18
June 7, 2016 election. This section amends only G-IV 5.4(C) and 5.4(E) of the County Code
19
20
Measure W's proposed 5.4(C) provides that marijuana may only be cultivated: (1) on a
21
legal parcel improved with a permanent, occupied, legally permitted residence; (2) by a
22
qualified patient on the same parcel that he/she occupies as his/her primary place of residence;
23
(3) by a primary caregiver on behalf of his/her qualified patient on the same parcel that the
24
caregiver or patient occupies as his/her primary place of residence; (4) only for medical
25
purposes in accordance with federal, state and local laws; (5) in conformance with all
26
applicable state and local laws, including all regulations and restrictions adopted by the Board.
27
Measure W's proposed 5.4(E) sets forth limitations that limits apply: (1) outdoor
28
cultivation in any amount is prohibited; (2) indoor of more than 12 plants per legal parcel is
2
I'
i
prohibited; (3) indoor cultivation may occur only on legal parcels located in an area zoned
primarily for residential or rural uses; (4) indoor cultivation on any other parcel is prohibited;
(5) indoor cultivation is prohibited in non-permitted structures, structures that are exempt from
permitting, or any portion of a structure designed or intended for human occupancy; (5)
Additionally, Measure W has an Article III that is being added to the code provisions.
This Article III provides that the Board may adopt, without a vote of the people, such
additional regulations as may be necessary to interpret and clarify the provisions of the
Ordinance.
10
After Measure W (Resolution 16-038) was approved to go the voters, there was
11
confusion by the public about whether or not Measure W would replace or repeal Ordinance
12
2405. Accordingly, Resolution 16-082 was passed by the County. This Resolution states, "If
13
the Ballot Measure [Measure W] is not approved by a majority of the registered voters voting
14
on the measure, it is the intent of the Board of Supervisors to reject the Ballot Measure, to
15
repeal the ban on outdoor cultivation of marijuana and to consider and adopt other outdoor
16
17
On February 29, 2016, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the
18
Impartial Analysis language to be included with the ballot. Thereafter, on March 8, 2016, this
19
Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the County from printing and distributing the
20
Impartial Analysis originally drafted until five errors noted by the Court were corrected.
21
The County then prepared and published a revised Impartial Analysis. Petitioner now
22
seeks a preliminary injunction enjoining printing and distribution of the ballots with the newly
23
24
Legal Authority
25
Elections Code 13314 permits a voter to seek a writ of mandate "alleging that an
26
error or omission has occurred, or is about to occur, in the placing of a name on, or in the
27
printing of, a ballot, sample ballot, voter pamphlet, or other official matter, or that any neglect
28
of duty has occurred, or is about to occur. ['II] (2) A peremptory writ of mandate shall issue
3
only upon proof of both of the following: [,r] (A) That the error, omission, or neglect is in
violation of this code or the Constitution. [,r] (B) That issuance of the writ will not
Elections Code 9160(b) provides: "The county counsel or district attorney shall
prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on the existing
law and the operation of the measure. The analysis shall include a statement indicating
whether the measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of
voters or by the board of supervisors. The analysis shall be printed preceding the arguments
for and against the measure. The analysis may not exceed 500 words in length."
10
Elections Code 9190 provides: "(a) The county elections official shall make a copy of
11
the materials referred to in Sections 9119, 9120, 9160, 9162, and 9167 available for public
12
examination in the county elections official's office for a period of 10 calendar days
13
immediately following the deadline for submission of those materials .... (b) (1) During the
14
IO-calendar-day public examination period provided by this section, any voter of the
15
jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the county elections official, himself or
16
herself, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be
17
amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the
18
end of the IO-calendar-day public examination period. (2) A peremptory writ of mandate or
19
an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question
20
is false, misleading, or inconsistent with this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or
21
injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election
22
23
Burden of Proof
24
Respondent County contends that the burden of proof for this hearing is clear and
25
convincing evidence and that the Court's prior determination that the standard of
26
27
28
Respondent is correct. The proper standard for this Court to apply is clear and
convincing evidence as set forth in Elections Code 9190.
4
I'
2
3
Waiver
In the prior OSC re Preliminary Injunction, Petitioner did not challenge the inclusion
of the word "federal" in the original Impartial Analysis. Although that language did not
change from the original Impartial Analysis to the revised Impartial Analysis, Petitioner now
Thus, the Court is presented with the question of whether or not that failure to
challenge the language the first time waived any such challenge. Unfortunately, neither party
provided this Court with any statutory or legal authority on the waiver issue.
10
The Court is not particularly swayed by the argument that Petitioner did not notice the
11
word "federal" in the first application. Nonetheless, as Petitioner correctly pointed out in her
12
brief, any new elector could challenge the language during the 10 day viewing period.
13
14
15
Petitioner contends that the language of the revised Impartial Analysis is misleading
16
because it presumes "that some measure of cannabis cultivation for medical purposes will be
17
authorized under those regulations enumerated in the Revised Summary." Petitioner contends
18
that a reference to federal law, which contains no exemptions for the cultivation of marijuana
19
20
Petitioner is incorrect. The revised Impartial Analysis states that existing law "Allows
21
marijuana cultivation only for medical purposes in accordance with federal, state, and local
22
laws .... " This statements is, indeed, correct. Section G-IV 5.4G of the existing law does
23
reference federal law and specifically states that federal law provides no exemptions for the
24
25
26
The revised Impartial Analysis is correct. There are no misleading statements. Thus,
the revised Impartial Analysis does not need to be revised again.
27
28
Ii
To the extent that Petitioner seeks to remove the word "federal" from the actual ballot
Measure itself, such issue is not before the Court. Rather, any direct or as-applied
Constitutional challenges should be filed after the election when the issue becomes ripe.
Petitioner next argues that "respondents have very publicly bound themselves to some
unknown action, should Measure W fail, which confuses the Revised Ballot Summary and
question to such an extent that further amendments cannot fix what is fatally broken." [Page
Petitioner's argument is without merit. This Court previously ruled that the County's
10
intertwining of two Resolutions, when only one is being voted upon, was confusing and
11
misleading. Such reference to the Resolution 16-082, which is not on the ballot, has properly
12
been removed by the County in the revised Impartial Analysis. The document itself is no
13
longer confusing and misleading. Accordingly, the preliminary injunction is denied on these
14
grounds.
15
16
Elections Code 13314 also requires that the Court find that the issuance of a writ
17
would not substantially interfere with the conduct of the election. While the Court is not
18
ruling on the under! ying petition itself, the Court finds that, had the Court found grounds to
19
grant the preliminary injunction, such order would cause substantial prejudice at this late date.
20
The Court notes that the arguments presented herein could have been, but were not, presented
21
22
Further, if the Court were to grant any preliminary injunction, a second revision and a
23
second 10 day viewing of any changes would have to be opened. The ballots, according to
24
Sandra Sjoberg, Assistant Clerk-Recorder, must be sent to the printer, at the latest, on April 1,
25
2016. There is simply insufficient time to correct any purported errors, and then allow for
26
viewing and printing. The Court finds no errors, and has denied the preliminary injunction.
27
28
6
~
1
However, as and for an additional ground for denying the preliminary injunction, the
Court finds that there would be substantial interference with the election process at this
juncture.
OSC re Contempt
March 14, 2016, Petitioner requested that the court issue an OSC directed at the County "for
failure to comply with the Court Order on Preliminary Injunction." This request is denied.
The Court enjoined the County from printing or distributing the ballots with the original
Impartial Analysis. Thereafter, the County did not print or distribute the ballots. In fact, the
10
County swiftly revised the language of the Impartial Analysis adequately responding to each
11
of the Court's five areas of concern. The County complied with this Court's prior order.
12
13
Conclusion
14
Based on the foregoing, the request for a Preliminary Injunction is denied. The Court
15
finds that the Impartial Analysis properly shows the effect of the measure on the existing law
16
and the operation of the measure. Further, the Court finds that the language of the revised
17
Impartial Analysis is not untruthful, is not confusing, is not misleading, and is impartial.
18
Final Comments
19
The Court notes that this Ruling on Preliminary Injunction does not address the
20
21
complete outdoor ban is permissible under the law is not before this Court. Any challenges to
22
the Constitutionality of the Measure or the Ordinance may be brought after the election.
23
24
25
f2tt/3~~~
CANDACE HEIDELBERGER
Judge of the Superior Court
26
27
28
7
I, G. SEAN METROKA, Court Executive Officer, County of Nevada, being a citizen of the
United States, a resident of the County of Nevada, and not a party to the cause, do hereby certify
that I mailed copies of the
RULING ON OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;
ORDER THEREON
of which the original is on file in Case No. CU16-081626 on the following named persons:
Heather Burke
Law Offices of Heather L. Burke
230 Main Street, Second Floor
Nevada City, CA 95959
Amanda Uhrhammer
Assistant County Counsel
950 Maidu Avenue, Suite 240
Nevada City, CA 95959
Charnel James
Law Office ofCharnel James
500 Olive Street
Marysville, CA 95901
aud that the envelope with prepaid postage was sealed and placed for collection and mailing in
'.2__ _I'1-_-_(~{_~---
G. SEAN METROKA