Nevada County marijuana: Attorneys tweak impartial analysis for Measure W | TheUnion.com

Nevada County marijuana: Attorneys tweak impartial analysis for Measure W

The Nevada County father whose court action led attorneys to change the impartial analysis for Measure W said Friday he hasn't decided if he will again challenge the ballot initiative.

Forrest Hurd, whose son Silas uses medicinal marijuana to reduce his seizures, read the new analysis on Friday, the first day of a new, 10-day review period for the document.

"I'm glad that they went back to try to clarify the impartial analysis," Hurd said. "We're going to take a look at it."

Hurd's attorney, Heather Burke, agreed.

"We've reviewed it and we're deciding what to do, if anything," Burke said.

The new analysis, ordered this week by a Superior Court judge, tweaks the original analysis' language and removes what the judge termed confusing portions. Much of the document, however, remains unchanged.

Recommended Stories For You

The new review period of the analysis began Friday and lasts through March 20. This new period is necessary after Judge Candace S. Heidelberger ruled that Measure W could not reach voters unless the county corrected errors in its existing impartial analysis.

The impartial analysis can be reviewed at the elections office, 950 Maidu Ave., Nevada City.

The updated analysis removes references to a resolution of intent the Nevada County Board of Supervisors passed. That resolution states the board would repeal its existing outdoor marijuana grow ban if voters reject Measure W.

"Addressing the Board's intent resolved on another Resolution is confusing and improper," the judge stated.

The new analysis also states that Measure W would amend the existing outdoor grow ban, not codify existing regulations.

Additionally, it clarifies the outcomes depending on whether voters pass or reject the measure on June 7.

A "Yes" vote would amend the existing outdoor grow ban and 12-plant indoor limitation. Any amendments or attempt to rescind the new ban would require another vote of the people, the analysis states.

"A 'No' vote would result in no change to Existing Law, which can be amended or rescinded by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors," it continues.

A writ filed last week by Hurd attempting to remove or amend Measure W led to the new analysis. Hurd has said the grow ban and limitation would make it impossible for his son to get his medicine.

Judge B. Scott Thomsen temporarily prohibited the county from printing ballots with Measure W; Heidelberger expanded that prohibition, stating the county must fix errors in its impartial analysis for the measure to reach voters.

To contact Staff Writer Alan Riquelmy, email ariquelmy@theunion.com or call 530-477-4239.