Nevada County marijuana: Forrest Hurd files writ in attempt to remove Measure W from ballot
March 10, 2016
The father of an 8-year-old boy who suffers from seizures has asked a Nevada County judge to pull Measure W from the ballot, arguing the proposed outdoor marijuana ban is "confusing, misleading, and contains significant untruths," the document states.
Forrest Hurd, whose son, Silas, uses medicinal marijuana for his seizures, filed the writ Monday afternoon. He hopes it leads a judge to remove the question from the June 7 ballot, and brings supervisors to the negotiating table.
"After that we can take responsible action and do it correctly," Hurd said.
Nevada City attorney Heather Burke, who represents Hurd, said the case was placed on a calendar for June. She intends to file a temporary restraining order Tuesday, forcing the issue to a hearing this week.
“It’s so confusing as to what ‘No’ means is that it’s beyond repair.”Nevada City attorney Heather Burke said of the language
Recommended Stories For You
Burke said her first choice is to remove Measure W from the ballot. Alternatively, she wants the ballot language amended.
"It's so confusing as to what 'No' means is that it's beyond repair," Burke said of the language.
Alison Barratt-Green, county counsel, said she hadn't received a copy of the writ. She declined to comment.
Supervisors on Jan. 12 passed an urgency ordinance that created an immediate ban on outdoor marijuana grows and limited indoor grows to 12 plants.
The board also put the issue on the ballot. Supporters of Measure W would implement a voter-approved ban, not just one created by supervisors, if they prevail at the polls. Supervisors in a resolution of intent state they will rescind the ban if it fails on June 7.
Hurd in his court filing notes that the supervisor-passed ban would continue regardless of the vote's outcome. He claims this "significant community confusion" led Supervisor Dan Miller to state a "No" vote would rescind the urgency ordinance.
Miller, chairman of the Board of Supervisors, couldn't be reached for comment.
"The lack of clarity is confused further by the purported 'intent' language, which now offers yet another possibility for the meaning of a 'No' vote in an unbinding resolution," Hurd states.
Additionally, Hurd argues the ballot language doesn't state the "nature" of the ordinance, which violates election law.
"Noncompliance with the Elections Code can result in an initiative's disqualification from the ballot," Hurd states.
Sandra Sjoberg, assistant county clerk-recorder/registrar of voters, said her office hadn't yet received the court filing. She declined to comment.
To contact Staff Writer Alan Riquelmy, email email@example.com or call 530-477-4239.