etc
Article Tools
Enter Initiative 2, which 55 percent of Missoula County voters passed in November. It recommended that law enforcement officials treat adult marijuana crimes—including possession, growing and selling—as their lowest priority and called for the creation of a citizen oversight committee on the issue.
On March 21, County Commissioners Barbara Evans and Jean Curtiss changed the initiative so the recommendation applies to misdemeanor crimes (possession up to 59 ounces) but not felony crimes (more than 60 ounces, and cultivating or selling). County Attorney Fred Van Valkenburg lobbied for the changes, arguing he had a “gut feeling” voters didn’t realize their votes’ implication and that the initiative would cause conflict between his office and that of Sheriff Mike McMeekin, who openly refuses to dictate priorities to his deputies.
Curtiss says she supported the amendments despite vocal opposition at the public hearing because, “it was going to be very difficult for [Van Valkenburg] to implement the initiative as passed by the voters in a reasonable fashion. I would hope the community would give the commission credit for the fact that we could have said it’s a bunch of baloney and we won’t even waste our time with it…I guess they recommended we do A, B and C and we did A and B.”
Commissioner Bill Carey voted against the amendments, saying the county should honor the voters’ will, particularly given that, “It cannot and does not make [law enforcement] do anything.”
Curtiss is correct that the county could choose to ignore all or part of the public’s recommendation (look no further than McMeekin for that attitude in action). It seems such a frank approach might have been easier than altering an initiative that simply tried to convey to local leaders a sentiment most citizens feel. Judging from the frustrated calls and letters we’re fielding, this is more about editing the democratic process than marijuana. The initiative has been changed, but the voters’ will is not so easily amended.
Showing 1-3 of 3
I knew this initiative would be waste of time the moment I read about it. The citizenry has no jurisdiction to tell law enforcement which Constitutionally-sound laws are a priority. The committee charged with overseeing the initiative cannot, in any practical sense, measure or enforce compliance. This Initiative was successful only in adding needless bureaucracy and micromanagement. If the law is unjust and should be overturned then go to Helena and tell the legislature. They're currently in session. Telling law enforcement which laws are important and which ones aren't isn't the answer.
Actually, it's both appropriate and healthy for the public to use the democratic process to provide their input to law enforcement. The justice system should welcome information that will inform them as to what practices will engender support or hostility towards their efforts. Of course, law enforcement retains the statutory prerogative to adhere to or ignore the public's advice, but they do so at risk of hindering all their other good work.
More chatter about this over at Grupthink: http://www.grupthink.com/topic/5605
Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Comments (3) RSS