I65 Petitioner Amicus Curiae Briefs

E-Filed Document Dec 14 2020 18:29:30 2020-IA-01199-SCT Pages: 26
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2020-M-01199
_______________________________________________

IN RE INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 65
MAYOR MARY HAWKINS BUTLER,

IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES; THE CITY OF MADISON PETITIONERS
VERSUS
MICHAEL WATSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL

CAPACITYAS SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENT
________________________________________________
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF

MISSISSIPPI SHERIFF’S ASSOCITIOAN
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
WILLIAM R. ALLEN (MSB #100541)

Allen, Allen, Breeland & Allen, PLLC
214 Justice Street
P. O. Box 751
Brookhaven, Mississippi 39601 ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS
Tel. (601) 833-4361 CURIAE MISSISSIPPI
Fax (601) 833-6647 SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION
Email: wallen@aabalegal.com


No. 2020-IA-01199-SCT

IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITIES; THE CITY OF MADISON PETITIONERS
VERSUS

CAPACITYAS SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENT
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an
interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the
justices of the Supreme Court and/or the judges of the Court of Appeals may evaluate
possible disqualification or recusal:
1. Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler, Petitioner;
2. The City of Madison, Petitioner;
3. Secretary of State Michael Watson, Respondent;
4. Kaytie M. Pickett, Adam Stone, Andrew S. Harris, and Jones Walker LLP,
Counsel for Petitioners;
5. Chelsea Brannon, Madison City Attorney, Counsel for Petitioners;
6. Attorney General Lynn Fitch, Counsel for Respondent;
7. Assistant Solicitor General Justin Matheny, Counsel for Respondent;
i

8. Deputy Solicitor General Krissy Nobile, Counsel for Respondent;
9. Mississippi Sheriffs’ Association, Amicus Curiae; and
10. William R. Allen; Counsel for Amicus Curiae.
/s/ William R. Allen

WILLIAM R. ALLEN,
Counsel for Mississippi Sheriffs’
Association
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Certificate of Interested Persons……………..……………………..……………..........…i
2. Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………....iv
3. Table of Authorities…………………………….……………………………....................v
4. Interest of the Amicus Curiae …………………………………………………..……..….1
5. Summary of the Argument………..………………………………………………...…......1
6. Legal Argument…………………………………………………………………………...3
I. Increased marijuana usage………………………………………………………...3
II. Impaired Driving………………………………………………………………….6
III. General Impact on Crime ………………………………………………………..10
IV. Public Health Impacts of Authorizing Medical Marijuana………………………13
7. Conclusion…………………………………………………………...………..…..….….15
8. Certificate………………………………………………………………………..……….16
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Carambat v. Carambat,
72 So.3d 505 (Miss. 2011)........................................................................ 11
Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n,

505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992) ............................................................................. 11
Hillsborough Cnty., Fla. v. Automated Med. Labs.,

471 U.S. 707, 713 (1985) ........................................................................ 11
James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula,

309 U.S. 94, 103-104 (1940) .................................................................... 10
STATUTES
Colorado Amend. 20........................................................................................ 6
Colorado Amend. 64........................................................................................ 6
RULES
Miss. R. App. P. 29 .......................................................................................... 1
OTHER AUTHORITIES
American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry Policy Statement:
Marijuana Legalization, May 2017,
https://www.aacap.org//AACAP/Policy_Statements/
2014/AACAP_Marijuana_Legalization_Policy.aspx .............................. 14
American Medical Association Policy,

https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder
/detail/cannabis?uri=%2FAMADoc%2F
directives.xml-D-95.969.xml..................................................................... 4

American Psychiatric Association, Position
Statement in Opposition to Cannabis as Medicine,
July 2019,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6690273/..................... 15
Arkansas Public Health Advisory on Human Use

of Products Derived from Cannabis, Including
Marijuana and Hemp; Issued February 13, 2019
https://www.healthy.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/pdf/
Public_Health_Advisory-Cannabis.pdf.; ..................................................... 4
Arseneault, et al.,
Mental Disorders and Violence in a
Total Birth Cohort, Arch Gen Psychiatry 57: 979–986. .......................... 13
Biecheler et al., SAM survey on “Drugs and

Fatal Accidents” Search of Substances Consumed
and Comparison between Drivers Involved Under
the Influence of Alcohol or Cannabis, Traffic Inj.
Prev. 2008; v. 9(1):11-21,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5514608_
SAM_Survey_on_Drugs_and_Fatal_Accidents_Search_of_
Substances_Consumed_and_Comparison_between_
Drivers_Involved_under_the_Influence_of_Alcohol_or_Cannabis; ........ 6
Brady & Li, Trends in Alcohol and Other

Drugs Detected in Fatally Injured Drivers
in the United States, 1999–2010. Am J Epidemiol.
January 2014:kwt327,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939850/....................... 6
Brook et al., Earlier Marijuana Use and Later

Problem Behavior in Columbian Youths, Journal
of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, Vo. 42, Issue 4, April 2003................................. 12
Cannabis (Marijuana) and Cannabinoids: What You

Need to Know, Nat’l Ctr for Complementary and
Integrative Hth., https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/
vi

cannabis-marijuana-and-cannabinoids-what-you-need-to-know ............... 4
Centers for Disease Control, Marijuana Fact Sheets,

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/fact-sheets.htm; ....................................... 4
Colorado Department of Transportation

https://www.codot.gov/safety/alcohol-and-impaired
-driving/druggeddriving/data. ..................................................................... 8
Dembo, et al. Further examination of the association

between heavy marijuana use and crime among
youths entering a juvenile detention center.
J Psychoactive Drugs 19 ........................................................................... 13
Denver Post ...................................................................................................... 8
Drug-Impaired Driving, A Guide for States,

Governors Highway Safety Administration,
https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2017-
04/GHSA_DruggedDriving2017_FINAL.pdf .......................................... 7
DRUID Final Report: Work Performed, Main Results

and Recommendations. EU DRUID Programme; 2012
http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Evidence/Details/10940. ............ 6
Evans, Marijuana Legalization Will Cause

Many Problems for Missouri Law Enforcement
and Schools, Missour Medicine, Vol 116(3), 2019 May-Jun.,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6690273/....................12, 15
Hartman RL, Huestis MA. Cannabis effects on driving skills.

Clin Chem. 2013;59(3):478-492.
doi:10.1373/clinchem.2012.194381 ................................................................ 9
Hartman RL, Brown TL, Milavetz G, et al.

Cannabis effects on driving lateral control with and without alcohol.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;154:25-37.
doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.06.015. ........................................................... 9
vii

Harris Poll
https://www.apci.org/media/news-releases/release/50904/ ...................... 9
Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) analysis

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/legalizing-recreational
%C2%A0marijuana-is-linked-to-increased-crashes .................................. 7
Insurance Institute Information,

https://www.iii.org/article/background-on-
marijuana-and-impaired-driving................................................................. 8
Katz, The National Survey on Drug Use and Health:

2019, U.S. Dept. Hth, SAMHSA
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/
files/reports/rpt29392/Assistant-Secretary-nsduh2019_
presentation/Assistant-Secretary-nsduh2019_presentation.pdf ................. 4
Know the Risks of Marijuana, SAMHSA,

https://www.samhsa.gov/marijuana.......................................................3, 5, 14
Marijuana-Impaired Driving—A Report to Congress,

U.S. DOT, Nat’l Traffic Safety Administration,
https://www.ncsbn.org/NHTSA_marijuana_impaired_
driving_report_to_congress.pdf.................................................................. 6
Marijuana Research Report,

Nat’l Inst. On Drug Abuse,
https://www.samhsa.gov/marijuana. .......................................................... 6
Marijuana Research Report,

Nat’l Inst. On Drug Abuse,
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-
reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug. ............................................ 13
Maxwell & Mendelson, “What do we know about

the impact of the laws related to marijuana?”
J Addict Med 2016 Feb: 10(1): 3-12,
viii

MDOT, Facts and Stats,
https://mdot.ms.gov/safetyeducation/parents/facts-and-stats/. ................. 10
Meier, et al., Persistent cannabis users

show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife,
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 2;109(40) ....................................... 14
Miller & Oberbarnscheidt,

Marijuana Violence and Law,
Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy. Jan, 2017.
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/marijuana-
violence-and-law-2155-6105-S11-014.pdf. .................................................. 13
Missouri Med--
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC6690273/#b2-ms116_p0164............................................................. 7
NHTSA, p. 13,
https://www.ncsbn.org/NHTSA_marijuana_impaired
driving_report_to_congress.pdf.................................................................. 7
NHTSA, p. 13; CDOT,

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/
ct-biz-driving-on-pot-getting-around-20190429-story.html ...................... 8
National Institute on Drug Abuse, Marijuana Report,

reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving ................................ 9
National Institute on Drug Abuse, Marijuana Report,

reports/marijuana/what-are-marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain .................. 15
NIH’s Monitoring the Future Survey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
755Vmwgl0ZI&feature=youtu.be .............................................................. 3
ix

Pacula & Kilmer, Marijuna and Crime:
Is there a Connection Beyond Prohibition,
NBER Working Paper No. 11046, Oct. 2003 ............................................... 12
Quiz: What’s Your Marijuana IQ?,

https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/
files/quiz-whats-your-iq-qa.pdf .................................................................. 4
Robeznieks, Marijuana policy should be guided by

evidence not on the ballot, AMA, Public Health,
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health
/marijuana-policy-should-be-guided-evidence-not-ballot .......................... 4
The Cannabis Conversation,

https://www.codot.gov/safety/alcohol-and-impaired-
driving/druggeddriving/assets/2020/cannabis-
conversation-report_april-2020.pdf ............................................................ 9
Traffic fatalities linked to marijuana are up sharply

in Colorado. Is legalization to blame”,
Denver Post, Aug. 25, 2017,
https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/
colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/ ......................................................... 7
U.S. DOT, Nat’l Traffic Safety Administration,

https://www.ncsbn.org/NHTSA_marijuana_
impaired_driving_report_to_congress.pdf ................................................. 9
Volkow et al., Adverse health effects of marijuana use.

New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 370: 2219-27

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE
Pursuant to M.R.A.P 29, the Mississippi Sheriffs’ Association (“MSA”), as amicus curiae,
respectfully submits this brief in support of Petitioner. The MSA is the representative body for
Sheriffs in Mississippi whose purposes include promoting the fair and efficient administration of
criminal justice in Mississippi as well cooperating with organizations dedicated to the reduction
of crime and improvement of law enforcement. The MSA is a voluntary organization whose
membership includes the Sheriffs of eighty (80) of Mississippi’s eighty-two (82) Counties.
Petitioner seeks review of the Mississippi Secretary of State’s (“SOS”) determination of
the sufficiency of the petition for Initiative Measure No. 65 amending the Constitution to allow
qualified patients with debilitating medical conditions to use medical marijuana. Neither
Appellants nor Appellees brief address the impact of medical marijuana on the public’s health and
safety. Because the MSA is dedicated to keeping the peace and protecting the lives and property
of this State’s citizens, the impact of medical marijuana on the health and safety of Mississippians
are issues which the MSA has a substantial legitimate interest in and the outcome of this action
will affect its members. The focus of the parties pertains to the validity of the placement of
Initiative 65 on the ballot and, as such, the interests of public safety and health may well be
overlooked. MSA has a substantial interest in those issues and, thus, submits the following facts
which might otherwise escape the Court’s attention. M.R.C.P. 29(a).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Neither the Petitioners’ nor the Respondent’s brief addresses the potential impact of
Initiative 65 on public’s health and safety. Because legalization of medical marijuana is a recent
trend in the United States, studies on the impact of marijuana legalization are mixed; however,
1

data to date reveals potential issues pertaining to (1) increased marijuana usage; (2) driving while
impaired; (3) general crime; and (4) general public health.
First, data indicates that legalizing medical marijuana will increase usage. Marijuana is
already the most used illicit drug in the United States and increased usage will have a
corresponding effect of increased addiction. Data suggests marijuana use among adolescents is
linked to a decline in IQ as well as potential mental health problems. This lack of a complete
understanding of the impacts of the above, make it imprudent to legalize medical marijuana.
MSA is also concerned that legalizing medical marijuana will increase marijuana impaired
driving. Marijuana usage has physiological impacts that result in bad driving and correlate to more
traffic accidents/fatalities. Unfortunately, testing for marijuana impairment is difficult and the
absence of a standard for impairment makes this nearly impossible for law enforcement to police.
The actual risks of driving impaired seem to decline in drivers’ minds the more they consume.
Furthermore, data suggests the combination of marijuana and alcohol consumption can have
disastrous results on the streets and highways.
Significantly, marijuana is still a Schedule 1 drug under federal law and data indicates that
property crime can go up once it is legalized. The marijuana industry largely operates on a cash
basis making all components of the industry great targets for criminals.
The impact of marijuana on the public health in general must also be considered as studies
show that marijuana can be a “gateway” drug to more illicit substances, cause a loss of IQ, and
lead to mental disorders. For all of these reasons, the Court must give the Mississippi Constitution
a “plain reading” and void Initiative 65 as being unconstitutionally placed on the ballot.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
2

While recognizing there is some evidence that marijuana is useful in treating certain
diseases and/or symptoms, the potential consequences of legalizing medical marijuana at this time
could be disastrous. While those impacts may remain somewhat unclear, they certainly indicate a
significant detriment.
I. Increased marijuana usage.
Marijuana is already the most commonly used illegal drug in the United States.1 An
obvious consequence of legalizing medical marijuana is that usage in the State will increase.
Furthermore, it is highly unlikely the increase will be limited to adults with a qualifying
“debilitating medical condition” as defined in Imitative 65; rather, the increase will almost
certainly be across a broad range of age groups. Increased usage is troubling given the correlation
of marijuana use with traffic accidents, fatalities and adverse physical and mental health
outcomes.2
Marijuana is already the most frequently used illicit drug among teenagers in the United
States3. A 2017 Oregon State Police Drug Enforcement Report revealed that as of 2015, sixty
percent of 11th graders reported that acquiring marijuana was “easy”.4 Even where legalization
does not demonstrate an increase in usage, some studies indicate adolescents’ (ages 12-17)
perceptions of the “great risk” affiliated with marijuana decreased significantly across a ten year
span following legalization.5 Were this decreased risk assessment to occur among Mississippi’s
youth, the same may well lead to increased consumption. When coupled with the U.S. Department

1
Know the Risks of Marijuana, U.S. Dept. Hth, SAMHSA, available at https://www.samhsa.gov/marijuana.
2
See, Infra.
3
Monitoring the Future Survey, Nat’l Inst. Health, available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=755Vmwgl0ZI&feature=youtu.be.
4
https://media.oregonlive.com/today/other/cannabis_enforcement_oregon%202.pdf
5
Maxwell & Mendelson, “What do we know about the impact of the laws related to marijuana?” J Addict
Med 2016 Feb: 10(1): 3-12, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4733622/.
3

of Health & Human Services’ explanation that, contrary to popular belief, marijuana is addictive,
the risk is greater than perceived.6 In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), about 1 in 10 marijuana users will become addicted. 7 For people who begin
using marijuana before the age of 18, that number rises to 1 in 6. 8
This is particularly concerning as use among adolescents is linked to a decline in IQ and is
also associated with educational drop out.9 Use in adolescence is also associated with the risk for
psychotic disorders in adulthood and the development of drug disorders. Furthermore, adolescents
using cannabis are four to seven times more likely than adults to develop cannabis use disorder—
a diagnosable DSM-5 behavioral disorder.10
An increase in usage is also frightening given the lack of availability of scientifically valid
and clinical trials undertaken to assess the safety and effectiveness of marijuana. For this reason,
the American Medical Association (“AMA”) issued a policy stating that cannabis for medicinal
use should not be legalized through the state legislative, ballot initiative, or referendum process.11

6
Centers for Disease Control, Marijuana Fact Sheets, available at https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/fact-
sheets.htm; Arkansas Public Health Advisory on Human Use of Products Derived from Cannabis,
Including Marijuana and Hemp; Issued February 13, 2019 available at
https://www.healthy.arkansas.gov/images/uploads/pdf/Public_Health_Advisory-Cannabis.pdf.; Volkow et
al., Adverse health effects of marijuana use. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 370: 2219-27
available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4827335/.
7
CDC Marijuana and Public Health, available at https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/fact-sheets.htm; Arkansas
Public Health Advisory on Human Use of Products Derived from Cannabis, Including Marijuana and
Hemp; February 13, 2019; Volkow et al., Adverse health effects of marijuana use. New England Journal of
Medicine. 2014; 370: 2219-27.
8
Id.
9
Quiz: What’s Your Marijuana IQ?, available at https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/quiz-whats-
your-iq-qa.pdf; Katz, The National Survey on Drug Use and Health: 2019, U.S. Dept. Hth, SAMHSA,
available at https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/rpt29392/Assistant-Secretary-
nsduh2019_presentation/Assistant-Secretary-nsduh2019_presentation.pdf
10
Https://www.ncbi.nlm.hih.gov/books/NBK538131; Cannabis (Marijuana) and Cannabinoids: What You
Need to Know, Nat’l Ctr for Complementary and Integrative Hth., available at
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/cannabis-marijuana-and-cannabinoids-what-you-need-to-know
11
American Medical Association Policy, available at https://policysearch.ama-
assn.org/policyfinder/detail/cannabis?uri=%2FAMADoc%2Fdirectives.xml-D-95.969.xml;Robeznieks,
Marijuana policy should be guided by evidence not on the ballot, AMA, Public Health, available at
4

Rather, the AMA has found that clinical trials to study the safety and effectiveness of marijuana
should take place and all marijuana products not approved by the FDA should include the warning:
"Marijuana has a high potential for abuse. This product has not been approved by the Food and
Drug Administration for preventing or treating any disease process.”12
While science related to marijuana’s safety and effectiveness may be lacking, information
about its current potency is not. Today’s marijuana has three times the concentration of THC
compared to twenty-five years ago.13 Even though there is little research on how higher potency
affects the long-term risks of marijuana use, more THC is likely to lead to higher rates of
dependency and addiction.14
Significantly, Initiative 65 will almost certainly result in an increase in usage of marijuana.
The text specifies twenty-two conditions for which medical marijuana can be prescribed, yet also
contains an overly broad “catch-all” provision. More specifically, the Initiative allows physicians
to dole out marijuana for any “another medical condition of the same kind or class to those herein
enumerated and for which a physician believes the benefits of using medical marijuana would
reasonably outweigh potential health risks.”15 This catch-all will almost certainly increase usage.
While data and studies on the impact of medical marijuana use by both adults and youth
are mixed, multiple studies have linked its usage to damaging impacts on a person’s mental and
physical health. Given that legalization of medical marijuana will likely increase usage in
Mississippi, allowing Initiative 65 to be implemented invites damaging consequences to adults and

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/marijuana-policy-should-be-guided-evidence-
not-ballot.
12
Id.; The Mississippi Medical Ass’n has joined the AMA in its policy towards marijuana. (cite)
13
Know the Risks of Marijuana, U.S. Dept. Hth, SAMHSA.
14
Id.
15
Initiative 65, Section 4(3), available at https://www.sos.ms.gov/Elections-Voting/Pages/Initiative-
Measure-65.aspx.
5

youth alike. Though the long term consequences of marijuana may not well-known, the potential
for the same makes clear that legalization does not protect Mississippian’s health and safety.
II. Impaired Driving.
A particularly dire impact legalization of medical marijuana may result in pertains to the
safety of Mississippi’s traffic ways. Studies have found a direct relationship between blood THC
concentration and impaired driving ability.16 Marijuana can have dangerous effects on drivers
including, but not limited to, slower reactions, lane weaving, decreased coordination, and difficulty
reacting to signals and sounds on the road.17 It is clear that marijuana significantly impairs
judgment, motor coordination, and reaction time.18 The dangerous effects of marijuana impaired
drivers can, in turn, have dangerous, and sometimes fatal, effects on other drivers.
A. Data appears to show increase in motor vehicle accidents, including fatalities.
Data shows that marijuana is the illicit drug most frequently found in the blood of drivers
who have been involved in vehicle crashes, including fatal ones.19 Two studies found that drivers
with THC in their blood were roughly twice as likely to be culpable for a fatal crash as drivers
who had not used drugs or alcohol.20 The number of drivers involved in fatal crashes in Colorado21

16
Marijuana Research Report, Nat’l Inst. On Drug Abuse.
17
Marijuana Research Report, Nat’l Inst. On Drug Abuse, available at https://www.samhsa.gov/marijuana.
18
Id.; Marijuana-Impaired Driving—A Report to Congress, U.S. DOT, Nat’l Traffic Safety Administration,
available at https://www.ncsbn.org/NHTSA_marijuana_impaired_driving_report_to_congress.pdf.
19
Brady & Li, Trends in Alcohol and Other Drugs Detected in Fatally Injured Drivers in the United States,
1999–2010. Am J Epidemiol. January 2014: kwt327, available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939850/.
20
Biecheler et al., SAM survey on “Drugs and Fatal Accidents” Search of Substances Consumed and
Comparison between Drivers Involved Under the Influence of Alcohol or Cannabis, Traffic Inj. Prev. 2008;
v. 9(1):11-21, available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5514608_SAM_Survey_on_Drugs_and_Fatal_Accidents_Searc
h_of_Substances_Consumed_and_Comparison_between_Drivers_Involved_under_the_Influence_of_Alc
ohol_or_Cannabis; DRUID Final Report: Work Performed, Main Results and Recommendations. EU
DRUID Programme; 2012, available at http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/Evidence/Details/10940.
21
Colorado legalized medical marijuana in 2000 and recreational marijuana in 2012. See, Colorado Amend.
20 & 64.
6

who tested positive for marijuana has more than doubled since 2013 following Colorado’s
legalization of recreational marijuana.22
It is worth noting, that in a survey of Colorado and Washington drivers who reported using
marijuana in the past month, 43.6% reported driving under the influence of marijuana in the past
year and 23.9% had driven within one hour of using marijuana at least five times in the past
month.23 Similarly, a joint study conducted by the University of Colorado, Johns Hopkins
University, and Harvard Medical School regarding the impact of legalization in Colorado revealed
there are higher rates of traffic fatalities while driving under the influence of marijuana.24
Given the known impacts of how marijuana usage affects motor skills, such data implies
Mississippi’s traffic ways will become more dangerous.
B. Testing difficulties can obscure data and enforcement.
Law enforcement agencies face great difficulty surrounding testing drivers for marijuana
impairment. Unlike with alcohol, there is no chemical test for marijuana impairment that
quantifies the amount of marijuana in the body, indicates the degree of impairment, and the risk of
crash involvement that results from the use of marijuana.25 The psychoactive ingredient in
marijuana—THC—simply does not correlate well with impairment.26 This is because the human
body processes THC differently than alcohol and THC can remain in a user’s system weeks after

22
Traffic fatalities linked to marijuana are up sharply in Colorado. Is legalization to blame”, Denver Post,
Aug. 25, 2017, available at https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/25/colorado-marijuana-traffic-fatalities/.
23
Drug-Impaired Driving, A Guide for States, Governors Highway Safety Administration,
https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2017-04/GHSA_DruggedDriving2017_FINAL.pdf
24
Missouri Med-- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6690273/#b2-ms116_p0164;
Legalizing recreational marijuana use in Colorado, Oregon and Washington has resulted in collision claim
frequencies that are about 3 percent higher overall than would have been expected without legalization, a
new Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) analysis shows. https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/legalizing-
recreational%C2%A0marijuana-is-linked-to-increased-crashes
25
NHTSA, p. 13, https://www.ncsbn.org/NHTSA_marijuana_impaired_driving_report_to_congress.pdf
26
Id.
7

consumption.27 While testing for Marijuana can demonstrate the “presence” of the drug, there is
no precise measure for “impairment.” In addition, while the nationally recognized level of
impairment for drunken driving is .08 g/mL blood alcohol concentration, there is no similar
national standard for drugged driving.28 Clearly, the lack of a definitive standard presents a
significant problem to Mississippi Sheriffs and other law enforcement agencies in ensuring the
State’s roads and highways remain safe.
Proponents of legalizing marijuana frequently point out that data on marijuana’s impact on
traffic accidents/fatalities is imprecise. For example, the Denver Post reports that Taylor West,
former deputy director of the National Cannabis Industry Association, stated that “unlike alcohol,
THC can remain detectable in the blood stream for days or weeks, when any impairment wears off
in a matter of hours…so all those numbers really tell us is that, since legal adult-use sales began,
a larger number of people are consuming cannabis and then, at some point … (are) driving a car.”29
This argument, however, begs the question—why authorize an, until now, illicit drug that will
almost certainly have dangerous implications on highway and road safety when the effects are not
definitively known? Given the correlations between marijuana use and traffic accidents
demonstrated in Colorado and other States, public policy dictates the more prudent step is to further
study this issue rather than implement medical marijuana and hope for the best.
C. Risk of Impaired driving decreases with consumption.

27
Insurance Institute Information, https://www.iii.org/article/background-on-marijuana-and-impaired-
driving
28
NHTSA, p. 13; CDOT, ?? (bloodstream THC is an inaccurate measure of impairment because tolerance
varies widely based on individual characteristics); https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-
driving-on-pot-getting-around-20190429-story.html (roadside testing for marijuana is not as
straightforward as testing for alcohol).
29
Denver Post
8

Unfortunately, it is also worth noting that there is a growing false perception that driving
high on marijuana is not dangerous.30 A survey by the Colorado Department of Transportation
reveals that the more often people consumed marijuana, the less dangerous they considered driving
high to be dangerous. That is, the more often they consumed the drug, the safer they felt to drive.31
Many daily users considered driving under the influence of cannabis to be safe, and some even
reported they drove better after using cannabis because they were calmer.32
Similarly, a Harris Poll conducted on behalf of the Property Casualty Insurers Association
of America revealed that only two in five persons surveyed believed driving under the influence
of marijuana contributed to more motor vehicle crashes.33
Given that marijuana significantly impairs judgment, motor coordination, and reaction
time, the fact that there is a false perception that marijuana usage does not impact traffic safety is
troubling. 34
D. Risk of driving under influence of marijuana and alcohol.
Finally, the risk of impaired driving associated with marijuana in combination with alcohol
appears to be greater than that for either by itself.35 According to the Mississippi Department of
Transportation, in 2016, drunk driving fatalities represented eighteen percent of Mississippi’s total

30
The Cannabis Conversation, https://www.codot.gov/safety/alcohol-and-impaired-
driving/druggeddriving/assets/2020/cannabis-conversation-report_april-2020.pdf
31
https://www.codot.gov/safety/alcohol-and-impaired-driving/druggeddriving/data.
32
Id.
33
https://www.apci.org/media/news-releases/release/50904/
34
National Institute on Drug Abuse, Marijuana Report, https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-
reports/marijuana/does-marijuana-use-affect-driving; U.S. DOT, Nat’l Traffic Safety Administration,
https://www.ncsbn.org/NHTSA_marijuana_impaired_driving_report_to_congress.pdf (marijuana can
impair critical abilities necessary for safe driving).
35
Hartman RL, Huestis MA. Cannabis effects on driving skills. Clin Chem. 2013;59(3):478-492.
doi:10.1373/clinchem.2012.194381; Hartman RL, Brown TL, Milavetz G, et al. Cannabis effects on driving
lateral control with and without alcohol. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;154:25-37.
doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.06.015.
9

traffic deaths. Nearly 10,000 people per year die on Mississippi’s roadways due to drunk driving
and combining alcohol with medical marijuana will likely lead to an increase in traffic deaths.36
While there are a multitude of studies dealing with the impact of marijuana usage on traffic
accidents and crime, frankly, the data is mixed as to potential outcomes. Nevertheless, studies
certainly show, at a minimum, a correlation between marijuana usage and adverse traffic
outcomes. The lack of a definitive causal link is no reason to move forward without caution. To
the contrary, public policy demands greater insight via scientific study before releasing marijuana
on the streets of this State. This Court should weigh this public policy in favor of voiding Initiative
65’s presentation on the ballot.
III. General Impact on Crime
Law enforcement officers are gravely concerned about the impact medical marijuana will
have on their conducting investigations, establishing probable cause, determining search and
seizure procedures, and addressing public safety concerns.
A. Federal Law Criminalizes Marijuana possession/usage.
It is of the utmost significance that the Court remember that marijuana, in any form, is still
a Class 1 scheduled drug under the Controlled Substances Act and is illegal according to federal
law. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution promotes national uniformity by
precluding state law from interfering with the enforcement of federal law. U.S. Const., art. VI, cl.
2. “Where enforcement of...state law would handicap efforts to carry out the plans of the United
States, the state enactment must...give way.” James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula, 309 U.S. 94, 103-
104 (1940). Thus, to avoid a constitutional crisis, “compliance with both federal and state
regulations is a physical impossibility,” the “state law is nullified to the extent that it actually

36
MDOT, Facts and Stats, https://mdot.ms.gov/safetyeducation/parents/facts-and-stats/.
10

conflicts with federal law.” Hillsborough Cnty., Fla. v. Automated Med. Labs., 471 U.S. 707, 713
(1985); See, Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992).
Authorizing medical marijuana presents a direct conflict with federal law and would
obviously impact Mississippi law enforcements ability to police drug crimes.37
B. Increased Property Crime.
There is also legitimate concern that legalization of medical marijuana will lead to
increased crime, whether burglary or theft, based on the marijuana business largely being a cash-
only business. Prior to the Federal Government issuing guidelines allowing banks to work with
marijuana businesses in compliance with new state legalization laws, banks had, and many still
have, a general reluctance to do business with marijuana growers and dispensaries.38 Banking
officials continue to fear they will still be subject to investigation for accepting cash that drug-
sniffing dogs can target by smelling marijuana on the bills or that they could be prosecuted under
money laundering laws for accepting funds from legalized businesses. As a result, the marijuana
business remains a cash business. Such businesses are an enticing target for criminals.
Colorado law enforcement officials have observed that criminals: are targeting marijuana-
39
related businesses, knowing they may have large sums of cash. Even marijuana couriers
transporting marijuana from one location to another are at risk and have been robbed.40 Notably, a

37
This impact would not only interfere with criminal enforcement of drug laws but will also affect domestic-
related policy as in Mississippi, the habitual use of marijuana has been found to be sufficient grounds for
divorce. Carambat v. Carambat, 72 So.3d 505 (Miss. 2011).
38
Colorado’s legalization of Marijuana and the Impact on Public Safety, A Practical Guide for Law
Enforcement, p. 19.
39
Id.
40
Id.
11

number of empirical studies have found that marijuana use enhances the likelihood of engaging in
property crimes and other forms of serious delinquent behavior.41
While the Marijuana industry argues that legalization will reduce crime, data is
inconclusive. A joint study conducted by the University of Colorado, Johns Hopkins University,
and Harvard Medical School pertaining to the impact of marijuana legalization in Colorado,
however, determined there was no reduction in crime.42
Similarly, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys has noted that
citizens in states that have legalized medical marijuana have seen the abuse of such laws, which
has created: (1) Increased violence directed toward marijuana dispensary owners and employees.
(2) Increased burglaries of marijuana dispensaries; (3) Lack of effort on the part of dispensary
owners/employees to control unlawful or nuisance behavior in and around the business or to
comply with state laws designed to regulate medical marijuana use; (4) Increased loitering, noises,
litter, and property damage, smoking of marijuana in public areas; (5) An influx of criminal
elements into the neighborhoods where dispensaries are located; and (6) Increased sales of
marijuana to juveniles under the age of eighteen (18) or to customers who are young and do not
have an illness or a serious medical condition.43
Recent science does show a clear relationship between marijuana use and violence. An
article in the Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy show that marijuana use causes aggressive

41
Brook et al., Earlier Marijuana Use and Later Problem Behavior in Columbian Youths, Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vo. 42, Issue 4, April 2003 (marijuana use
associated with increased risks for violent experiences); Pacula & Kilmer, Marijuna and Crime: Is there a
Connection Beyond Prohibition, NBER Working Paper No. 11046, Oct. 2003 (there is a positive association
between use of marijuana and violent, property and income producing crime).
42
Evans, Marijuana Legalization Will Cause Many Problems for Missouri Law Enforcement and Schools,
Missour Medicine, Vol 116(3), 2019 May-Jun., available at
43
Id.
12

behavior, causes or exacerbates psychosis and produce paranoias.44 Ultimately, without the use
and intoxication of marijuana, the poor judgment and misperceptions displayed by these
individuals would not have been present, thereby reducing the risk for actions that result in
senseless deaths. Again, inasmuch as current marijuana is far more potent in THC concentrations
(the psychoactive component), there is a greater risk for paranoid thinking and psychosis. In turn,
paranoid behavior increases the risk for paranoid behaviors and predictably associated with
aggressive and violent behaviors. In another study, researchers found that marijuana dependence
was related to a 280 percent increase in the odds of violence.45
Finally, the impact on juvenile crime is an area of major concern. In one study, authors
found that youths who tested positive for marijuana had a significantly higher number of referrals
to juvenile court for nondrug felonies than those testing negative for marijuana use. 46 While study
results have been mixed, the potential correlation of drug use on crime rates merits more research
before authorizing the use of medical marijuana.
IV. Public Health Impacts of Authorizing Medical Marijuana
The overall impact of legalization of medical marijuana on the public health cannot be
understated. Some research suggests that marijuana use is likely to precede use of other illicit
substances and the development of addiction to other substances.47 For instance, a study using
longitudinal data from the National Epidemiological Study of Alcohol Use and Related Disorders

44
Miller & Oberbarnscheidt, Marijuana Violence and Law, Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy. Jan,
2017. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/marijuana-violence-and-law-2155-6105-S11-014.pdf.
45
Arseneault, et al., Mental Disorders and Violence in a Total Birth Cohort, Arch Gen Psychiatry 57: 979–
986.
46
Dembo, et al. Further examination of the association between heavy marijuana use and crime among
youths entering a juvenile detention center. J Psychoactive Drugs 19: 361–373; Dembo et al., Heavy
marijuana use and crime among youths entering a juvenile detention center, J Psychoactive Drugs 19: 47–
56.
47
Marijuana Research Report, Nat’l Inst. On Drug Abuse, found at
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug.
13

found that adults who reported marijuana use during the first wave of the survey were more likely
than adults who did not use marijuana to develop an alcohol use disorder within three (3) years.48
In addition, people who used marijuana and already had an alcohol use disorder at the outset were
at greater risk of their alcohol use disorder worsening.49
Significantly, according to the United States Health and Human Services' Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, marijuana can cause permanent IQ loss of as much as
eight points when people start using it at a young age.50 These IQ points cannot be recouped, even
after quitting marijuana.51 Furthermore, studies link marijuana use to depression, anxiety, suicide
planning, and psychotic episodes. 52
In 2017, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry warned that marijuana
impacts the developing brain, even beyond early childhood.53 They note that “heavy use during
adolescence is associated with increased incidence and worsened course of psychotic, mood,
anxiety, and substance use disorders"—with as many as one in six adolescents developing a
cannabis use disorder.54 The Academy also cites longer-term complications of marijuana use,
including “increased risk of motor vehicle accidents, sexual victimization, academic failure,
lasting decline in intelligence measures, psychopathology, addiction, and psychosocial and
occupational impairment." 55

48
Id.
49
Id.
50
Know the Risks of Marijuana, SAMHSA, found at https://www.samhsa.gov/marijuana; Meier, et al.,
Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife, Proc Natl Acad Sci
U S A. 2012 Oct 2;109(40).
51
Id.
52
Id.
53
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Policy Statement: Marijuana Legalization,
May 2017, found at
https://www.aacap.org//AACAP/Policy_Statements/2014/AACAP_Marijuana_Legalization_Policy.aspx.
54
Id.
55
Id.
14

There is substantial evidence from animal research and a growing number of studies in
humans that indicate that marijuana exposure during development can cause long-term or possibly
permanent adverse changes in the brain. 56 Several studies have linked marijuana use to increased
risk for psychiatric disorders, including psychosis (schizophrenia), depression, anxiety, and
substance use disorders.57 Yet, whether and to what extent it actually causes these conditions is
not always easy to determine.
According to the American Psychiatric Association and other authorities, current evidence
supports, at a minimum, a strong association of marijuana use with the onset of psychiatric
disorders.58 Ultimately, marijuana is not approved for use by the United States Food and Drug
Administration and remains illegal. There is a lack of rigorous medical review of its impacts.
While it is not known if marijuana use is the cause of correlating mental health conditions, the lack
of understanding should give this Court pause as it examines the validity of Initiative 65. This lack
of knowledge regarding the overall health impacts of marijuana usage makes it all the more
difficult to understand why the State would permit legalization.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the MSA respectfully requests this Court consider the
above and, pursuant to public policy, engage in a plain reading of the Mississippi Constitution
which will void Imitative 65 as being unconstitutionally placed on the ballot.

56
National Institute on Drug Abuse, Marijuana Report, found at
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-are-marijuanas-long-term-
effects-brain.
57
Id.
58
Evans, Marijuana Legalization Will Cause Many Problems for Missouri Law Enforcement and Schools,
Missouri Medicine, The Journal of the Missouri State Medical Association; available at; American
Psychiatric Association, Position Statement in Opposition to Cannabis as Medicine, July 2019, available at
15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Appellate Courts using the MEC system which sent notification of such filing to
the following counsel of record:
Attorney General Lynn Fitch

Assistant Attorney General Justin Matheny Assistant Solicitor
General Krissy Casey 550 High Street, Suite 1200
Sillers Building
Jackson MS 39201
Attorneys for Respondent
Kaytie M. Pickett
Adam Stone
Andrew S. Harris
JONES WALKER LLP
190 East Capitol Street, Suite 800 (39201)
P.O. Box 427
Jackson, MS 39205-0427
Telephone: (601) 949-4900
kpickett@joneswalker.com
astone@joneswalker.com
aharris@joneswalker.com
Chelsea H. Brannon
City of Madison, City Attorney
Post Office Box 40
Madison, Mississippi 39130-0040
Telephone: (601) 856-7116;
cbrannon@madisonthecity.com
Attorneys for Petitioner
This the 14th day of December, 2020.
/s/ William R. Allen

OF COUNSEL
16

2020-IA-01199-SCT
IN RE INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 65:

in her individual and official capacities,
and THE CITY OF MADISON, Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL WATSON, in his official

capacity as Secretary of State for the
State of Mississippi, Respondent.
Brief of Amici Curiae

Mississippi State Medical Association
and
American Medical Association
John B. Howell III (MSB #102655)

JACKSON, TULLOS & ROGERS, PLLC
309 S. 40th Avenue
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39402
601.264.3309
jhowell@jacksonfirm.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae

Mississippi State Medical Association and
2020-IA-01199-SCT

in her individual and official capacities,
and THE CITY OF MADISON, Petitioners,
v.
MICHAEL WATSON, in his official

capacity as Secretary of State for the
State of Mississippi, Respondent.
Certificate of Interested Persons
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following persons and entities have an
interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the justices of
the Supreme Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal:
1. Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler ................................................................................. Petitioner
2. The City of Madison .............................................................................................. Petitioner
3. Kaytie M. Pickett, Adam Stone, Andrew S. Harris, and

Jones Walker LLP ............................................................................. Counsel for Petitioners
4. Chelsea Brannon, Madison City Attorney ........................................ Counsel for Petitioners
5. Secretary of State Michael Watson ..................................................................... Respondent
6. Attorney General Lynn Fitch, Deputy Solicitor General

Krissy Nobile, and Assistant Solicitor General Justin Matheny ..... Counsel for Respondent
7. Mississippi State Medical Association ......................................................... Amicus Curiae
8. American Medical Association ..................................................................... Amicus Curiae
9. John B. Howell III and Jackson, Tullos & Rogers, PLLC ........... Counsel for Amici Curiae
ii
This 14th day of December 2020. /s/John B. Howell III
John B. Howell III
Counsel for Amici Curiae

Mississippi State Medical Association and
iii
Table of Contents
Table of Authorities ....................................................................................................................... iv
Summary of the Argument...............................................................................................................1
Argument .........................................................................................................................................2
A. The Legislature purposefully chose to not lock “congressional district” to a particular

point in time as it routinely did with other laws. ...........................................................2
1. “Existing” clauses from 1944‒1992. ...........................................................2
2. 1992 ‒ Senate Concurrent Resolution 516...................................................3
B. With the loss of the House seat, the Legislature recognizes the problem with Section
273(3)’s one-fifth requirement and attempts are made to fix it. ..................................4
C. The inclusion of Initiative 65 on the ballot was unconstitutional. .................................6
D. The Court should decline Respondent’s invitation to fix the one-fifth error through
interpretation, for amending the Constitution is the exclusive privilege of the
Legislature and the people. ............................................................................................6
E. The initiative poses significant risks to the public health and burdens for Mississippi’s
physicians. ......................................................................................................................8
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................10
Certificate of Service .....................................................................................................................11
iv
Table of Authorities
Cases
Arant v. Hubbard, 824 So. 2d 611 (Miss. 2002)..........................................................................2, 6
Bell v. State, 160 So. 3d 188 (Miss. 2015).......................................................................................6
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)...........................................................................7
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) ................................................................................7
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)..............................................................................................7
Little v. Mississippi Department of Transportation, 129 So. 3d 132 (Miss. 2013) .........................7
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ..........................................................................................7
Mauldin v. Branch, 866 So. 2d 429 (Miss. 2003) ............................................................................4
McGirt v. Oklahoma, __ U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020)...............................................................8
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) ............................7
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) ...............................................................................7
Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, __ U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1894 (2019) ..........................................6
Constitutions
MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890, art. 15, § 273(3) ........................................................... passim
Statutes
21 UNITED STATES CODE § 812 ........................................................................................................9
MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED § 9-4-5 ............................................................................................4
MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED § 23-15-1037 ..................................................................................4
MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED § 35-1-1 ...................................................................................... 2, 3
MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED § 37-3-2 ..........................................................................................5
v
MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED § 37-101-3 ......................................................................................2
MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED § 43-33-704 ....................................................................................3
MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED § 73-5-1 ...................................................................................... 3, 5
MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED § 73-6-3 ..........................................................................................5
MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED § 73-19-7 ........................................................................................3
MISSISSIPPI CODE ANNOTATED § 73-33-3 .................................................................................... 3, 5
Legislative Materials
2001 Miss. Laws Ch. 574 ................................................................................................................4
H.R. Con. Res. 58, 2003 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2003) ..................................................................4
S. Con. Res. 516, 1992 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 1992) ............................................................2, 3, 6
S. Con. Res. 510, 2007 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2007) ....................................................................5
vi
I. Summary of the Argument
Initiative 65 proposes to amend the Mississippi Constitution to legalize medical marijuana
and govern its distribution in the State. The initiative was placed on the November 3, 2020,
election ballot after the Secretary of State concluded all prerequisites had been met. One of those
prerequisites comes from Article 15, Section 273(3) of the Constitution, and mandates that no
more than one-fifth of the requisite number of voter signatures on the initiative petition can come
from a single congressional district.
When it passed the 1992 resolution that became Section 273(3), the Legislature regularly
included clauses that pegged “congressional districts” to a particular point in time (and still does
today). The omission of such a clause in Section 273(3) was purposeful, but in nevertheless
including the specific one-fifth metric, the Legislature failed to consider that voter initiative
amendments would become impossible upon the loss of a House of Representatives seat. To their
great credit, immediately after Mississippi’s congressional seats were reduced to four, legislators
recognized the error and proposed to replace the problematic “one-fifth” with language that does
not need to be adjusted with future gains or losses of House seats. But that resolution died in
committee, and six similar ones have since met the same fate.
Such legislative inaction means the problem still exists, and voter initiative is presently not
a viable route to amending the Constitution. Hence, Initiative 65’s inclusion on the ballot
necessarily did not pass muster. So whence cometh the fix? The answer is, of course, through
the constitutionally-prescribed amendment process shared by the Legislature and the qualified
electors. It is not, as Respondent would have it, by this Court through a guise of interpretation.
And like those separated powers, the stodgy necessity of having to amend the Constitution to
correct an error is a design feature, not a flaw.
1
Making sure the constitutional amendment map is followed is always important, but given
the nature of the initiative at issue and the substantial ramifications it poses for Mississippi’s public
health and the medical community, particular care is warranted here. The Mississippi State
Medical Association and American Medical Association support Petitioners’ well-articulated
arguments, and as friends of the Court offer the following additional points respecting the
constitutional infirmity of Respondent’s determination Initiative 65 qualified for the ballot.
II. Argument
A. The Legislature purposefully chose to not lock “congressional district” to a

particular point in time as it routinely did with other laws.
Although its composition may change a bit every four years, the Mississippi Legislature
has relative continuity and thus a bank of institutional lawmaking knowledge. That is why this
Court “presume[s] that the legislature, when it passes a statute, knows the existing laws.” Arant v.
Hubbard, 824 So. 2d 611, 615 (Miss. 2002). Therefore, when it adopted Senate Concurrent
Resolution 516 in 1992, the Legislature was not starting from scratch.
1. “Existing” clauses from 1944‒1992.
Indeed, far from it. As early as 1944, our lawmakers were acquainted with the concept of
fixing congressional districts to a particular date in order to provide a definite geographic area
from which appointments were to be made. See MISS. CODE ANN. § 37-101-3(1) (Board of
Trustees of Institutions of Higher Learning members drawn “from each congressional district of
the state as existing as of March 31, 1944”). In 1952, the State Veterans Affairs Board
memberships were tied to “each congressional district as they existed on January 1, 1952.” Id. §
35-1-1 (emphasis added). The practice only increased over the years.
In 1983, the Legislature directed that State Board of Optometry members were to be
“appointed from each of the congressional district as existing on January 1, 1980” and that the
2
five members of the Mississippi State Board of Public Accountancy were to come from “the
congressional districts as they are presently constituted.” Id. §§ 73-19-7, 73-33-3(2) (emphasis
added). The medical advisory board members of the Workers Compensation Commission were
to come “from each congressional district as they existed on January 1, 1985.” Id. § 71-3-115
(emphasis added). The Mississippi Real Estate Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board was
drawn from “each congressional district as such district existed on January 1, 1989.” Id. § 73-
34-7(1)(a) (emphasis added). Ditto for the Mississippi Home Corporation. Id. § 43-33-704(3(a).
In 1991, the Legislature linked the Board of Barber Examiners to “the congressional districts as
existing on January 1, 1991.” Id. § 73-5-1 (emphasis added).
Then, importantly, in 1992‒‒the same year Senate Concurrent Resolution 516 was
approved‒‒the Legislature pegged the State Veterans Affairs Board to “each congressional district
as such districts existed on March 1, 1992” and a commission appointed by the Mississippi
Community College Board to the “congressional districts existing on January 1, 1992. Id. §§ 35-
1-1(1)(b), 75-60-4(1) (emphasis added).
2. 1992 ‒ Senate Concurrent Resolution 516.
In stark contrast to the foregoing tethers, in 1992 the Legislature also agreed to Senate
Concurrent Resolution 516, which speaks in terms of “signatures of the qualified electors from
any congressional district” [no tether] and limits them to “one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of
signatures required to qualify an initiative petition for placement upon the ballot.” Far from being
a scrivener’s error, the next sentence similarly mentions “signatures from a single congressional
district [no tether] which exceeds one-fifth (1/5) of the total number of required signatures.” Id.
The initiative as drafted became a part of the Constitution upon approval by voters later that year.
MISS. CONST. art. 15, § 273(3).
3
B. With the loss of the House seat, the Legislature recognizes the problem with
Section 273(3)’s one-fifth requirement and attempts are made to fix it.
Following the 2000 census and apportionment, Mississippi was slated to lose one of its
five congressional seats. Mauldin v. Branch, 866 So. 2d 429, 431 (Miss. 2003); ROYCE CROCKER,
HOUSE APPORTIONMENT 2000: STATES GAINING, LOSING, AND ON THE MARGIN 1 (Cong. Research
Serv. Jan. 9, 2001), https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20010109_RS20768_89b0e917199288
249d1a475e447c498d243dff9b.pdf. The Legislature sprang into action, and its first order of
business was decoupling the Court of Appeals judgeships from the five congressional districts.
2001 Miss. Laws Ch. 574, § 2. Because the statute stated 10 judges were to be elected “two (2)
from each congressional district [no tether],” our legislators understood that the looming loss of a
House seat and redistricting risked upsetting the statutory mathematical applecart because
“congressional district” was not fixed to a specific date. M ISS. CODE ANN. § 9-4-5. The solution
was to simply copy and paste the five congressional districts from Section 23-15-1037 and rename
them “Court of Appeals Districts,” thus rendering irrelevant the shift to four congressional seats.
Id.; 2001 Miss. Laws Ch. 574, § 2.
It was that very same recognition and concern that, on January 20, 2003, and just two
weeks after the start of the 108th Congress when Mississippi was officially down to four
congressmen, inspired the introduction of House Concurrent Resolution No. 58. In the measure,
legislators proposed to replace the “one-fifth” requirement from Section 273(3) with “its pro rata
share.” H.R. Con. Res. 58, 2003 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2003). Central to the that proposal was
the understanding that “one-fifth” was a big problem because‒‒just like the Court of Appeals
statute (but unlike all of the other statutes previously discussed)‒‒“congressional district” was not
moored to a date certain but rather floating free as the House seats shifted. A “pro rata” fix would
ensure that, whatever the number of congressional districts the future might hold, the voter
4
initiative signature scheme would work mathematically. Were there any doubt, both the title of
the resolution and the explanation to be included on the ballot were as follows: “to conform[] the
pro rata signature requirements of congressional districts for initiative and referendum petitions
to the number of new congressional districts.” Id. (emphasis added).
Unfortunately, the attempt to rectify the constitutional error died in committee. Identical
measures met the same fate in 2007 and 2009. S. Con. Res. 510, 2007 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss.
2007); S. Con. Res. 523, 2009 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2009). In 2014 and 2015, additional
unsuccessful efforts were made, but with even more explicit language. This time, instead of
changing “one-fifth” to “its pro rata share,” the proposals deleted the fraction and replaced it with
“the percentage that the district represents in relation to the total number of districts existing in
the state at the time the initiative petition is proposed.” H.R. Con. Res. 22, 2014 Leg., Reg. Sess.
(Miss. 2014); H.R. Con. Res. 26, 2015 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2015). The title and stated purpose
were “to conform the maximum percentage amount of signatures from any single congressional
district” Id. Another “pro rata” proposal identical to 2007 and 2009 was offered by then-Senator
Watson in 2015, which also failed. S. Con. Res. 549, 2015 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2015).
And earlier this year, a seventh fix was attempted. In that version, “one-fifth” was
sensibly proposed to be changed to “a fraction with a numerator of one (1) and a denominator
equal to the total number of congressional districts statewide.” H.R. Con. Res. 43, 2020 Leg.,
Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2020). Like its six predecessors, it never left committee. It is unclear why all
these fix measures failed, given at least seven statutes were updated in the same period to reflect
the loss of the congressional seat and to freeze them with an “existing” clause. M ISS. CODE ANN.
§§ 37-3-2(2)(a); 73-5-1; 73-6-3; 73-23-41(1); 73-30-5(1); 73-33-3(2); 73-34-7(1)(c).
5
C. The inclusion of Initiative 65 on the ballot was unconstitutional.
Regardless, and to tie this all together, by 1992 the Legislature knew and was presumed to
know how to craft an “existing” clause to freeze referent congressional districts in time. Arant,
824 So. 2d at 615. Indeed, on two other occasions in 1992, it did so. However, in its wisdom it
purposefully chose not to include one in Senate Concurrent Resolution 516, which is highly
significant. Once the House seat was lost, legislators tried to change the one-fifth fraction seven
times. Of course, there would be no need to change “one-fifth” if, as Respondent argues,
“congressional district” referred to the five that the State previously had.
In interpreting any legal provision, the historical context is an important, appropriate tool
for informing the text. Bell v. State, 160 So. 3d 188, 194 (Miss. 2015); see Virginia Uranium,
Inc. v. Warren, __ U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1894, 1902 (2019) (“What the text states, context confirms.”)
(Gorsuch, J.). The historical background and the failed legislative patches demonstrate that,
because Section 273(3)’s “congressional district” lacks an “existing” anchor, the “one-fifth” metric
renders the voter initiative process currently unworkable‒‒which means Initiative 65 could never
have been, and was not, constitutionally qualified for ballot placement. Respondent’s position
that “congressional district” from Section 273(3) can be “interpreted as the former five
congressional districts to harmonize the provisions with the ‘one-fifth’ requirements” simply
cannot bear the load and is thus untenable. (Resp. Ans. at 8.)
D. The Court should decline Respondent’s invitation to fix the one-fifth error
through interpretation, for amending the Constitution is the exclusive privilege of
the Legislature and the people.
Your amici respectfully suggest it would be a mistake to accept Respondent’s invitation to
creatively interpret Section 273(3) in light of the text and historical context just discussed.
Lessons learned from the Supreme Court of the United States counsel against such an approach.
6
It is problematic enough when broad, muddy principles are generously interpreted, which portends
decades of compounding litigation and leaves a dubious heritage. See, e.g., Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) “(penumbras, formed by emanations”). But it is another,
more troubling thing altogether to encounter a precise legal requirement‒‒a number such as
“one-fifth”—yet ignore it. Distilled to its essence, that is the circumstance this case presents.
A change to the Constitution is needed if voter initiative amendments are to continue, and
the Legislature is surely aware but has chosen not to act. Unlike lawmakers, the proper role of a
judicial branch is not prescription but description, at least since Marbury. 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803);
Little v. Miss. Dep’t of Transp., 129 So. 3d 132, 138 (Miss. 2013) (“We—the judicial branch of
government—should not place ourselves in the position of changing the substantive law enacted
by the Legislature”). Tormented saving interpretations may be well-intentioned, but they are oft
recognized for what they are: judicial rewrites. See, e.g., Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)
(interpreting 11th Amendment to bar suits in federal court by a state’s own citizens); Nat’l Fed. of
Ind. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) (Affordable Care Act individual mandate a tax valid
under Congress’s taxing power.) Under our Constitution, for better or for worse, the Legislature
in concert with the people have the exclusive privilege of revising it. 1 MISS. CONST. art. 15, §
273(2). The preservation of the lines dividing governmental powers‒‒whatever the nature of the
case‒‒necessarily preserves both liberty and public confidence.
The extent of approval a law may enjoy or the fact it is widely regarded as a good idea
simply cannot override its invalidity. See, e.g., Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)
(declaring unconstitutional Section 4(b) of Voting Rights Act passed by vote of 98‒0 in Senate
and 390‒33 in House of Representatives); Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
1
The initiative amendment process cannot be modified by an initiative amendment. MISS. CONST. art. 15,
§ 273(5)(d).
7
(declaring unconstitutional the presidential line-item veto); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)
(declaring unconstitutional the congressional veto, which appeared in 200 federal statutes).
Likewise, the perceived ripple effects the decision may have on other laws is beside the point.
See, e.g., McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (holding the eastern half of Oklahoma is a
Creek Indian reservation). And in any event, prior initiative amendments to our Constitution
since the loss of the House seat are hardly at risk of invalidation, as no petition-sufficiency
challenges were brought in this Court before the relevant election or effective date.
In sum, the greatest negative consequence of any significance that may flow from declaring
Initiative 65’s ballot placement unconstitutional is the wait while the Legislature and people fix
the error. Of course, “[t]here is no support in the Constitution or decisions of this Court for the
proposition that the cumbersomeness and delays often encountered in complying with explicit
Constitutional standards may be avoided.” Chadha, 462 U.S. at 959. On the other hand, the
downsides of upholding the law through an interpretive rewrite are many measures worse.
E. The initiative poses significant risks to the public health and burdens for
Mississippi’s physicians.
There is another, more prudential reason why following the Constitution’s text and context
where they lead matters: the nature of Initiative 65 itself. Your amici believe its member-
physicians and the public health of this State will be significantly and adversely impacted should
the initiative become law. Accordingly, it is especially important that the initiative tick all the
constitutional prerequisites before it does.
Comprised of more than 5,000 physicians, residents, and medical students, amicus
Mississippi State Medical Association is the largest physician organization in the State. Among
other things, the Association invests its efforts in promoting the public health, assisting its
members with ongoing professional practice maintenance and development, and fostering a
8
thriving medical community throughout Mississippi. Similarly, amicus American Medical
Association (“AMA”) is the largest professional association of physicians, residents, and medical
students in the United States. The AMA was founded in 1847 to promote the art and science of
medicine and the betterment of public health, and these remain its core purposes. AMA members
practice in every medical specialty and in every state, including Mississippi. It is no secret that
amici oppose the legalization of “medical marijuana.”
And for good reasons. While it is possible there may be beneficial medicinal uses of
marijuana, numerous evidence-based studies demonstrate that significant deleterious effects
abound. Drug abuse and addiction. Change in brain function. Lung disease. Intoxication and
impaired driving. Developmental interference. Impaired cognition. Psychological illness.
Cardiovascular abnormalities. Negative social functioning effects. Cancer. Without question,
the public health risks are immense. Moreover, there is a massive amount of future systematic
research and controlled-trials that are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of marijuana for
medicinal purposes. For these reasons, among others, AMA policy is that “cannabis for medicinal
use should not be legalized through the state legislative, ballot initiative, or referendum process.”
See AMA, Cannabis Legalization for Medicinal Use, D-95.969. 2 “Follow the science” is the
orientation of amici’s members toward patient care and public health, but that does not work if
willy-nilly usage comes first.
Initiative 65 would also put physicians in quite the pinch. Because it is still a Schedule I
drug under federal law, marijuana by definition has no currently accepted medical use and thus
cannot be prescribed. 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1). Yet physicians will be expected by their patients
(though perhaps not required by Initiative 65) to sign off on certifications to receive their supply.
2
Available at https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder/detail/Cannabis%20Legalization%20for%20
Medicinal%20Use%20D-95.969?uri=%2FAMADoc%2Fdirectives.xml-D-95.969.xml.
9
Perhaps no liability will lie under state law, but what about federal law? In addition, there are no
standards for whether a medical condition is “of the same kind or class” of those “debilitating
conditions” enumerated in Proposition 65. Physicians are at risk of both criminal and civil
liability (not to mention professional discipline) should they misjudge, because immunity exists
under Section 2(2) only where a certification is issued to a person with a debilitating medical
condition. As everyone knows, all it takes to file a lawsuit is a piece of paper and a filing fee, so
even if a physician judged correctly and immunity is appropriate, the matter will still have to be
litigated. And with increased exposure and litigation comes increased costs, not least of which is
rising professional liability insurance premiums.
Your amici won’t belabor the point. Suffice it to say that because of the real public health
dangers and physician-related burdens Initiative 65 poses, it is imperative that the constitutionality
of the measure should be beyond cavil if it is to become law.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, amici curiae Mississippi State Medical Association and
American Medical Association support Petitioners’ position and urge that Respondent’s inclusion
of Initiative 65 on the ballot be declared unconstitutional.
This 14th day of December 2020. Respectfully submitted,
MISSISSIPPI STATE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

amici curiae
By: /s/John B. Howell III

John B. Howell III (MSB #102655)
JACKSON, TULLOS & ROGERS, PLLC
309 S. 40th Avenue
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39402
601.264.3309
jhowell@jacksonfirm.com
10
Certificate of Service
I certify that today I filed the foregoing document with the Court’s MEC/E-File system,
which sent notification of the filing to all persons registered to receive service.
This 14th day of December 2020. /s/John B. Howell III

John B. Howell III
11
No. 2020-IA-01199-SCT
________________________________________________________
MAYOR MARY HAWKINS BUTLER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND

OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; THE CITY OF MADISON
Appellants
vs.
MICHAEL WATSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE

FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Appellee.
______________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE MISSISSIPPI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, INC.

IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS MAYOR MARY HAWKINS BUTLER, IN HER
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, AND THE CITY OF MADISON
______________________________________________________________________________
John P. Scanlon (MSB # 101943)

Jerry L. Mills (MSB # 3324)
MILLS, SCANLON, DYE & PITTMAN
800 Avery Blvd. North, Ste. 101
Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157
Telephone: (601) 957-2600
Facsimile: (601) 957-7440
jscanlon@pdmd.biz
jmills@pdmd.biz
Counsel for Amicus Curiae the
Mississippi Municipal League, Inc.
EXHIBIT "A"
No. 2020-IA-01199-SCT
________________________________________________________
MAYOR MARY HAWKINS BUTLER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND

OFFICIAL CAPACITIES; THE CITY OF MADISON
Appellants
vs.
MICHAEL WATSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE

FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Appellee.
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons and entities
have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the
Justices of the Supreme Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal:
1. Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler, in her Individual and Official Capacities, Appellant
2. The City of Madison, Appellant
3. Jones Walker LLP, Counsel for Appellants
4. Kaytie M. Pickett, Counsel for Appellants
5. Adam Stone, Counsel for Appellants
6. Andrew S. Harris, Counsel for Appellants
7. Chelsea H. Brannon, Counsel for Appellants
8. Michael Watson, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of
Mississippi, Appellee
9. Mississippi Attorney General’s Office, Counsel for Appellee

i
10. Lynn Fitch, Attorney General, Counsel for Appellee
11. Krissy C. Nobile, Counsel for Appellee
12. Justin L. Matheny, Counsel for Appellee
13. The Mississippi Municipal League, Inc., Amicus Curiae
14. Mills, Scanlon, Dye & Pittman, Counsel for Amicus Curiae
15. John P. Scanlon, Counsel for Amicus Curiae
16. Jerry L. Mills, Counsel for Amicus Curiae
_/s/ John P. Scanlon___________________

John P. Scanlon
Jerry L. Mills
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page(s)
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS…………………………………………………...i
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………………iii
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………..iv
STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………………………………………………………..1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE……………………………………………………………………1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………...2
LEGAL ARGUMENT and AUTHORITY……………………………………………………..…3
I. Initiative 65 limits the Due Process rights of individuals and therefore

violates the Mississippi Constitution itself as an initiative may not modify the
Bill of Rights .......................................................................................................................3
II. Initiative 65 conflicts with Section 190, abridges the State’s police powers,
and permits corporations to conduct business infringing on the rights of
individuals.........................................................................................................................10
A. Initiative 65 abridges the State’s police powers…………………………………..10
B. Initiative 65 results in the infringement of the rights of individuals......................13
III. Initiative 65 harms municipal revenue ..........................................................................14
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 16
iii
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Page(s)
Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Art. 3 § 14 ............................................................................. 4, 5
Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Art. 7 § 190 .................................................. 3, 10, 11, 13-14, 15
Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Art. 15 § 273 .................................................... 3-4, 7, 10, 14, 15
CASES
U.S. Supreme Court and other federal cases
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976) ................................... 5
Price v. Junction, 711 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1983) ............................................................................. 5
Mississippi Supreme Court cases
Beard v. City of Ridgeland, 245 So. 3d 380 (Miss. 2018) ........................................................ 9, 13
Bishop v. City of Meridian, 223 Miss. 703, 79 So. 2d 221 (1955) ......................................... 10, 14
Carpenter v. City of Petal, 699 So. 2d 928 (Miss. 1997) ............................................................... 4
Hughes v. Hosemann, 68 So. 3d 1260, 1264 (Miss. 2011) ......................................................... 2, 4
In re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20 v. Mahoney, 774 So. 2d 397 (Miss. 2000) ................... 4
Jackson v. McPherson, 162 Miss. 164, 138 So. 604 (1932) ......................................................... 11
Luter v. Hammon, 529 So. 2d 625 (Miss. 1988) ............................................................................. 5
Miss. Gaming Comm'n v. Freeman, 747 So. 2d 231 (Miss. 1999) ................................................. 5
Mississippi Milk Com. v. Vance, 240 Miss. 814, 129 So. 2d 642 (1961) ..................................... 12
Palazzola v. Gulfport, 211 Miss. 737, 52 So. 2d 611 (1951)............................................. 10, 12-13
Riverside Traffic Sys. v. Bostwick, 78 So. 3d 881 (Miss. 2011) ..................................................... 6
Roundstone Dev., LLC v. City of Natchez, 105 So. 3d 317 (Miss. 2013) ....................................... 9
Speed v. Hosemann, 68 So. 3d 1278, 1281 (Miss. 2011) ........................................................... 2, 4
Thrash v. Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Jackson, 498 So. 2d 801 (Miss. 1986) .. 4, 5, 6
iv
Town of Florence v. Sea Lands, Ltd., 759 So. 2d 1221 (Miss. 2000) ............................................. 9
Mississippi Court of Appeals cases
Harvey v. Town of Marion, 756 So. 2d 835, 839-840 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) ................................ 5
Johnson v. City of Canton, 194 So. 3d 161 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) ................................................ 5
Other cases
Acker v. Baldwin, Cal. App., 101 P.2d 505 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1940) ................................... 12-13
STATUTES
Miss. Code Ann. § 17-1-3(1) ........................................................................................................ 11
Miss. Code Ann. § 17-1-17 ............................................................................................................. 5
Miss. Code Ann. § 21-17-5(1) ...................................................................................................... 11
OTHER AUTHORITY
McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, (2d) Ed. Rev., vol. 3, Sec. 1048 ................................ 12-13
v
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
I. Does the amendment to the Constitution proposed as Initiative 65 violate two other
provisions of the Constitution by abridging Due Process rights and impermissibly
modifying the state Bill of Rights?
II. Does the amendment to the Constitution proposed as Initiative 65 conflict with another
provision of the Constitution by abridging the police powers of the State and
impermissibly permitting businesses to infringe upon the rights of individuals?
The answer to both of these questions is yes.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Mississippi Municipal League (“MML”) is an organization comprised of
approximately 300 municipalities across Mississippi which provides a unified voice through
legislative advocacy, training, and educational opportunities for those members. MML files this
Brief in support of the Petitioner and joins generally in Petitioners’ Statement of the Case, but
also further adds the following factual background specific to its position and standing.
The proposed amendment which passed by popular vote as Initiative Measure No. 65
contains two paragraphs in its Section 8 which go to the heart of zoning, a police power of the
State imparted onto its municipalities. See Initiative Measure No. 65, attached hereto as
“Addendum A.” The first of those reads: “No medical marijuana treatment center shall be
located within five hundred (500) feet of a pre-existing school, church, or licensed child care
center.” See Addendum A, Initiative 65 § 8(4). The second paragraph affecting zoning reads:
Except as otherwise provided in this article, any zoning ordinances, regulations

and/or provisions of a municipality or county shall be consistent with Section 1 of
this article and shall not impair the availability of and reasonable access to medical
marijuana. Zoning provisions applicable to retail dispensaries shall be no more
restrictive than those for a licensed retail pharmacy and zoning provisions
applicable to other businesses that fall within the definition of medical marijuana
treatment centers shall be no more restrictive than other comparably sized and
staffed lawful commercial or industrial businesses.
Initiative 65 § 8(5). Section 1 provides that the purpose of the proposed amendment is “to ensure
the availability of and safe access to medical marijuana for qualified persons with debilitating
medical conditions.” Initiative 65 § 1. Thus, the proposed amendment contains certain
provisions directly affecting and limiting zoning powers of the State’s municipalities.
MML comes as a friend to this Court to bring attention to matters of substance proper for
review, post-election. Hughes v. Hosemann, 68 So. 3d 1260, 1264 (Miss. 2011); Speed v.
Hosemann, 68 So. 3d 1278, 1281 (Miss. 2011). On Oct. 1, 2020, the MML Board of Directors
adopted a resolution by unanimous vote – moved by Ridgeland Mayor Gene McGee and
seconded by Jackson Mayor Antar Lumumba – expressing its strong opposition to Initiative 65.
See MML Resolution Opposing Initiative 65, attached hereto as “Addendum B.” In its
Resolution, MML recognized that evidence exists that “medical marijuana, when used under
doctor supervision, may provide benefits for certain medical conditions, and such decisions
should ultimately be between a doctor and patient.” See Addendum B, MML Resolution. MML
also recognized that “there is a diversity of thought among its members about whether and to
what extent the use of marijuana should be legalized,” but resolved that “Initiative 65 is not the
proper avenue for doing so.” See Addendum B. Among its grounds for opposition, MML’s
Resolution provides: “Initiative 65 will prevent municipalities from regulating the location of
medical marijuana dispensaries through zoning and would prohibit municipalities from limiting
the number of dispensaries, and therefore negatively impact property values within their
boundaries.” See Addendum B. The Resolution also recognizes that “Initiative 65 will deprive
municipalities of tax revenue generated from the sale of medical marijuana impacting municipal
resources and services without contribution to maintenance and support.” See Addendum B.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The proposed amendment to the State Constitution creates a conflict with certain other
rights within the Constitution which by their plain language may not be abridged. In so
enacting Initiative 65, the people have proposed a constitutional provision which itself deprives
2
others of their deeply entrenched constitutional right to Due Process. The nature, and the plain
text itself, of Measure 65 results in certain zoning changes (both effective immediately as well
as others in the future) which would otherwise not be permitted even for consideration without a
public hearing which involves both strict requirements for notice and an opportunity to be heard
given to those whose property rights are affected by that governmental action. This curtailing
of Due Process rights via an amendment initiative measure is expressly prohibited.
Initiative 65 would further be contrary to our State’s Constitution by violating Section
190 of the Mississippi Constitution which provides that 1) the police power of the State, and
thereby the police power of municipalities, shall not be infringed, and 2) businesses should not
be permitted to infringe upon the rights of individuals. Initiative 65 conflicts with Section 190
as the Measure both usurps the police power of the State and abridges the rights of individuals.
LEGAL ARGUMENT and AUTHORITY
The effort to enact an amendment to the Mississippi Constitution by referendum via
Initiative Measure No. 65 under Section 273 of the Mississippi Constitution has created a
circumstance whereby an amendment to the state Constitution will no doubt infringe upon the
Constitutional rights, namely Due Process, of individuals, and is therefore used to modify rights
contained within the Bill of Rights, an act which is impermissible by the Constitution’s own
plain language. Further, the Measure strips the State and its statutorily created municipalities of
their police power of zoning and permits businesses to infringe upon the rights of individuals.
I. Initiative 65 limits the Due Process rights of individuals and therefore violates the
Mississippi Constitution itself as an initiative may not modify the Bill of Rights.
Initiative 65 as applied modifies the Mississippi Bill of Rights, which an amendment may
not do. The measure was brought under Section 273 of the Mississippi Constitution, which
provides for ways in which the Constitution may be amended – either by legislative act or by
3
initiative of the people. Miss. Const. Art. 15, § 273(1), (3). However, Section 273 is not without
limits – it may not trample on others’ rights. “Section 273 of the Mississippi Constitution seeks
to temper the initiative induced tension between the unchecked will of the majority versus the
inherent rights of individuals.” In re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20 v. Mahoney, 774 So.
2d 397, 402 (Miss. 2000) (overruled by Hughes and Speed, supra, on other grounds). “The
section protects the Bill of Rights and other matters of state interest; seeks to protect the state
coffers by requiring rationally based government revenue statements; and seeks to discourage
regionalism by requiring broad-based support for any proposed initiative.” Id.
Beyond the insufficiency of its petition argued by Madison and its Mayor, Initiative 65
results in abridging certain Due Process rights of individuals, rights found within our State’s Bill
of Rights. Using an initiative to amend the Constitution which results in abridging the Bill of
Rights is prohibited by the Constitution. The operable provision within the Constitution for its
amendment is the same source of authority for the people to bring the initiative, Section 273,
which provides in part that the initiative process “shall not be used . . . [f]or the proposal,
modification or repeal of any portion of the Bill of Rights of this Constitution.” Miss. Const.,
Art. 15 § 273(5)(a). Those Bill of Rights within Mississippi’s Constitution – Sections 5 through
32 – include Section 14 which provides in its entirety: “No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property except by due process of law.” Miss. Const., Art. 3 § 14. Initiative 65 as
applied modifies and in ways repeals the Due Process rights provided for in the Bill of Rights.
Zoning by its very nature involves Due Process rights. “The essence of the due process
rights, if any, guaranteed to [those who object to rezoning is] reasonable advance notice of the
substance of the rezoning proposal together with the opportunity to be heard at all critical stages
of the process.” Carpenter v. City of Petal, 699 So. 2d 928, 929 (Miss. 1997) (quoting Thrash v.
Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Jackson, 498 So. 2d 801 (Miss. 1986)). “Reasonable
4
advance notice and the opportunity to be heard are hallmarks of zoning statutes in the State of
Mississippi and of the zoning ordinances in every community in the state.” Luter v. Hammon,
529 So. 2d 625, 626 (Miss. 1988) (citing Miss. Code Ann. § 17-1-17).
This established concept is grounded in federal law. “The central theme of procedural
due process under the federal constitution is that parties whose liberty or property rights are
affected by governmental action are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard at a
meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Price v. Junction, 711 F.2d 582, 589-590 (5th
Cir. 1983) (citing Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S. Ct. 893, 901-02, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18
(1976)). “It is necessary that property or liberty interests within the meaning of the due process
clause be involved before the notice and hearing rights are created.” Id.
The Court of Appeals also relying on Mathews has plainly held: “Due process in its most
basic form requires notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Johnson v. City of Canton, 194 So.
3d 161, 169 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (citing 424 U.S. at 348, 96 S. Ct. at 901-02, 47 L. Ed. 2d at
18). In the zoning context, “the essence of due process is ‘reasonable advance notice of the
substance of the rezoning proposal together with the opportunity to be heard at all critical stages
of the process.’” Harvey v. Town of Marion, 756 So. 2d 835, 839-840 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000)
(quoting Thrash, 498 So. 2d at 807).
This Supreme Court has noted the importance of Due Process rights in zoning matters
and has overturned a zoning change based on the lack of Constitutionally required notice:
The Mississippi Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be deprived

of life, liberty or property except by due process of law.” Miss. Const. art. III, § 14.
This clause guarantees “minimum procedural due process . . . consisting of (1)
notice and (2) opportunity to be heard.” Miss. Gaming Comm'n v. Freeman, 747
So. 2d 231, 246 (Miss. 1999). The Mississippi Constitution applies to
municipalities and their subdivisions, such as the City of New Albany Board of
Aldermen.
...
5
Applying due-process requirements to a municipal zoning decision, we
have stated that “the essence of the due process rights . . . is reasonable advance
notice of the substance of the rezoning proposal together with the opportunity to be
heard at all critical stages of the process.” Thrash v. Mayor and Comm'rs of City of
Jackson, 498 So. 2d 801, 808 (Miss. 1986). The record includes no evidence, and
no party has argued, that Petitioners were given the statutorily required notice of a
change in the Farr tract's zoning designation.
Riverside Traffic Sys. v. Bostwick, 78 So. 3d 881, 888 (Miss. 2011). There, the petitioners
objecting to rezoning of neighboring property to industrial were not provided public notice,
abridging their guaranteed Due Process rights, and this Court overturned the zoning change.
Section 8(5) of Initiative 65 provides that “zoning provisions applicable to other
businesses that fall within the definition of medical marijuana treatment centers shall be no more
restrictive than other comparably sized and staffed lawful commercial or industrial businesses.”
While this may seem innocuous on its face, applying the Initiative’s definitions to this provision
demonstrates the troubling effect of the zoning restriction. The Initiative defines “medical
marijuana treatment center” as “an entity that is registered with and licensed and regulated by the
department and that processes medical marijuana, related supplies, and/or educational materials.”
Initiative 65 § 4(7). Expanding what a medical marijuana treatment center may do, Initiative
65’s definition of “process” lacks discernable limits:
“Process” shall mean to acquire, administer, compound, convert,

cultivate, deliver, develop, disburse, dispense, distribute, grow,
harvest, manufacture, package, possess, prepare, process, produce,
propagate, research, sell, test, transport, or transfer medical
marijuana or any related products such as foods, tinctures, aerosols,
oils, or ointments.
Id. § 4(10). Thus, “process” means everything from growing to sales and delivery.
The problematic breadth of these definitions is better understood when considered
alongside actual zoning ordinances. The 2016 Zoning Ordinance for the City of Richland, a
member of MML, provides an example. The ordinance creates agricultural districts permitting
6
land to be used for “[c]ultivation of field and truck crops, orchards and vineyards” as well as
“[s]ingle family detached dwellings.” See attached hereto “Addendum C,” City of Richland
Zoning Ordinance art. 5, § 501(A), (B). Because a “medical marijuana treatment center” may
“cultivate, … grow, harvest, … [or] produce” medical marijuana, a landowner in a Richland
agricultural district could grow marijuana next door to a residence if the landowner is registered
with and licensed by the Department of Health to do so. And because Initiative 65 precludes the
department from limiting the number of licensed medical marijuana treatment centers, see
Initiative 65 § 5(4), multiple properties (i.e., neighbors) in an agricultural district could grow
marijuana. The plain language of Initiative 65 would necessarily force this new land use upon
the citizens of Richland and prevent the Mayor and Board of Aldermen from fashioning
appropriate zoning measures to protect adjacent residential property values.
The Initiative’s constraint on municipal zoning authority does not end there. Section 8(4)
“restricts” the location of medical marijuana treatment centers by precluding them within 500
feet of a “pre-existing school, church, or licensed child care center.”1 And Initiative 65 precludes
the Department of Health from limiting the number of medical marijuana treatment centers that
can be registered and licensed. Id. § 5(4). The practical effect of these provisions is obvious and
results in restricting not only the municipality’s zoning authority but also the Due Process rights
of individuals who would otherwise be entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard for any
zoning change. The rule is clear that an amendment initiative measure brought under Section
273 “shall not be used . . . [f]or the proposal, modification or repeal of any portion of the Bill of
Rights of this Constitution.” Miss. Const., Art. 15, § 273(5)(a).
1
Interestingly, this limitation contained in the Measure’s language is indicative of the necessity to limit
their locations. Yet, municipalities and counties are barred from fashioning further appropriate zoning
restrictions.
7
As MML stated in its Resolution opposing Initiative 65, the inability to regulate
dispensary locations through zoning, to include the number of permissible dispensaries in an
area, will “negatively impact property values within their boundaries.” See Addendum B, MML
Resolution. Indeed, as this Court has articulated it, “investments in land and property are
significant financial decisions, and a landowner should be able to rely upon a zoning plan to
maintain the use and value of his property.” Roundstone Dev., LLC v. City of Natchez, 105 So.
3d 317, 321 (Miss. 2013). Applied here, where a change in the law negatively impacts the value
of property by way of an unforeseen application of a zoning plan, municipalities should not be
wholly precluded from taking actions that benefit the municipality as a whole. If Initiative 65
stands, that is precisely what will happen.
The Initiative’s broad zoning language is not subtle. Under Initiative 65, “Zoning
provisions applicable to retail dispensaries shall be no more restrictive than those for a licensed
retail pharmacy . . . .” Initiative 65 § 8(5). The Initiative also provides that “zoning provisions
applicable to other businesses that fall within the definition of medical marijuana treatment
centers shall be no more restrictive than other comparably sized and staffed lawful commercial
or industrial businesses.” Id. This means that certain uses will be allowed – where previously
not allowed – based not on surrounding land use, but other factors such as number of staff which
do not at all contemplate public welfare or a compatible use for a particular neighborhood within
a municipality. Although this results in other public concerns such as elevated crime, Initiative
65 clearly and materially changes the uses allowed in certain zoning districts by requiring
medical marijuana uses be treated like “other comparably sized and staffed lawful commercial or
industrial businesses,” regardless of the impact to neighboring businesses or homes. Id.
Municipalities and Counties fashion their zoning ordinances to suit the particular needs
and desires of their respective communities. Zoning ordinances are not one-size-fits-all. What
8
are acceptable land use patterns in South Mississippi may be harshly rejected in North
Mississippi, and thus the local regulations on various lawful commercial or industrial businesses
can vary. In the City of D’Iberville, pawn shops, which may be similar in size and staffing to
medical marijuana treatment centers, are subject to specific zoning limitations concerning
separation from similar uses, churches and schools, and setbacks from residential zones. On the
other hand, an office supply store is not subjected to the same limitations as a pawn shop, yet it
may also be similar in size and staffing to medical marijuana treatment centers. While Initiative
65 attempts to articulate a standard for local zoning, it is clearly not a logical approach.
This Court has held that an act which materially changes the uses previously allowed in
certain zoning districts constitutes a rezoning. Beard v. City of Ridgeland, 245 So. 3d 380, 387-
388 (Miss. 2018) (a city's “decision to amend the zoning ordinance materially changed the uses
previously allowed in C-2 districts and thus can be valid only upon a showing of substantial
change in neighborhood character.”). The act constituting the material change of use there was
the sale of gasoline and oil. Id. Rezoning carries with it a high burden in Mississippi because
“[t]he courts presume that comprehensive zoning ordinances adopted by municipal authorities
are well planned and designed to be permanent.” Town of Florence v. Sea Lands, Ltd., 759 So.
2d 1221, 1224, 127 (Miss. 2000) (before property is reclassified from one zone to another, there
must be clear and convincing evidence either 1) of a mistake in the original zoning or, 2) both
that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent as to justify rezoning and
also that a public need exists for rezoning. Id. “Amendments to zoning ordinances ‘must be
made after careful consideration because investments in land and property are significant
financial decisions, and a landowner should be able to rely upon a zoning plan to maintain the
use and value of his property.’” Id. (citing Roundstone Dev., LLC v. City of Natchez, 105 So. 3d
317, 321 (Miss. 2013).”

9
Because the application of Initiative 65 results in the curtailing of certain, guaranteed Due
Process rights, Initiative 65 impermissibly violates the plain language and clear intent of Section
273(5)(a) of our state Constitution.
II. Initiative 65 conflicts with Section 190, abridges the State’s police powers, and
permits corporations to conduct business infringing on the rights of individuals.
Initiative 65 also constrains the rights of municipalities and individuals by creating a
conflict with another Constitutional provision, section 190, which provides that “the exercise of
the police powers of the State shall never be abridged, or so construed as to permit corporations
to conduct their business in such manner as to infringe upon the rights of individuals or general
well-being of the State.” Miss. Const. Ann. Art. 7, § 190. Initiative 65 does both.
A. Initiative 65 abridges the State’s police powers.
There is no doubt that zoning is a police power of the State, vested via legislation in
municipalities, “creatures of statute.” This Court has long held: “It is a well settled principle of
law that a municipality is solely a creature of the legislature, and that it has only such powers as
are conferred by statute or which are necessarily implied for the proper exercise of the powers
clearly conferred.” Bishop v. City of Meridian, 223 Miss. 703, 710, 79 So. 2d 221, 223 (1955).
Any sovereignty a City may enjoy, such as in zoning and other police powers, exists solely
because the State of Mississippi has legislatively conferred that authority and thereby imparted
its sovereignty to its municipalities. Id., 223 Miss. at 711, 79 So. 2d at 224. “[I]t should be
conceded that since a municipality is a creature of the legislature it may, within the limitations of
Sections 17 and 24 of our State Constitution, impart to it some of its sovereignty by statute.” Id.
Further, “[g]eneral zoning ordinances have been almost universally upheld as a proper
exercise of the police power.” Palazzola v. Gulfport, 211 Miss. 737, 742, 52 So. 2d 611, 612
(1951). Certain authority in municipalities, such as the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan and
10
the three-fifths voting requirement on certain popular measures, exists not by choice of those
municipalities, but rather as a sovereign police power vested by the State. In the first case in
Mississippi to recognize zoning, the Supreme Court observed:
We need not elaborate upon considerations so distinctly vital; we merely introduce

this as among those in the mature view of which we have no hesitancy in declaring
that those reasonable regulations which will preserve the home from intrusion and
will secure its permanency is within the legitimate field of the police power of the
state; and that zoning laws, such as those now in the statute books of the state, to
that end, are valid. And it is only a completion, a complement of the plan, that these
laws shall reasonably permit at the same time a further zoning into separate
commercial and industrial areas.
Jackson v. McPherson, 162 Miss. 164, 176, 138 So. 604, 605 (1932). Thus, this Court has
recognized that the police power of zoning authority legislatively conferred upon municipalities
can have a clear effect on the safety and welfare of the public.
However, Initiative 65 purports to remove that police power from the State – powers
which under our State Constitution “shall never be abridged.” Miss. Const. Ann. Art. 7, § 190.
By eroding police powers legislatively imparted in Mississippi’s municipalities, Initiative 65 in
its application is vitiating the police powers of the State. The application of Initiative 65 would
strip the State’s power to vest such authority in its municipalities.
Mississippi’s Home Rule statute grants municipalities “the power to adopt any orders,
resolutions or ordinances with respect to” the care, management and control of the municipal
affairs and its property and finances, so long as such actions “are not inconsistent with the
Mississippi Constitution” and statutes. Miss. Code Ann. § 21-17-5(1). In keeping with the
Home Rule, Title 17, Chapter 1, empowers municipalities to enact zoning ordinances “for the
purpose of promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community.” Miss.
Code Ann. § 17-1-3(1). With this power, municipalities may, inter alia, regulate “the location
and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes.” Id.
11
If permitted to become part of our Constitution, Initiative 65 will preclude municipalities
from utilizing their statutory authority under the Home Rule and zoning laws to limit the location
of medical marijuana treatment centers within their respective jurisdictional limits as they deem
appropriate. Even when observed in the light of a substantive concern about what is proposed to
become a part of our state Constitution, police power takes precedence. “These cases clearly
announce, and in fact there is no authority to the contrary, that the state exercises the highest
governmental authority when it invokes its police powers. In other words, the police power takes
precedence over all private rights even though they stem from constitutional bases.” Mississippi
Milk Com. v. Vance, 240 Miss. 814, 855, 129 So. 2d 642, 660 (1961) (Legislature has the right
“under its police power, to enact proper laws to regulate and provide for the ‘safety, the health,
the morals, and the general welfare of the public;’ that the ‘right of contract’ is subject to certain
limitations, which the State may lawfully impose in the exercise of its police power . . . .”) Id.
“‘The police power of the state includes not only regulations to promote public health, good
morals, and good order, but also the right to regulate and to promote development of industry
and utilization of natural resources in order to add to the wealth and prosperity of the State,’
citing the Albritton and other cases.” Id., 240 Miss. at 857, 129 So. 2d at 661 (citations omitted).
“‘Hence it is said that all contracts and property rights are subject to a reasonable exercise of the
police power.’” Id. (citations omitted). That police power of zoning, imparted by the state
legislature to the State’s municipalities, exists for the promotion of public health, good morals,
and good order, as well as to regulate and promote the development of industry – Initiative 65
erodes that police power and erodes its public purpose.
“In McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, (2d) Ed. Rev., vol. 3, Sec. 1048, there is cited
the case of Acker v. Baldwin, Cal. App., 101 P. (2d) 505 [later superseded on other grounds],
wherein it is stated that ‘zoning may take into consideration factors which bear no relation to
12
public health, safety and morals, but which come within the meaning of the broader term, general
welfare.’” Palazzola v. Gulfport, 211 Miss. 737, 745, 52 So. 2d 611, 613 (1951). The Court
continued: “In that text, vol. 3, ch. 25, p. 419, it is said: ‘The general rule also that where a given
situation presents a proper field for the exercise of the police power, the extent of its use and
application is largely within municipal legislative discretion if it is applied to zoning
regulations.’” Id. at 613 (1951).
The language of Section 8(5) of Initiative 65 bases the lack of zoning restrictions not on
the compatibility with a geographical area or land use, but rather the size and staffing-level of a
business. This means based on the Initiative’s plain language, a four-employee processing center
could be immediately adjacent to a four-employee accounting firm. Further, any business which
grows and harvests marijuana, processes marijuana, or dispenses and sells marijuana (or does all
of these under the “vertical integration” business model encouraged by the industry) would all be
treated the same, even though these kinds of uses serve as lines of demarcation in the application
of other zoning power – that is, agricultural uses (growing and harvesting), industrial uses
(processing), and commercial uses (sales) should be maintained in separate zoning
classifications. Initiative 65 prohibits this. This Court has recognized that significant changes in
use, especially those affecting traffic and an area’s aesthetics such as a marijuana dispensary
would do, constitute a zoning change. “Moreover, the Costco development is not a minor
variance and would greatly increase traffic, as well as change the aesthetics of the area.” Beard,
245 So. 3d at 393 (gasoline sales a significant change). The erosion of the police power of
zoning impermissibly conflicts directly with the plain language and clear intent of Section 190.
B. Initiative 65 results in the infringement of the rights of individuals.
Initiative 65 conflicts with Section 190 in another way; Section 190 of the Constitution
prohibits corporations from conducting business in a way which would “infringe upon the rights
13
of individuals or general well-being of the State.” Miss. Const. Ann. Art. 7, § 190. Initiative 65
clearly permits corporations to conduct business in a manner which infringes upon the rights of
individuals, namely the rights of neighboring landowners to object to any zoning action.
The Initiative’s violation of Section 190 is directly related to the modification of Due
Process rights discussed in Section I of this Brief supra regarding the violation of both Section
14 and even Section 273 itself. The rights of the individuals are protected in no small part by the
zoning authority the State has seen fit to impart to its municipalities – by having the authority
and discretion to hold public hearings, and to provide the public notice and an opportunity to be
heard, it is Mississippi’s municipalities who are the watchdogs to prevent a business from
violating Section 190. This power of protection results from the State of Mississippi’s legislative
conferring of certain authority and imparting its sovereignty to its municipalities. Bishop, 223
Miss. at 711, 79 So. 2d at 224. “[I]t should be conceded that since a municipality is a creature of
the legislature it may, within the limitations of Sections 17 and 24 of our State Constitution,
impart to it some of its sovereignty by statute.” Id.
Because the application of Initiative 65 permits businesses to operate in a manner which
infringes upon the rights of individuals, Initiative 65 impermissibly conflicts with the plain
language and clear intent of Section 190 of our state Constitution.
III. Initiative 65 harms municipal revenue.
Initiative 65 also hurts municipal revenue streams needed to provide public services.
Mississippi’s state sales tax is seven percent for most transactions unless otherwise specified by
statute. In return, the state remits 18.5 percent of the recovered sales tax to the municipalities –
except under Initiative 65. Initiative 65 will not result in any tax to the state’s municipalities:
“[P]rocessing and use of medical marijuana shall be exempt from the application of any state
and/or local sales tax or other fee, other than that authorized by this article.” Initiative 65 § 8(3).
14
Initiative 65 exempts “the processing and use of medical marijuana” from sales taxes and
fees, except for (1) fees for issuing identification cards, (2) fees for licensing medical marijuana
treatment centers, (3) an assessment of “up to the equivalent of the state’s sales tax rate to the
final sale of medical marijuana,” and (4) administrative fines. Initiative 65 §§ 8(3), 6, 5(11)-
(12). All revenue generated through these four limited situations goes directly to the Department
of Health to pay for its implementation and enforcement costs. Id. §§ 5(11), 6. The provision is
mandatory, leaving the Department no discretion to direct the revenue to municipalities
expending their own enforcement costs. In other words, cities will continue to police and
provide governmental services related to the medical marijuana program without any opportunity
for financial recovery. See also Addendum B, MML Resolution (“Initiative 65 will deprive
municipalities of tax revenue generated from the sale of medical marijuana impacting municipal
resources and services without contribution to maintenance and support.”). Initiative 65 in this
way harms both municipalities by taking away the taxes needed to provide public services, as
well as individuals who would benefit from those services.
CONCLUSION
The MML does not seek to “zone out” medical marijuana from existence, but to avoid the
zoning confusion and contradiction which result from the Initiative, leaving municipalities
without a map or compass. Initiative 65 would have made more sense from a zoning perspective
had Section 8(5) simply stopped after the first sentence. The Initiative, despite its aims, directly
conflicts with the Constitution Sections 273 and 190 and unlawfully infringes upon Due Process
rights under Section 14. Under Section 273, an amendment such as Initiative 65 is forbidden.
Respectfully submitted, this the 14th day of December 2020.
_/s/_John P. Scanlon_________________________
John P. Scanlon, counsel for Amicus Curiae MML
15
I hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing Amicus Curiae Brief
of the Mississippi Municipal League, Inc., with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system,
which sent notification and a copy of such filing to all counsel of record.
SO CERTIFIED this 14th day of December 2020.
By: _/s/_John P. Scanlon___________________

John P. Scanlon (MSB # 101943)
Jerry L. Mills (MSB # 3324)
800 Avery Blvd. North, Ste. 101
Telephone: (601) 957-2600
Facsimile: (601) 957-7440
jscanlon@pdmd.biz
jmills@pdmd.biz
16

No. 2020-M-1199

IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES;
THE CITY OF MADISON, PETITIONERS
vs.
MICHAEL WATSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

AS SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, RESPONDENT
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

MISSISSIPPI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, INC.
COMES NOW the Mississippi Municipal League, Inc. (the “MML”), and files its Motion
for Reconsideration of this Court’s denial of its Motion for Leave to File its Amicus Curiae Brief
supporting Brief of Petitioners Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler, In her Individual and Official
Capacities, and The City of Madison. MML brings this Motion respectfully because the
applicable appellate Rule specifically contemplates Amici addressing other issues of fact or law
and because a post-election review of the Initiative’s substance is proper. MML respectfully
requests this Court reconsider its denial of MML’s Motion.
1. Yesterday, a majority of this Court held: “It is our duty to interpret our
Constitution when its meaning is put at issue. We will not shirk this duty.” Reeves v. Philip
Gunn & Representative, --- So. 3d ----, No. 2020-CA-01107-SCT, 2020 Miss. LEXIS 508, at *2
(Dec. 17, 2020).1 Also yesterday, this Court denied MML’s Motion for Leave to file its Amicus
Brief regarding the Constitutionality of the amendment voted on as Initiative Measure No. 65.
1
Citing Alexander v. State ex rel. Allain, 441 So. 2d 1329, 1333 (Miss. 1983), overruled on other grounds by 5K
Farms, Inc. v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue, 94 So. 3d 221 (Miss. 2012).
1
2. The MML respectfully seeks reconsideration2 by this Court of its Dec. 17 Order
(Serial: 235040) denying the MML’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief Supporting
Brief of Petitioners (Motion 2020-4013) based on the objection by Respondent. This Court had
previously entered an Order on Nov. 17 (Serial: 234529), which provided that “pursuant to
M.R.A.P. 29, any non-party seeking to file a brief of amicus curiae shall do so no later than
seven (7) days after filing of the initial brief of the party whose position the amicus brief will
support.” Thus, on Nov. 17, this Court had ruled specifically pursuant to Rule of Appellate
Procedure 29, which provides the procedure for amicus curiae briefs and their attendant motions.
I.
3. Rule 29(a) provides four grounds for seeking leave of this Court to file an Amicus
brief; those grounds include briefing “matters of fact or law that may otherwise escape the
court’s attention,” and “substantial and legitimate interests affected by this Court’s decision
which may not already be protected by parties to this case.” Miss. R. App. P. 29(a) (2020). The
Rule’s following paragraph adds: “The party filing the motion shall also file with the motion a
brief stating why the motion satisfies the requirements of Rule 29(a).” Miss. R. App. P. 29(b).
Thus, the requirements under Rule 29(a) are the rubric under which amicus briefs are sought.
4. Accordingly, the MML, pursuant to the Rule this Court cited and relied on in its
Nov. 17 Order, filed its Motion laying out those grounds under Rule 29(a), as well as a brief in
support of its Motion under Rule 29(b).
5. Rule 29 also provides both the procedure – and grounds – for objections to
motions seeking leave to file amicus briefs. That Rule provides in pertinent part:
2
Although this Court “generally” does not allow motions for reconsideration under Miss. R. App. P. 27, movant the
MML respectfully requests this Court allow this Motion because it concerns the interpretation of the Constitution
and this Court’s important duty to interpret the Constitution – an amendment to the Constitution regarding marijuana
legalization is the “extraordinary case” requiring suspension of the rules. Miss. R. App. P. 27(h)(8) (2020).
2
An opposing party who does not object to the motion for leave may respond to the
amicus brief in the opposing party's response or reply brief pursuant to Rule 28(c)
or 28(d). An opposing party who objects to the motion for leave shall file a response
in opposition within seven (7) days pursuant to Rule 27 stating why the
requirements of Rule 29(a) have not been met. For the purpose of Rule 31(a), the
time for filing the next brief will run from the date the appropriate court enters an
order on the motion for leave.
Miss. R. App. P. 29(c) (emphasis added). Once again, Rule 29(a) is central to the analysis – the
requirements under Rule 29(a) are also the rubric under which amicus briefs are opposed.
6. However, nowhere within the Secretary of State’s filed objection is Rule 29(a)
even mentioned, let alone the requirements for an amicus brief which the Rule provides.
7. The substance of the Secretary’s Response is effectively a single sentence: “In its
entirety, MML’s proposed brief asserts new issues and/or causes of action that are beyond the
scope of the petition in this matter and outside this Court’s limited subject matter jurisdiction
which has been invoked by petitioners. See MISS. CONST., art. 15 § 273(9); see also November
17, 2020 Order.” (Response 2020-4013.) Despite the Rule’s “shall” directive, the Secretary put
forward no argument or reason “stating why requirements of Rule 29(a) have not been met.”
Miss. R. App. P. 29(c). There is no filed pleading disputing whether MML’s Motion and
appended Brief met the Rule’s requirements.
8. Finding the Secretary’s objection well-taken, this Court ruled, “The proposed
brief of the Mississippi Municipal League, Inc., advances arguments outside the narrow scope of
the matter presented to the Court.” (Serial: 235040.) This Court acknowledged Rule 29 but
appeared to base its ruling on the Secretary’s filed objection that MML’s argument was “beyond
the scope of the petition.”
9. With or without MML’s Brief, this Court will in fact hear arguments “outside the
narrow scope of the matter presented” by the Petitioners; namely, this Court will hear arguments
3
about health concerns advanced in Section E of the Brief filed by Amicus the Mississippi State
Medical Association, as well as arguments about health, public safety, and the impact on crime
advanced by the Mississippi Sheriffs’ Association. These are sound arguments, and this Court
should no doubt hear these arguments, but they are “outside the narrow scope of the matter
presented.” This is of course, like the Rule contemplates, as it should be. After all, without
these briefs, this Court may not hear these “matters of fact or law that may otherwise escape the
court’s attention,” nor the other “substantial and legitimate interests affected by this Court’s
decision which may not already be protected by parties to this case.” Miss. R. App. P. 29(a). In
fact, as the comment3 notes, “[i]t is designed to discourage the filing of repetitive briefs that
cannot satisfy Rule 29(a).” This Court has instituted a similar policy in other cases.4
10. Because its Amicus Brief satisfies Rule 29(a), MML prays this Court reconsider
hearing the Amicus Brief it filed.
II.
11. MML’s brief does not actually fall outside of the scope of the matters presented in
the Petition, as Petitioners do in fact present concerns about both zoning and police power.
12. Petitioners mention the adverse impact of the Initiative’s enactment, noting
“Initiative Measure No. 65 prohibits zoning ‘medical marijuana treatment centers’ any more
restrictively than comparably sized businesses.” See Petition (2020 – 3465), 7. This argument is
also contained, and expounded upon, within MML’s Amicus Brief. Petitioners, like MML, also
3
Rule 29(a), cmt.
4
MML’s Motion, if granted upon reconsideration, would not be without precedent for MML. Just earlier this
month, this Court permitted MML to file an amicus brief in the case of Singing River Mob, LLC, v. Jackson County,
Mississippi, and Singing River Health System, No. 2019-IA-01630-SCT, consolidated with 2019-IA-01653-SCT.
(See sendPDF.php (ms.gov), Dec. 17 Order entered Motion 2020-3863; Serial: 235045.) In that same matter, other
non-parties had also previously sought leave to file their amicus briefs, but had been opposed; in its Order, this
Court noted that a party to that action “strongly opposes each motion,” but nonetheless granted leave for other
amicus briefs, as well. (See Oct. 27 Order entered Motion # 2020-3224; Serial: 234327.)
4
pointed out that a ‘treatment center’ “is allowed to ‘grow, harvest, . . . produce, propagate’
marijuana.” Id. MML also presented argument on the problem of the overbreadth of the
definition of “process” within the proposed amendment, as well as its effect on the Due Process
rights of those with standing to be provided notice of and an opportunity to be heard on zoning
changes. Id. The Petitioners also pointed out that the Initiative threatens the City of Madison’s
zoning rights because it “would likely allow any licensed ‘medical marijuana treatment center’ to
grow marijuana within residential areas, substantially harming the City’s legitimate interest in
conserving the value of property and protecting the health and safety of its citizenry.” Id. MML
also made this argument. When arguing its standing, Mayor Hawkins Buter and Madison, argue:
“The City is likely to experience an adverse effect different from any adverse effect suffered by
the general public. Specifically, the City has an interest in protecting its zoning rights.” See
Petition (2020 – 3465), 13. MML made this argument, as well.
13. Clearly, although Petitioners asserted jurisdiction under our Constitution’s
Section 273(9) and put forth arguments surrounding the number of congressional districts
contemplated by that Section, Petitioners also argue matters of substance in making their
standing and zoning arguments. This Court is presented with the Petitioners’ complete
argument; divorcing one from the other is not practical and would amputate a complete analysis.
The rule is clear that matters of substance in a constitutional amendment are proper for review,
post-election. Hughes v. Hosemann, 68 So. 3d 1260, 1264 (Miss. 2011); Speed v. Hosemann, 68
So. 3d 1278, 1281 (Miss. 2011).
14. Petitioners also raise these zoning concerns in their Brief. Petitioners again point
out the overly restrictive zoning effect from Initiative 65, noting that the restrictions are based on
comparisons only in size to other businesses. Again, MML voiced the same concerns in its
5
Amicus Brief. Brief of Petitioners, 8. Regarding the interest in protecting the police power of
zoning rights, Petitioners also write in their Brief: “The Secretary of State’s unconstitutional
acceptance of the petition for Initiative Measure No. 65 and potential declaration of the vote
threatens those rights. This threat of injury is real, immediate, and direct.” Brief of Petitioners,
39-40.
15. Because its Amicus Brief contains arguments which were within the scope of the
matter presented, MML prays this Court reconsider hearing the Amicus Brief it filed.
THEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, for the reasons stated above, the Mississippi
Municipal League respectfully requests that this Court to reconsider its Dec. 17 Order (Serial:
235040), and instead now to find the Secretary’s objection is not well taken and to grant the
MML’s Motion for Leave to file its previously submitted Amicus Brief.
Respectfully submitted this the 18th day of December 2020.
MISSISSIPPI MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, INC.

By: Mills, Scanlon, Dye & Pittman,
By: _ /s/ John P. Scanlon_______________

John P. Scanlon, one of its attorneys
OF COUNSEL:
Jerry L. Mills, Esq. [MSB No. 3324]

John P. Scanlon, Esq. [MSB No. 101943]
800 Avery Boulevard North, Suite 101
Telephone: 601-957-2600
Facsimile: 601-957-7440
jmills@pdmd.biz
jscanlon@pdmd.biz
6
I, John Scanlon, one of the attorneys for Mississippi Municipal League do hereby certify t
that I have this day filed the foregoing with the Court via the MEC electronic filing system,
which provided a copy of the above and foregoing to all counsel of record.
This the 18th day of December 2020.
/s/ John P. Scanlon________________

John P. Scanlon
7

NO. 2020-IA-01199-SCT
IN RE INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 65: MAYOR

MARY HAWKINS BUTLER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, AND THE CITY OF
MADISON, PETITIONERS
V.

CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, RESPONDENT
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
G. Todd Butler, MS Bar #102907

Mallory K. Bland, MS Bar #105665
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
4270 I-55 North
Jackson, Mississippi 39211
Telephone: 601.352.2300
Facsimile: 601.360.9777
Email: butlert@phelps.com
Email: mallory.bland@phelps.com
Counsel for the Mississippi State
Department of Health
PD.30397720.1 "A"
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons have an
interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the Justices of
this Court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.
1. Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler, Petitioner;
2. The City of Madison, Petitioner;
3. Secretary of State Michael Watson, Respondent;
4. Kaytie M. Pickett, Adam Stone, Andrew S. Harris, and Jones Walker LLP, Counsel for
Petitioners;
5. Chelsea Brannon, Madison City Attorney, Counsel for Petitioners;
6. Attorney General Lynn Fitch, Assistant Solicitor General Justin Matheny, and Deputy
Solicitor General Krissy Nobile, Counsel for Respondent;
7. Mississippi State Department of Health, Amicus Curiae;
8. Mississippi State Board of Health;
9. G. Todd Butler, Mallory K. Bland, and Phelps Dunbar LLP, Counsel for Amicus
Curiae;
10. Ashley Ann Durval and Angie Calhoun, Sponsors of Initiative 65; and
11. Spencer M. Ritchie, Paul H. Stephenson III, Michael O. Gwin, Forman Watkins &
Krutz LLP, and Watkins & Eager PLLC, Counsel for Ashley Ann Durval and Angie
Calhoun.
SO CERTIFIED, this the 14th day of December, 2020.
/s/ G. Todd Butler

G. Todd Butler
i
PD.30397720.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS .............................................................................. i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................. 1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2
II. Section 273(3) should not be changed through the courts. ................................................. 3
III. The content problems with Initiative 65 are numerous. ..................................................... 6
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 15
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................................................................................... 17
ii
PD.30397720.1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Arangure v. Whitaker,
911 F.3d 333 (6th Cir. 2018) .....................................................................................................4
Clarksdale Municipal School District v. State,

233 So. 3d 299 (Miss. 2017) ....................................................................................................11
Colbert v. State,
39 So. 65 (Miss. 1905) .......................................................................................................11, 12
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council,

530 U.S. 363 (2000) .................................................................................................................13
Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor and Industries,

230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010) ....................................................................................................13, 14
Foster v. City of Kenosha,

12 Wis. 616 (1860) ....................................................................................................................2
Fulton County Fiscal Court v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.,
146 S.W.2d 15 (Ky. Ct. App. 1940) ..........................................................................................2
Gonzales v. Raich,
545 U.S. 1 (2005) .....................................................................................................................13
In re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20,

774 So. 2d 397 (2000)..........................................................................................................6, 12
La Salle State Bank v. Nugent,

508 So. 2d 658 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987)...............................................................................5
Lockhart v. United States,

136 S. Ct. 958 (2016) ...............................................................................................................15
Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. 137 (1803) .......................................................................................................................2
Marquette Cement Manufacturing Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland,

158 So. 924 (Miss. 1935) .........................................................................................................15
NFIB v. Sebelius,
567 U.S. 519 (2012) ...............................................................................................................4, 5
iii
PD.30397720.1
Power v. Robertson,
93 So. 3d 769 (Miss. 1922) ........................................................................................................2
Speed v. Hosemann,
68 So. 3d 1278 (Miss. 2011) ........................................................................................2, 5, 6, 12
State ex rel. Holmes v. Griffin,

667 So. 2d 1319 (Miss. 1995) ..................................................................................................10
State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen,

948 N.W.2d 244 (Neb. 2020).................................................................................................8, 9
Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc.,

958 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2020) .....................................................................................................4
Statutes
Affordable Care Act .....................................................................................................................4, 5
Controlled Substance Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq. ...............................................................13, 14
Miss. Code § 41-29-142 ...................................................................................................................7
Miss. Code § 43-11-11 .....................................................................................................................8
Mississippi Public Records Act .......................................................................................................8
Other Authorities
Amy Coney Barrett, Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty,

32 CONST. COMMENT. 61 (2017) ...........................................................................................4, 5
ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF

LEGAL TEXTS (2012) ..................................................................................................................4
Antonin Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 57 U. CIN. L. REV. 849, 862 (1989) .......................3
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY............................................................................................................10
Constitution of 1817, art. “Mode of Revising,” etc. § 1 ................................................................10
Constitution of 1832, art. “Mode of Revising,” etc. § 1 ................................................................10
THE FEDERALIST NO. 85 ............................................................................................................... 7, 9
iv
PD.30397720.1
Full Text of Supreme Court Nominee Gorsuch’s Remarks to Senate Panel,
BLOOMBERG NEWS, available at
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-20/supreme-court-
nominee-gorsuch-s-remarks-to-senate-panel-text (last visited December 10,
2020) ..........................................................................................................................................6
Initiative 65 ............................................................................................................................ passim
Kathleen M. Sullivan, Constitutional Constancy: Why Congress Should Cure

Itself of Amendment Fever, 17 CARDOZO L. REV. 691, 704 (1996) ...........................................2
Legislative inaction on medical marijuana leaves some voters with tough choice,
MISSISSIPPI TODAY (Aug. 30, 2020), available at
https://mississippitoday.org/2020/08/30/legislative-inaction-on-medical-
marijuana-leaves-some-voters-with-tough-choice/ (last visited Dec. 8, 2020) .........................5
MISS. CONST. art. 1, § 2 ..................................................................................................................10
MISS. CONST. art. 4, § 33 ...............................................................................................................11
MISS. CONST. art. 4, § 69 .................................................................................................................6
MISS. CONST. art. 15, § 273 .................................................................................................... passim
Mississippi State Dep’t of Health – State Partnership Program,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/content.aspx?ID=9158&lvl=2&lvlID=51
(last visited Dec. 11, 2020) ......................................................................................................15
MSDH Mission Statement, MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (last

visited Dec. 11, 2020),
https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/19,0,378,826.html ..........................................................7
NEIL M. GORSUCH, A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT (2019) ................................................4, 5, 6
November 3, 2020 Ballot Measure 1, Initiative Measure No. 65, Legislative

Budget Office Fiscal Analysis ...........................................................................................11, 13
Remarks by Justice Scalia during a discussion at American University

Washington College of Law on January 13, 2005, available at
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/3/4/519/791958 (last visited Dec. 8,
2020) ..........................................................................................................................................6
South Dakota’s recreational marijuana law to be challenged in court,

MARIJUANA BUSINESS DAILY, https://mjbizdaily.com/lawsuit-filed-oversouth-
dakota-recreational-marijuana-legalization/ (last visited December 13, 2020) .......................10
v
PD.30397720.1
Testimony by now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett in response to Senator Ben Sasse
at her confirmation hearing, available at
https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-
releases?ID=0467DABE-1372-4EA1-A364-E624E43957A0 (last visited Dec.
12, 2020) ....................................................................................................................................4
U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2 ...............................................................................................................13
vi
PD.30397720.1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Mississippi State Department of Health1 is charged with implementing, administering,
and enforcing the constitutional amendment resulting from Initiative 65. That is a monumental
task. The amendment touches nearly all areas of society, including healthcare, criminal justice,
zoning, education, taxes, appropriations, employment, insurance, interstate commerce,
advertising, public records, and legal oversight. Unless the Judicial Branch intervenes, MSDH will
be forced to create a large database and write complex regulations in less than seven months.
Pending before this Court is a straightforward reason why MSDH should not be required
to perform such a Herculean feat. The City of Madison ably explains that Initiative 65 should have
never been certified because the petition’s signatures did not comply with the plain language of
Section 273(3). But the City’s objection is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many content
problems with the amendment, including its wide-ranging scope and conflicts with existing state
and federal law.
Logically, the petition-sufficiency question comes first. The City brought its challenge
before the election was held, and it asks whether Initiative 65 should have ever made it on the
ballot to begin with. In answering the question, however, this Court should have a complete
picture. This brief aims to both supplement the City’s argument and highlight a few of the content
problems with the amendment.
1
The Mississippi State Department of Health is governed by an 11-member Board that provides policy
direction for the agency.
1
PD.30397720.1
ARGUMENT
“[W]hether we like a constitutional amendment or not for its

content, we should remember that it is a Constitution we are
amending, and we should not tinker with it lightly.”2
I. Citizens possess no inherent right to amend the Constitution.
Much has been made about supposed majority support for medical marijuana. But we are
“a government of laws, and not of men.”3 If the proper legal process was not followed, then no
amount of support matters. The very idea of a written constitution is that certain matters are
insulated from majority rule.4
So it is with citizen initiatives. There is no inherent right to amend the Constitution at the
ballot box. That right exists only if and when existing law provides for it.
For almost 100 years after Mississippi joined the Union, there was no mechanism to amend
the Constitution through a citizen petition. Things changed in 1914 when the Initiative and
Referendum Amendment was adopted. But the change was short lived. Eight years later, in Power
v. Robertson, this Court declared the IRA unconstitutional.5
Over the next 70 years, Mississippi was without a citizen-initiative mechanism. It was not
until 1992 that citizens were again permitted to propose constitutional amendments.6 Section
273(3) resulted from a legislative amendment backed by the voters. It included the signature
2
Kathleen M. Sullivan, Constitutional Constancy: Why Congress Should Cure Itself of Amendment
Fever, 17 CARDOZO L. REV. 691, 704 (1996).
3
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803).
4
Fulton Cty. Fiscal Court v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 146 S.W.2d 15, 20 (Ky. Ct. App. 1940) (“As has
been said in reference to the adoption of a written constitution that the people have protected themselves
from themselves, so it may be said that by Section 158 the people of Kentucky have protected themselves
from excessive public local debt, even though the largest majority might desire and vote for it.”); Foster v.
City of Kenosha, 12 Wis. 616, 622 (1860) (“[O]ne of the great advantages and blessings of a written
constitution, above all others, is that the minority can invoke its protection against the demands and
oppression of a violent majority.”).
5
93 So. 769 (Miss. 1922).
6
Speed v. Hosemann, 68 So. 3d 1278, 1282 (Miss. 2011).
2
PD.30397720.1
requirement the City challenges in this case.7
II. Section 273(3) should not be changed through the courts.
Given the history, there is nothing remarkable about the City’s mathematical-impossibility
argument. This State was without citizen initiatives for at least seven decades. Since Mississippi
lost its fifth congressional seat, at least seven resolutions have been introduced to address Section
273(3)’s numerical inconsistency.8 Those efforts have proved unsuccessful.
So what to do with Section 273(3)? The City, on the one hand, says that Section 273(3)
must be amended or that the fifth congressional seat must be restored. Respondent, on the other
hand, says that this Court should look beyond the text and interpret Section 273(3) in accordance
with its supposed purpose. While MSDH prescribes no ill motives to either side, the City has the
better of the debate under the law.
To start, the gravity of the question presented cannot be overstated. At issue is amending
our Constitution. Few things could be more important to a democratic society. Because the central
goal of a written constitution is “to prevent the law from reflecting certain changes in original
values that the society adopting the Constitution thinks fundamentally undesirable[,]”9 the
amendment process is supposed to be arduous.
A proper inquiry should turn on the plain text of Section 273(3). If the Legislature and
voters meant to freeze the congressional districts as they existed in 1992, they would have
explicitly done so. No one seriously argues otherwise.
To get around the textual problem, proponents point to the popularity of medicinal
marijuana. But “deference to a democratic majority should not supersede a judge’s duty to apply
7
Section 273 was amended again in 1998 to insert the requirement that only Mississippi citizens may
circulate an initiative petition.
8
See Petitioner’s Br. at p.22 n.12.
9
Antonin Scalia, Originalism: The Lesser Evil, 57 U. CIN. L. REV. 849, 862 (1989) (emphasis added).
3
PD.30397720.1
clear text.”10 Section 273(3) has a fixed meaning until lawfully changed—even, and especially, if
it vacates a majority vote.11
The purposivist method that has been advanced here is code word for “living
constitutionalism.” Purposivism, however, “has been out of fashion for a long time.”12 Such an
interpretative theory goes against fundamental notions of separation of powers.13 As Justice Scalia
often reminded, “the Living Constitution would better be called the Dead Democracy.”14
A federal analogy is the Affordable Care Act. In NFIB v. Sebelius,15 Chief Justice Roberts
is said to have “saved” the statute by construing the penalty imposed on those without health
insurance as a tax. This allowed the Court to sustain the law under the taxing power rather than
strike it under the commerce clause.16 Originalists and textualists reject the decision as an example
of judicial restraint, arguing that refusing to interpret the law as written is the antithesis of
10
Amy Coney Barrett, Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty, 32 CONST. COMMENT. 61, 80 (2017).
11
See NEIL M. GORSUCH, A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT 111 (2019) (describing originalism as
teaching “that the Constitution’s original meaning is fixed”); see also Testimony by now-Justice Amy
Coney Barrett in response to Senator Ben Sasse at her confirmation hearing, available at
https://www.sasse.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=0467DABE-1372-4EA1-A364-
E624E43957A0 (last visited Dec. 12, 2020) (“[T]he law stays the same until it is lawfully changed. And if
we’re talking about a law that has been enacted by the people’s representatives or gone through the process
of Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional ratification, it must go through the lawfully prescribed
process before it’s changed. . . . [I]t’s not up to judges to short-circuit that process by updating the law.
That’s your job.”).
12
Williams v. Taylor Seidenbach, Inc., 958 F.3d 341, 363 (5th Cir. 2020) (Oldham, J., dissenting); see
also Arangure v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 333, 345 (6th Cir. 2018) (Thapar, J.) (“This argument illustrates the
problems with purposivism; it suggests courts can simply ignore the enacted text and instead attempt to
replace it with an amorphous ‘purpose’ that happens to match with the outcome one party wants. But that
has no limiting principle. . . . [Laws] are motivated by many competing—and often contradictory—
purposes. [T]hese purposes [are implemented] by negotiating, crafting, and enacting [a] text. It is that text
that controls, not a court’s after-the-fact reevaluation of the purposes behind it.”).
13
GORSUCH, A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT 10 (“A judge should apply the Constitution or a
congressional statute as it is, not as he thinks it should be. How is a judge to go about that job? For me,
respect for the separation of powers implies originalism in the application of the Constitution and textualism
in the interpretation of statutes.”).
14
ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS
410 (2012).
15
567 U.S. 519 (2012).
16
Id. at 563-75.
4
PD.30397720.1
restrained judging.17 Respondent similarly invites this Court to focus on matters external to the
text, such as the threat posed to past initiatives like “Initiative Measure 31 (Eminent Domain) and
Initiative Measure 27 (Voter Identification).”18
Both are imaginary bogeymen that should not dictate the outcome of this case. Petition-
sufficiency challenges were not brought to either initiative, and the resulting amendments have
now been in effect for nearly a decade. By contrast, the City brought its challenge before the
election, and the measure has not yet been implemented. This Court’s precedent favors post-
election adjudication generally, and there are no reliance interests like those at stake with already-
implemented initiatives.19
There also is the inconsistency of the proponents’ position. While Initiative 65 may well
have stemmed from the Legislature’s failure to act,20 proponents now hope to exploit the
Legislature’s silence—namely, a failure to make Section 273(3) match Mississippi’s current
congressional allocation. It is wrong to use legislative inaction as both a sword and shield.21
Ultimately, the text of Section 273(3) should be this Court’s only guide.22 And it should be
17
Id. at 707 (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, J.J., dissenting) (“The values that should have
determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government
is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of
restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions.”);
see also Coney Barrett, Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty, 32 CONST. COMMENT. at 80 (stating that
“Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute”).
18
Respondent’s Answer at p.16.
19
Speed, 68 So. 3d at 1280 (declining to adjudicate an initiative challenge because the initiative had
“not been ‘put into force and effect in a way to injure the parties complaining’”) (quoted case omitted).
20
See Legislative inaction on medical marijuana leaves some voters with tough choice, MISSISSIPPI
TODAY (Aug. 30, 2020), available at https://mississippitoday.org/2020/08/30/legislative-inaction-on-
medical-marijuana-leaves-some-voters-with-tough-choice/ (last visited Dec. 8, 2020).
21
Cf. La Salle State Bank v. Nugent, 508 So. 2d 658, 661 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987) (“Appellant cannot
be allowed to use the law as both a sword and a shield.”).
22
GORSUCH, A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT 10 (“[A]n originalist and a textualist will study
dictionary definitions, rules of grammar, and the historical context, all to determine what the law meant to
the people when their representatives adopted it.” They will not, by contrast, “guess about unspoken
purposes hidden in the hearts of legislators or rework the law to meet the judge’s estimation of what an
‘evolving’ or ‘maturing’ society should look like[.]”).
5
PD.30397720.1
followed no matter where it leads.23 Altering Section 273(3)’s text is the job of the Legislative
Branch of government.24
III. The content problems with Initiative 65 are numerous.
The City’s challenge could nullify any petition brought under Section 273(3) moving
forward, regardless of subject matter. But other problems are unique to Initiative 65. Among the
content deficiencies are the overall scope of the amendment and conflicts it creates with existing
state and federal law. Other challenges remain even if Respondent’s atextual position is accepted.25
Scope of the Amendment. The ultimate issue is not whether Mississippi law may address
the topic of medicinal marijuana through a proper enactment. The issue is how Initiative 65
purports to do it in this context. Beyond simply providing medical access, Initiative 65 affects our
daily life in a dramatic way.
By trying to do so much, Initiative 65 is self-defeating. Section 273(9) specifically provides
that “[n]o more than five (5) initiative proposals shall be submitted to the voters on a single
ballot[.]”26 And posing only narrowly-tailored amendments has been a structural concern since our
23
See Full Text of Supreme Court Nominee Gorsuch’s Remarks to Senate Panel, BLOOMBERG NEWS,
available at https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-20/supreme-court-nominee-gorsuch-s-
remarks-to-senate-panel-text (identifying Justice Byron White as his “judicial hero” because Justice White
was said to have “followed the law wherever it took him without fear or favor to anyone”) (last visited
December 10, 2020); see also Remarks by Justice Scalia during a discussion at American University
Washington College of Law on January 13, 2005, available at
https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/3/4/519/791958 (last visited Dec. 8, 2020) (“I think it is up to the
judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you
think it should be amended. If that’s what it says, that's what it says.”).
24
GORSUCH, A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT 10 (Judges should not “pretend to represent (or bend
to) popular will. The task of making new legislation is assigned elsewhere.”).
25
Challenges to the substance of an initiative must be brought post-election, see Speed, 68 So. 3d at
1281 (overruling In re Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397, 402 (2000) to the extent that it
allowed pre-election substantive challenges to initiatives), and the correct venue for post-election content
challenges is the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, see Measure No. 20, 774 So.
2d at 400-01.
26
See also MISS. CONST. art. 4, § 69 (“General appropriation bills shall contain only the appropriations
to defray the ordinary expenses of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the government;
to pay interest on state bonds, and to support the common schools. All other appropriations shall be made
by separate bills, each embracing but one subject.”).
6
PD.30397720.1
Nation’s founding.27 Although Initiative 65 was advertised as a “single” initiative, it in reality
amounts to at least 14.
The amendment spans from healthcare28 to advertising29 and impacts everything in
between, including education,30 employment,31 and insurance.32 It addresses how the medical
marijuana program is to be funded33 and requires MSDH to implement, administer, and enforce a
comprehensive regulatory scheme.34 It alters the criminal code35 and removes zoning power from
27
THE FEDERALIST NO. 85 (Alexander Hamilton) (“But every amendment to the Constitution, if once
established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no
necessity for management or compromise, in relation to any other point no giving nor taking. The will of
the requisite number would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue.”).
28
See generally Initiative 65 (allowing physicians to issue certificates for the use of medical marijuana).
29
Id. § 5(2) (requiring that MSDH implement and enforce restrictions on advertising and marketing).
30
Id. § 3(1)(d) (providing that accommodation is not required in educational institutions).
31
Id. § 3(1)(d) (providing that accommodation is not required in places of employment); § 3(1)(g)
(providing that amendment does not affect any existing drug testing laws, regulations, or rules); § 4(2)
(defining “criminal or civil sanctions” as including the “denial of any right, privilege, license, certification”
and “disciplinary action by a licensing board or commission[;]” employees, therefore, are immunized from
suspension and loss of an employment license for using, processing, selling, transporting, distributing, etc.
medical marijuana, which seemingly conflicts with §§ 3(1)(d) & (g)).
32
Id. § 3(1)(e) (providing that there is no requirement for any health insurance provider or government
agency to reimburse expenses related to the use of marijuana).
33
Id. § 6 (providing for, among other things, the creation of a special fund, a loan from special funds,
and fees that may be assessed by MSDH).
34
Id. § 5 (provisions for MSDH’s implementation, administration, and enforcement of rules and
regulations). MSDH will essentially have to create an executive, legislative, and judicial branch within the
agency to comply with all of Initiative 65’s requirements. The agency will be forced to regulate areas
unrelated to healthcare. See MSDH Mission Statement, MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (last
visited Dec. 11, 2020), https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/19,0,378,826.html (“The Mississippi State
Department of Health's mission is to protect and advance the health, well-being and safety of everyone in
Mississippi.”). For instance, under the expansive definition of “process,” MSDH is required to regulate the
cultivating, growing, harvesting, packaging, and transporting of medical marijuana. Initiative 65, § 4(10).
Section 5(2) also requires MSDH to implement and enforce regulations for tracking and labelling,
advertising and marketing, interstate agreements, and penalties for violations.
35
See id. §§ 2, 7 (decriminalizing, among other things, the use, processing, sale, distribution, and
transport of medical marijuana, as well as the issuance of physician’s certificates); see also id. § 8(4)
(providing that no medical marijuana treatment center can be located within 500 feet of a pre-existing
school, church, or licensed child care center). This changes the current drug-free school statute, which
provides for enhanced penalties if marijuana is sold within 1,500 feet of a school, church, public park,
ballpark, public gymnasium, youth center, or movie theater. See Miss. Code § 41-29-142.
7
PD.30397720.1
local authorities.36 It exempts medical marijuana from all state and local taxes.37 It contains public
reporting requirements38 and requires judicial oversight of licensing.39 Even public-record
requests40 and interstate agreements41 are not left unscathed. Overall, it would be difficult to
imagine a more expansive coverage area.
On similar facts, the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected a citizen initiative just this
September. While the initiative’s general subject was medical marijuana, it included nine
subsections. The subsections were held to constitute impermissible secondary purposes, since they
impacted the law on “public space, correctional facilities, motor vehicles, negligence, employment
decisions, and insurance coverage.”42 The court reasoned that these additional “subjects of
constitutional amendment were included only for tactical convenience, not any natural and
necessary connection” to the general purpose of “creat[ing] a constitutional right for persons with
serious medical conditions to produce and medicinally use cannabis, subject to a recommendation
by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner.”43
As in Nebraska, Initiative 65 is an enterprise of unlawful logrolling. “Logrolling is the
practice of combining dissimilar propositions into one voter initiative so that voters must vote for
or against the whole package even though they only support certain of the initiative’s
36
Id. § 5(4) (providing that the number of licensed medical marijuana treatment centers cannot be
limited by rule or regulation); § 8(4) (providing that zoning ordinances must comply with the amendment
and cannot be more restrictive than comparable businesses).
37
Id. § 8(3).
38
Id. § 9 (requiring MSDH to provide a comprehensive public report of the operation of the amendment
to the legislature every two years).
39
Id. § 5(12) (providing that the notice and hearing requirements and judicial review provisions of
Miss. Code § 43-11-11 apply to the denial, suspension, or revocation of a medical marijuana license).
40
Id. § 5(7) (exempting all records containing the identity of qualified patients, caregivers, and
prescribing physicians from disclosure under the Mississippi Public Records Act or any other related
statute, regulation, or rule pertaining to disclosing records).
41
Id. § 5(2) (requiring that MSDH implement rules and regulations for reciprocal agreements with other
states for patients registered in medical marijuana programs).
42
State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen, 948 N.W.2d 244, 258-59 (Neb. 2020).
43
Id. at 250, 259.
8
PD.30397720.1
propositions.”44 The law has long abhorred logrolling.45 It thwarts the democratic process by
forcing voters to accept unpopular ideas in order to achieve the adoption of desired ones.
Consider what voters saw on the ballot: “Should Mississippi allow qualified patients with
debilitating medical conditions, as certified by Mississippi licensed physicians, to use medical
marijuana?” This single question omitted secondary implications that grow out of the ten-
subsection amendment, which reads like a full statute. Other ballot questions should have been:
• Should Mississippi exempt “medical marijuana treatment centers” from virtually all
zoning requirements?
• Should Mississippi change criminal laws to allow the sale of medical marijuana within
500 feet of schools, churches, and licensed child care centers?
• Should Mississippi exempt the processing and sale of medical marijuana from all state
and local taxes?
• Should Mississippi prevent MSDH and all other state and local bodies from limiting
the number of “treatment centers” in any way?
These are merely examples that underscore the Hobson’s choice voters were forced to navigate.
MSDH understands that many Mississippians support marijuana being used to address
“debilitating medical conditions[.]”46 But the reach of Initiative 65 goes much further than the 19-
word question on the ballot. The actual text of the amendment includes 2,565 words that will
change the fabric of Mississippi forever.
State Conflicts. Initiative 65 went too far globally, but there are specific problems as well.
Under Section 273, two amendment methods are contemplated: legislative proposals and citizen
initiatives.47 But the two methods are not the same. The Legislature is granted broad authority
through subsection (2), in that it may propose amendments, changes, or alterations. Not so for
44
Id. at 253.
45
See THE FEDERALIST NO. 85.
46
Initiative 65, § 2.
47
MISS. CONST. art. 15, § 273(2) & (3).
9
PD.30397720.1
citizens. Subsection (3) solely allows citizens to propose amendments, not changes or alterations.
The “amend, alter, or change” language first appeared in the 1832 Constitution and has
since remained for legislative proposals.48 But when the citizen-initiative method was adopted in
1992, Section 273(3) limited citizens to “amendments,” omitting the words alter and change. The
law presumes that this exclusion was intentional.49 It follows that the Legislature has the authority
to propose measures citizens cannot—namely, constitutional changes and alterations.
The distinction is crucial because Initiative 65 did not just amend the Constitution—it
fundamentally alters it. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY defines “amendment” as “[a] formal and
usu[ally] minor revision or addition proposed or made to a statute, constitution, pleading, order,
or other instrument; specif[ically], a change made by addition, deletion, or correction; esp., an
alteration in wording.” BLACK’S conversely defines “[a]lteration” as “[a]n act done to an
instrument, after its execution, whereby its meaning or language is changed.” Initiative 65 did not
make “minor” revisions in any sense of the word. Nor does its merely “add” a constitutional
provision.50
Initiative 65 violates the bedrock principle of separation of powers.51 Despite our
governmental structure being built on checks and balances, Initiative 65 charges an executive
agency with the duty of appropriating and expending funds with no prior authorization or
48
See Constitution of 1832, art. “Mode of Revising,” etc. § 1. Prior to 1832, the only method for
amending the constitution was to call a constitutional convention. See Constitution of 1817, art. “Mode of
Revising,” etc. § 1.
49
See State ex rel. Holmes v. Griffin, 667 So. 2d 1319, 1326-27 (Miss. 1995) (“It appears to this Court
that after four opportunities to draft such a Section as 154, that the drafters would have included the
immediately preceding language if they had intended to do so, as they did for other positions.”).
50
See, e.g., South Dakota’s recreational marijuana law to be challenged in court, MARIJUANA
BUSINESS DAILY, https://mjbizdaily.com/lawsuit-filed-oversouth-dakota-recreational-marijuana-
legalization/ (last visited December 13, 2020) (discussing lawsuit supported by South Dakota Governor
Kristi Noem that contends a medical-marijuana “amendment inserts a new section into the constitution,
[and should thus] be considered a revision to the constitution”).
51
MISS. CONST. art. 1, § 2 (“No person or collection of persons, being one or belonging to one of these
departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to either of the others.”).
10
PD.30397720.1
oversight. This is an encroachment on the “power of the purse,” for the Constitution vests authority
to appropriate financial resources exclusively in the Legislative Branch.52 There are no checks in
Initiative 65. There is no balance.
Illustrating the point is Section (6) of Initiative 65. It provides that, when MSDH requests,
“the State Treasurer shall provide a line of credit[,]” up to $2,500,000, for a special fund that only
MSDH controls. Missing is any legislative involvement. MSDH determines when and how much
money will be taken from special funds to implement the program. After MSDH makes this
determination, the State Treasurer, another executive agent, must provide the money. The
Legislature has no say over how much is appropriated, from what fund the money is taken, whether
the budget allows for the provision of funds, or any other financial considerations.
Section 6 further authorizes MSDH to expend funds generated from the program “without
prior appropriation or authorization” and prevents the Legislature from reverting any funds from
the program into the general fund, even if there is a surplus. The Legislative Budget Office expects
that, after the first year, the program will generate a surplus of $10,662,000 per year, which must
be used to support the state marijuana program and cannot be used for other programs.53
Under Initiative 65, the Executive Branch now holds the proverbial “purse.” And the
Legislature is prevented from tightening or loosening the strings. The medical marijuana program
will be the only state-funded program where the Legislature lacks power over appropriations or
revenue. To borrow from this Court’s past cases in this area: Initiative 65 “subverts” our whole
52
See Clarksdale Mun. Sch. Dist. v. State, 233 So. 3d 299, 306 (Miss. 2017) (Maxwell, J., specially
concurring) (citing MISS. CONST. art. 4, § 33; Colbert v. State, 39 So. 65, 67 (Miss. 1905) (“The power to
appropriate the State’s financial resources belongs exclusively to the Legislature[.]”).
53
See November 3, 2020 Ballot Measure 1, Initiative Measure No. 65, Legislative Budget Office Fiscal
Analysis. The Legislative Budget Office used figures from Oklahoma’s medical marijuana program in
performing its fiscal analysis. Initiative 65, however, used figures from Arizona in its revenue statement,
estimating that the medical marijuana program will only generate $6,000,000 in revenue each year.
11
PD.30397720.1
constitutional scheme.54
But Initiative 65 does not simply have a Section 273(3) problem. It also has a problem
under Section 273(4), the provision requiring that the amount and source of revenue to implement
the initiative be identified.55
While there is a statement in Initiative 65 called “Amount and Source of Revenue,” it lacks
the teeth required under Section 273(4). It simply provides how revenue will be generated, says
that the amendment pays for itself and requires no general fund appropriation, and estimates how
much revenue will be made annually. The revenue statement does not speak to the amount required
to implement the initiative or say plainly where those funds will come from.
It is not enough for Initiative 65 to allow “a line of credit from the Working Cash
Stabilization Fund or any other available special source funds maintained in the state treasury in
an amount not to exceed” $2,500,000. That ignores the second sentence of Section 273(4), which
provides that, if a reallocation of funding is required, the programs whose funding must be reduced
must be identified. A vague identification of “other available special source funds” does not tell
Mississippi citizens which programs the taking of money from these “other available special
source funds” will impact.56
The Legislative Budget Office’s fiscal analysis appeared on the ballot and estimated the
cost to implement the program at $24,068,150. The program is anticipated to generate $13,000,000
54
See Colbert, 39 So. at 67 (“[T]he constitution regards the legislature as the sole repository of power
to make appropriations of moneys to be paid out of the state treasury. We can no more infer the possibility
of an appropriation by executive action of moneys for the payment of public debts than we could the levying
of taxes by executive action for the same purpose. If the one may be inferred, the other may also; and thus
the entire constitutional scheme for legislative control over the public revenues be subverted.” (emphasis
added)).
55
MISS. CONST. art. 15, § 273(4).
56
See, e.g., Proposed Initiative Measure No. 20, 774 So. 2d 397, 402 (2000) overruled in part not
relevant here by Speed, 68 So. 3d 1278 (“The government revenue impact statement is a requirement
designed to protect the integrity of the constitutional initiative process and to prevent the electors of this
state from being presented with false and misleading initiative petitions. The people are entitled to the best,
most accurate information available when voting on matters of state.”).
12
PD.30397720.1
in revenue in the first year, leaving the total taxpayer cost at $11,068,150.57 As Section 6 only
appropriates $2,500,000 for implementation, it begs the obvious question: where does the other
$8,568,150 necessary for the implementation of the program come from?58
Federal Conflict. There are also conflicts between Initiative 65 and federal law. Initiative
65 affirmatively authorizes the use of marijuana and immunizes persons falling under its mandates
from prosecution under both state and federal law. These provisions of Initiative 65 directly
conflict with the federal Controlled Substance Act59 and are thus void under the Supremacy
Clause.60
The CSA categorizes marijuana as a Schedule I drug and prohibits the distribution,
possession, and use of marijuana.61 There is no exception for medicinal use. As a Schedule I drug,
Congress has determined that marijuana “lack[s] . . . any accepted medical use . . . and . . . any
accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment.”62
The CSA’s preemption clause provides that a state law is preempted if there is a “positive
conflict.”63 A “positive conflict” exists when either it is “physically impossible” to comply with
both the federal and state law, such as where the state law mandates an act that the federal law
forbids, or where the state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the
full purposes and objectives of Congress.”64
57
See November 3, 2020 Ballot Measure 1, Initiative Measure No. 65, Legislative Budget Office Fiscal
Analysis.
58
To be clear, MSDH will first be required to spend $24,000,000 before any revenue is generated. With
only $2,500,000 accounted for by Initiative 65, the remaining $21,500,000 needed to implement the
program is still missing.
59
21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq.
60
See U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2; Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 372 (2000).
61
21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 841-843.
62
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005).
63
21 U.S.C. § 903.
64
Crosby, 530 U.S. at 372-73; Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 230 P.3d
518, 527-28 (Or. 2010).
13
PD.30397720.1
While preemption arguments have generally failed where a state merely decriminalizes the
use of marijuana, Initiative 65 goes further. It affirmatively authorizes the use, production, sale,
and distribution of medical marijuana—therefore creating a positive conflict.65 The Oregon
Supreme Court has highlighted this distinction in wording, holding that the law at issue, by
authorizing the use of medical marijuana rather than simply decriminalizing it under state law,
stood “as an obstacle to the implementation and execution of the full purposes and objectives of
the Controlled Substances Act.”66 The court analogized this to the issuance of driver’s licenses: if
Congress chose to prohibit anyone under the age of 21 from driving, states could not then authorize
anyone over the age of 16 to drive and give them a license to do so.67 By the same token here,
Mississippi cannot affirmatively authorize and license a use that federal law specifically prohibits.
Another problem with Initiative 65 is that it seeks to provide immunity from all criminal
and civil sanctions, including those imposed under federal law. The amendment immunizes
qualified patients, caregivers, physicians, and treatment centers from “criminal and civil
sanctions.”68 The amendment defines “criminal and civil sanctions” as “arrest; incarceration;
prosecution; penalty; fine; sanction; the denial of any right, privilege, license, certification; and/or
to be subject to disciplinary action by a licensing board or commission; and/or to be subject to
seizure and/or forfeiture of assets pursuant to any Mississippi law, local ordinance, or board,
commission, or agency regulation or rule.”69 This presents an absolute conflict with the CSA.
Such a conclusion reflects well-settled canons of construction. Under the last-antecedent
canon, “relative and qualifying words, phrases, and clauses are to be applied to the words or
phrases immediately preceding, and are not to be construed as extending to or including others
65
See generally Initiative 65.
66
Emerald Steel Fabricators, 230 P.3d at 529.
67
Id. at 531.
68
Initiative 65, §§ 2, 7.
69
Id. § 4(2) (emphasis added).
14
PD.30397720.1
more remote.”70 Applied here, the language “pursuant to any Mississippi law” would only apply
to the last item in the series—“to be subject to seizure and/or forfeiture of assets”—and would not
apply to the rest of the series—“arrest; incarceration; prosecution; penalty; fine; sanction; the
denial of any right, privilege, license, certification; and/or to be subject to disciplinary action by a
licensing board or commission[.]” Because the state-law qualifier only applies to the last item in
the series, Initiative 65 immunizes the use of medical marijuana under both federal and state law,
irreconcilably conflicting with the CSA.
CONCLUSION
Covid-19 undoubtedly has changed the world we live in. From MSDH’s standpoint, it has
placed special emphasis on the agency’s mission of “promot[ing] and protect[ing] the health of all
its citizens.”71
Initiative 65 seeks to transform MSDH into something it is not. Rather than allowing the
agency to focus its resources entirely on public health, it requires MSDH to get in the business of
appropriations, agriculture, packaging and transport, advertising, marketing, and penalty
schemes—just to name a few.
MSDH fully intends to carry out its obligations under the law. But the City has raised a
serious challenge to the Initiative 65 petition. And the amendment’s content amplifies the
challenge even more. Such questions should be answered before MSDH is completely reshaped
into a new and comingled Branch of government.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: December ___, 2020.
70
Marquette Cement Mfg. Co. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 158 So. 924, 925 (Miss. 1935); see
also Lockhart v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 958, 963-65 (2016).
71
Mississippi State Dep’t of Health – State Partnership Program, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES, https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/content.aspx?ID=9158&lvl=2&lvlID=51 (last
visited Dec. 11, 2020).
15
PD.30397720.1
MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
BY: /s/ G. Todd Butler

G. Todd Butler MS Bar No.: 102907
Mallory K. Bland MS Bar No.: 105665
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
4270 I-55 North
Jackson, Mississippi 39211
Telephone: 601-352-2300
Facsimile: 601-360-9777
Email: butlert@phelps.com
Email: mallory.bland@phelps.com
COUNSEL FOR AMICUS CURIAE THE
MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
16
PD.30397720.1
I, G. Todd Butler, one of the attorneys for Amicus Curiae, certify that I had a copy of this
brief electronically filed using the Court’s ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to
all counsel of record.
Dated: December __, 2020.
/s/ G. Todd Butler

G. Todd Butler
17
PD.30397720.1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,
AND THE CITY OF MADISON,
Petitioners,
vs. Cause No. 2020-IA-01199-SCT
MICHAEL WATSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY

AS SECRETARY OF STATE
FOR THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, RESPOND
BRIEF OF PETITIONERS
MAYOR HAWKINS BUTLER
AND THE CITY OF MADISON,
Respondents.
________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF AMICI CURIAE ON BEHALF OF SENATOR ANGELA HILL

AND REPRESENTATIVES KATHY CHISM AND JILL FORD IN
SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
Amici, Sen. Angela Hill, Rep Kathy Chism, and Rep. Jill Ford, by and
through counsel and pursuant to Miss. R. App. P. 29, submit this brief as amici
curiae in support of Petitioners.
INTRODUCTION
MISS. CONST. art. 15, §273(3) requires that “[t]he signatures of the
qualified electors from any congressional district shall not exceed one-fifth
(1/5) of the total number of signatures required to qualify an initiative petition
1
for placement upon the ballot.” Id. (emphasis added). The Secretary of State
accepted the Initiative Measure No. 65 Petition for filing on the theory that the
highlighted language should be interpreted as meaning each of “the five
congressional districts as they existed in the year 2000.” Brief of Petitioners at
10 n.5 (citing Miss. Sec’y State, Initiative Information, Initiative 65, available
at https://www.sos.ms.gov/elections/initiatives/InitiativeInfo.aspx?IId=65).
The Legislature certainly did not give such a liberal reading to similar
language as it appeared in numerous statutes, as shown by several bills passed
into law between 2003 and 2007 that amended various statutes in order to
conform them to the new congressional districts. Additionally, many of us in
the Legislature recognized that the language in Section 273(3) referring to
congressional districts could not be reconciled with the loss of a congressional
seat in 2000 and must therefore be amended. Indeed, the Secretary of State
himself introduced a resolution in 2015 intended to do just that. Sadly, that
resolution died in committee. Nevertheless, bringing Section 273(3) into
compliance with the current congressional districts remains the responsibility
of the legislative branch, not the judicial branch. Amici therefore urge the
Court to exercise judicial restraint by respecting the constitutional limitations
on its own authority and hold the Secretary’s determination of the sufficiency
of the Initiative Measure No. 65 Petition unconstitutional.
2
ARGUMENT
MISS. CONST. art. 1, §1 divides the powers of government into three
distinct departments, namely the legislative, the judicial, and the executive.
Article 1, section 2 emphatically prohibits any encroachment of power by one
department into that of another:
No person or collection of persons, being one or belonging to one of

these departments, shall exercise any power properly belonging to
either of the others. The acceptance of an office in either of said
departments shall, of itself, and at once, vacate any and all offices
held by the person so accepting in either of the other departments.
Id. While it is certainly true that it is the province of the Court to say what the
law is, it is equally true that it is not for the Court to say what the law should
be. As was said in the case of Doggett v. State some 90 years ago, “it is, of course,
not for the courts to make law or to legislate upon hardships for which the
lawmaking power has not authorized the relief which is sought.” Doggett v.
State, 144 So. 854, 855 (Miss. 1932); see also Harper v. Va. Dep't of Taxation,
509 U.S. 86, 105 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“Prospective decisionmaking is
the handmaid of judicial activism, and the born enemy of stare decisis.”). This
Court should hew to these principles here and resist the temptation to rewrite
the law.
3
I. Enacting Legislation to Govern the Initiative Process is a
Legislative Function.
Under MISS. CONST. art. 15, §273(12), “[t]he Legislature shall provide
by law the manner in which initiative petitions shall be circulated, presented
and certified.” Title 23, Chapter 17 of the Mississippi Code codifies the
Legislature’s response to this constitutional duty. Miss. Code §23-17-19
specifies the minimum requirements for an acceptable signatory:
The Secretary of State shall design the form each sheet of which
shall contain the following:
EVERY PERSON WHO SIGNS THIS PETITION WITH ANY

OTHER THAN HIS OR HER TRUE NAME, KNOWINGLY
SIGNS MORE THAN ONE OF THESE PETITIONS RELATING
TO THE SAME INITIATIVE MEASURE, SIGNS THIS
PETITION WHEN HE OR SHE IS NOT A QUALIFIED
ELECTOR OR MAKES ANY FALSE STATEMENT ON THIS
PETITION MAY BE PUNISHED BY FINE, IMPRISONMENT,
OR BOTH.
To the Honorable ____, Secretary of State of the State of

Mississippi:
We, the undersigned citizens and qualified electors of the State of

Mississippi, respectfully direct that this petition and the proposed
measure known as Initiative Measure No. ____, entitled (here
insert the established ballot title of the measure), a full, true and
correct copy of which is printed or attached on the reverse side of
this petition, be transmitted to the Legislature of the State of
Mississippi at its next ensuing regular session, and we respectfully
petition the Legislature to adopt the proposed measure; and each
of us for himself or herself says: I have personally signed this
petition, I am a qualified elector of the State of Mississippi
in the city (or town), county and congressional district
written after my name, my residence address is correctly stated
and I have knowingly signed this petition only once.”
4

Each sheet shall also provide adequate space for the following
information: Petitioner’s signature; print name for positive
identification; residence address, street and number, if any; city or
town; county; precinct; and congressional district.
Id. (emphasis added).
The form requires each signatory to affirm that he or she is currently a
qualified elector in the congressional district written after his or her name.
Nothing in this form even remotely suggests that the congressional district
referred to is the district as it existed twenty years ago.
The signatures in App. F that contain no reference to the congressional
district in which the electors reside are quite telling in this respect. As
Petitioners have suggested, such an omission likely arose from the fact that
the electors are no longer in the congressional district they had been in prior
to the latest census and that reporting their current district would be fatal to
the initiative effort. (Pet. Opening Br. at 17-18).
II. The Legislature Always Understood Language Such as “Any

Congressional District” to Mean the Current Districts and it
Acted Promptly to Amend Several Statutes to Comport with
the Loss of One Congressional District.
The Legislature was keenly aware of the effect of the 2000 decennial
census and the loss of one congressional seat on existing laws referring to the
congressional districts. As Petitioners suggested, the Legislature knew full
well that the congressional districts are subject to change every ten years. (Pet.
5
Br. at 19). We therefore took action to clarify and address the issues arising
from the loss of one congressional district as early as 2003.
For example, in Senate Bill 2028, we amended Miss. Code §73-6-3 in
order to conform the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to the new
drawing of our congressional districts. As originally enacted, the law called for
a six-member board consisting of the executive director of the State Board of
Health and “and one (1) [member] from each congressional district as presently
constituted.” (See Exhibit 1, copy of SB 2028 (Miss. 2003)). The amendment
required the appointment of one (1) member “from each of the four (4)
Mississippi congressional districts as they currently exist, and one (1) from the
state at large” in addition to the executive director of the State Board of Health.
Id. We also amended Miss. Code §43-1-1 in order to revise the criteria for
appointment of the members of the State Board of Health to account for the
loss of a congressional district that same year. (See Exh. 2, copy of SB 2338
(Miss. 2003)).
One year later, in 2004, we again took action to address the challenges
occasioned by loss of a congressional seat. In House Bill 560, for example, we
amended Miss. Code §§73-30-5, -7, and -29. (See Exh. 3, copy of HB 560 (Miss.
2004)). As originally constituted, the Board of Examiners for Professional
Counselors consisted of five (5) members, one “from each of the five (5)
congressional districts.” Id. The Legislature understood that such language did
6

not mean the five congressional districts as they existed prior to the 2000
Census, but referred instead to current districts; hence the necessity of
corrective action. The amended language provided for appointment of “one (1)
member from each of the four (4) congressional districts, as such districts
existed on January 22 1, 2002,” and one member selected from the state at
large. Id. (emphasis added).
That same year we also amended Miss. Code §75-57-101, which created
the Liquefied Compressed Gas Board. The members of that seven-member
board were to be appointed by the Commissioner of Insurance as follows: “(a)
Five (5) members, one (1) from each of the congressional districts,” and
two (2) from the state at large. (See Exh. 4, copy of SB 2684 (Miss. 2004)
(emphasis added)). As amended, after July 2004 the members were to be
appointed one (1) “from each of the four (4) Mississippi congressional districts
and three (3) members from the state at large.” Id.
Even prior to the 2000 census we had been cognizant of the danger of
shifting congressional districts and the need to define which congressional
districts are intended to govern in the event of a change. For example, we acted
in 2004 to amend Miss. Code §73-34-7 to account for the change in
congressional districts as it affected the Mississippi Real Estate Appraiser
Licensing and Certification Board, even though the original language in the
law called for a six-member board consisting of one (1) member “from each
7
congressional district as such district existed on January 1, 1989.” (See
Exh. 5, copy of HB1597 (Miss. 2004) (emphasis added)). Such clarifying
language could easily have been included in Section 273(3); the absence of such
language is fatal to the Secretary’s position.
We also took action in 2004 to amend numerous statutes predicated
upon the previous five congressional districts in light of the loss of one district
in the 2000 census. In House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 28031,
we recognized that many of the Executive Agency boards and commissions had
been created based on the previous five congressional districts. (See Exh. 6,
copy of Bill.) We therefore undertook to amend no less than thirty-one (31)
separate statutes in order to remedy the incongruity.
One of those statutes actually addressed the possibility of a change in
the congressional districts. In Miss. Code §35-1-1, creating the Veterans
Affairs Board, subsection (1)(a) originally instructed: “There is hereby created
a State Veterans Affairs Board, to consist of seven (7) members, to be appointed
by the Governor, one (1) from each congressional district as they existed on
January 1, 1952, of the State of Mississippi.” Id. (emphasis added).
Subsection (b) provided that after May 14, 1992, “[o]ne (1) member shall be

1 Unfortunately, the bill did not pass. It is nevertheless informative insofar as it
demonstrates the Legislature’s awareness of the problems arising from the loss of a
congressional district and its impact on existing laws.
8

appointed from each congressional district as such districts existed on
March 1, 1992, and two (2) members shall be appointed from the state at
large.” Id. (emphasis added). In our bill in 2004 we proposed to amend the
statute to reflect that after July 1, 2004 “[t]here shall be appointed one (1)
member of the board from each of the four (4) Mississippi congressional
districts as they currently exist, and three (3) from the state at large, . . .”
Ex. 6 at 6 (emphasis added).
Some statutes, however, like MISS. CONST. art. 15 §273(3), simply
referred to the congressional districts without any qualification. For example,
in Miss. Code §37-4-3, the State Board for Community and Junior Colleges was
created. Subsection (2) stated that the board would have ten (10) members,
“two (2) members from the First Mississippi Congressional District, . . . two (2)
members from the Second Congressional District, . . . two (2) members from
the Third Congressional District, . . . two (2) members from the Fourth
Congressional District, . . . and two (2) members from the Fifth Congressional
District.” Id. Because there was no longer a Fifth Congressional District in our
state, we understood the plain language to mean the current congressional
districts, and therefore proposed an amendment whereby the law would
require the appointment of two (2) members “from each of the four (4)
Mississippi congressional districts as they currently exist.” Ex. 6 at 11
(emphasis added).
9

Similarly, Miss. Code §37-155-7 created the Prepaid Affordable College
Tuition Board. Subsection (1)(a) stated that the nine (9) voting members would
consist in four designated state officials “and one (1) member from each
congressional district to be appointed by the Governor with the advice and
consent of the Senate.” Id. (emphasis added). We understood this unambiguous
language to mean what it said, that is, from each current congressional
district. But because appointing one (1) member from each of the four (4)
current congressional districts yielded only four (4) members, and adding those
four to the four designated state officials totaled only eight (8), not nine (9) as
§37-155-7 requires, we proposed to amend the statute to instruct that “[t]here
shall be appointed one (1) member of the board from each of the four (4)
congressional districts as they currently exist, and one (1) from the state at
large.” Ex. 6 at 17.
Again, the Health Care Trust Fund and Health Care Expendable Fund
were created under Miss. Code §43-13-409. A seven-voting-member board of
directors was created consisting of the State Treasurer, the Attorney General,
“and one (1) member from each congressional district to be appointed
by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Id. at sec. (1)(a)
(emphasis added). No one in the Legislature argued in 2004 that the quoted
language meant each congressional district as they existed before 2000.
Instead, we proposed to amend the statute to require the appointment of one
10
(a) member “from each of the four (4) congressional districts as they
currently exist” and one (1) from the state at large. Ex. 6 at 21 (emphasis
added).
In short, the Legislature always understood the plain meaning of “each
congressional district” as referring to each current congressional district
unless there was additional qualifying language, such as that in Miss. Code
§35-1-1, where the statute specified that it was referring to “each congressional
district as they existed on January 1, 1952.” (Emphasis added.) There is no
warrant for the Court to apply any other meaning to this same language as it
appears in Section 273(3).
The Secretary in effect asks the Court to rewrite Section 273(3) in order
to save Measure 65. Section 273(3) unambiguously states: “The signatures of
the qualified electors from any congressional district shall not exceed one-fifth
(1/5) of the total number of signatures required to qualify an initiative petition
for placement upon the ballot.” Id. (emphasis added). Under the Secretary’s
suggested interpretation, the signatures of the qualified electors from any of
the current four congressional districts may (indeed, must) exceed one-fifth of
the total number of signatures required. To change “shall not” to “may” is the
essence of judicial activism.
What this Court stated a few years ago in the context of a similar
question applies with equal force here: “[W]e prefer to exercise judicial
11
restraint and to hold that ‘shall’ means ‘shall,’ not ‘shall sometimes.’”
Poindexter v. Southern United Fire Ins. Co., 838 So.2d 964, 971 (Miss. 2003)
(Cobb, J.) (emphasis added). In this case, “shall not” means “shall not,” not
“may sometimes.” Any other conclusion would constitute not judicial restraint,
but judicial activism.
III. The Legislature’s History of Proposed Amendments to Section

273(3) Underscores its Authority and its Awareness of the
Issue.
As stated earlier, it is the place of the Legislature, not the judiciary, to make
and amend the laws. The Legislature has not only acted repeatedly to address
the statutes that refer to the previous five congressional districts, it has also
attempted on seven different occasions to fashion an amendment to Section
273(3). It first offered an amendment in 2003. It tried again in 2007, in 2009,
and again in 2014. (See H.R. Con. Res. 58, 2003 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2003);
S. Con. Res. 510, 2007 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2007); S. Con. Res. 523, 2009
Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2009); H.R. Con. Res. 22, 2014 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss.
2014)).
In fact, in 2015, then-Senator Watson, who served as Chairman of the
Constitution Committee, proposed Senate Concurrent Resolution 549, entitled,
“A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 273, MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUTION OF 1890, TO CONFORM THE
PRO RATA SIGNATURE REQUIREMENTS FROM EACH
12
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT FOR AN INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
PETITION TO THE NUMBER OF NEW CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.”
(See Exh. 7, copy of S. Con. Res. 549, 2015 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2015)). Like
the four other proposed amendments before it, Secretary Watson’s proposal
died in committee. In the same year as Secretary Watson’s proposal in the
Senate a proposed amendment was also introduced in the House, H.R. Con.
Res. 26, 2015 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2015). Yet another attempt was made just
this year, but yet again it failed to pass. (See H.R. Con. Res., 2020 Leg., Reg.
Sess. (Miss. 2020)).
Clearly, the Legislature is aware of the issue and has acted numerous
times in hopes of addressing it. That the Legislature has not yet succeeded in
bringing a proposed amendment before the electorate is no cause for the Court
to interject itself into what is clearly a legislative matter.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, amici curiae urge the Court to hold the
Secretary’s determination of the sufficiency of the Initiative Measure No. 65
Petition unconstitutional.
13
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Nathan S. Farmer
Nathan S. Farmer, Esq.
Nathan S. Farmer, P.A.
120 Goodyear Blvd
Picayune, MS 39466
Phone: (601) 749-8745
Fax: (601) 749-7045
nathan@nathanfarmerlaw.com
Attorney for Amici Curiae
I hereby certify that I have this day electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system which
sent notification of such filing to all counsel of record on this the
18th day of December, 2020.
/s/Nathan S. Farmer
Nathan S. Farmer
14

I65 Petitioner Amicus Curiae Briefs

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

I65 Petitioner Amicus Curiae Briefs

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

E-Filed Document Dec 14 2020 18:29:30 2020-IA-01199-SCT Pages: 26

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

MAYOR MARY HAWKINS BUTLER,

MICHAEL WATSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF

WILLIAM R. ALLEN (MSB #100541)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

IN RE INITIATIVE MEASURE NO. 65

MAYOR MARY HAWKINS BUTLER,

MICHAEL WATSON, IN HIS OFFICIAL

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

possible disqualification or recusal:

1. Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler, Petitioner;

2. The City of Madison, Petitioner;

3. Secretary of State Michael Watson, Respondent;

5. Chelsea Brannon, Madison City Attorney, Counsel for Petitioners;

6. Attorney General Lynn Fitch, Counsel for Respondent;

7. Assistant Solicitor General Justin Matheny, Counsel for Respondent;

8. Deputy Solicitor General Krissy Nobile, Counsel for Respondent;

9. Mississippi Sheriffs’ Association, Amicus Curiae; and

10. William R. Allen; Counsel for Amicus Curiae.

/s/ William R. Allen

1. Certificate of Interested Persons……………..……………………..……………..........…i

4. Interest of the Amicus Curiae …………………………………………………..……..….1

5. Summary of the Argument………..………………………………………………...…......1

I. Increased marijuana usage………………………………………………………...3

II. Impaired Driving………………………………………………………………….6

III. General Impact on Crime ………………………………………………………..10

IV. Public Health Impacts of Authorizing Medical Marijuana………………………13

Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n,

Hillsborough Cnty., Fla. v. Automated Med. Labs.,

James Stewart & Co. v. Sadrakula,

Colorado Amend. 20........................................................................................ 6

Colorado Amend. 64........................................................................................ 6

Miss. R. App. P. 29 .......................................................................................... 1

American Academy of Child and Adolescent

American Medical Association Policy,

Arkansas Public Health Advisory on Human Use

Biecheler et al., SAM survey on “Drugs and

Brady & Li, Trends in Alcohol and Other

Brook et al., Earlier Marijuana Use and Later

Cannabis (Marijuana) and Cannabinoids: What You

Centers for Disease Control, Marijuana Fact Sheets,

Colorado Department of Transportation

Dembo, et al. Further examination of the association

Denver Post ...................................................................................................... 8

Drug-Impaired Driving, A Guide for States,

DRUID Final Report: Work Performed, Main Results

Evans, Marijuana Legalization Will Cause

Hartman RL, Huestis MA. Cannabis effects on driving skills.

Hartman RL, Brown TL, Milavetz G, et al.

Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) analysis

Insurance Institute Information,

Katz, The National Survey on Drug Use and Health:

Know the Risks of Marijuana, SAMHSA,

Marijuana-Impaired Driving—A Report to Congress,

Marijuana Research Report,

Marijuana Research Report,

Maxwell & Mendelson, “What do we know about

Meier, et al., Persistent cannabis users

Miller & Oberbarnscheidt,

NHTSA, p. 13; CDOT,

National Institute on Drug Abuse, Marijuana Report,

National Institute on Drug Abuse, Marijuana Report,