When the Mississippi Supreme Court announced Friday it had overturned a citizen-led constitutional amendment that would have established a medical marijuana program, Rob Roberson considered the ruling with mixed feelings.

On one hand, as a representative in the Legislature, Roberson (R-Starkville) was pleased with the decision about a citizens initiative process he said is “a terrible way to run a government.”

But as an attorney, Roberson said the far-reaching implications of the supreme court’s ruling could strip Mississippians of an important right.

“I absolutely do believe in the right of the people to petition their government,” said Roberson, referencing language in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “But there has to be a better way, a better process than the one we have now.”

In January 2020, Initiative 65 was placed on the November ballot after more than 200,000 registered voters signed a petition — almost twice as many signatures as required by law. The week of the election, Madison Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler filed suit to stop the initiative, claiming the manner in which the signatures were collected violated the state constitution.

In the interim, voters approved the amendment to the constitution by an almost 3-to-1 margin.
The state supreme court heard arguments in the case on April 14.

The plaintiffs argued the initiative process was invalid because the constitution requires petition signatures to be equally distributed among the state’s five congressional districts. When the state lost a district after the 2000 census, the language was never amended.

In announcing the court’s ruling Friday, Justice Josiah Coleman said the current outdated language in the constitution means there is no legal initiative process in the state.

For Rep. Kabir Karriem (D-Columbus) the implications of the court’s ruling go far beyond medical marijuana.

“It’s a slap in the face to the will of the people,” Karriem said. “I knew when the mayor of Madison filed (the suit), it was going to be trouble. There were already discussions in the Legislature about how we didn’t have five districts anymore. But for the supreme court to do this, well, it’s just wrong. If the Legislature won’t perform the will of the people and the people don’t have the right to petition, what do they have?”

Rep. Dana McLean (R-Columbus) said she began hearing from constituents almost as soon as the court decision was announced.

“A lot of folks are disappointed and actually mad,” McLean said. “They feel like the court reversed their vote for medical marijuana. I tried to explain to them that this was not a ruling on medical marijuana, but a ruling on the legality of the (initiative) process. It’s basically a technicality. I can understand their disappointment.”

Roberson said the recent trend toward amending the constitution at the ballot box is a bad idea.
“You generally don’t get good law from that process,” he said. “I just think there are some changes that can be made to the process that would still allow people to have ballot initiatives, but allow the Legislature to craft the laws that the people ask for.”

Roberson said the court’s ruling not only affects the medical marijuana amendment, but two other citizen-led amendments, both of which passed in 2011 under the same language used to strike down medical marijuana.

That year, voters passed amendments to the constitution that limited eminent domain powers of the government and established Voter ID requirements.

“If someone of legal standing challenges those amendments, I think it’s reasonable to assume they, too, would be declared unconstitutional,” Roberson said.

Meanwhile, initiatives currently in the process — including an amendment to expand Medicaid and one that would put the state flag to another vote — are in limbo.

“Right now, unless the Legislature chooses to act, I don’t see how those can go forward,” Karriem said. “I think what happened Friday puts the pressure back on the Legislature and Secretary of State’s office to address how people can exercise their right to petition.”

As for changing the wording of the statute to allow the initiative process to resume, Karriem is skeptical.

“Every time the people have spoken their will at the ballot box, the (legislative) leadership has found a way to interfere,” Karriem said. “They did it with medical marijuana and with education funding before that. Both times, they create competing ballot initiatives to confuse voters and deny the will of the people. So if you’re asking the leadership to do something that would give people the right to the initiative, history tells us it’s unlikely.”

As for medical marijuana, which was supposed to be implemented on Aug. 1, McLean said she expects the Legislature to craft a medical marijuana program when the 2022 session begins in January.

“I think the Legislature will pass a medical marijuana bill and I think it will be better than the one the voters approved,” she said.

Slim Smith is a columnist and feature writer for The Dispatch. His email address is [email protected].