News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: Mendocino Pot Measure in Limbo |
Title: | US CA: Mendocino Pot Measure in Limbo |
Published On: | 2008-06-05 |
Source: | Press Democrat, The (Santa Rosa, CA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-06-05 22:48:13 |
MENDOCINO POT MEASURE IN LIMBO
With about 40 percent of the ballots still uncounted, victory is not
a sure thing for backers of a hotly contested campaign to repeal
Mendocino County's liberal marijuana guidelines.
Measure B appeared to win Tuesday by a 52-48 percent margin,
amounting to 701 votes, in a closely watched election that has
attracted national attention.
But county Clerk Susan Ranochak said Wednesday the preliminary
results don't include 10,385 absentee ballots not yet tabulated. In
addition, 439 "provisional" ballots that voters Tuesday dropped by
polling places or the county's election office also are uncounted.
There were 16,364 votes counted Tuesday night from across the county,
compared to the combined 10,824 ballots still outstanding.
The uncounted votes are roughly split between inland southern
Mendocino County, where Measure B posted strong results, and the
Anderson Valley, Mendocino Coast and Willits/Laytonville regions,
where there's a long history of marijuana tolerance.
Ranochak said it could be up to 28 days before official election
results are released, the maximum time allowed under state election laws.
Ranochak's announcement sobered Measure B supporters, who initially
believed there weren't enough ballots left uncounted to substantially
alter the victory margin.
"We're still optimistic, but we had no idea the uncounted vote would
be so large," said Ukiah businessman Ross Liberty, a key Measure B supporter.
Liberty said that based on early polling last winter, he and other
Measure B supporters had hoped for a winning margin of 60 percent or
more in order to "send a big message."
Laura Hamburg, leader of the Measure B opposition, said she's happy
the gap closed in the final weeks.
Liberty and Hamburg agreed the ballots that are to be counted
possibly could shift the outcome.
Even so, both Liberty and Hamburg suggested there might be a middle
ground for residents angry over large-scale marijuana growers
flaunting their presence, and their profits.
Hamburg said marijuana-related issues are complex, and deeply woven
into the culture of a "county we all love."
Liberty said, "We have more common ground than we tended to
acknowledge in the heat of the campaign."
The Measure B campaign drew renewed attention to the scale of
marijuana production in Mendocino and other rural counties. It also
underscored results of a continuing lack of uniform state guidelines.
Law enforcement authorities said the confusion is the fallout from a
1996 statewide vote to decriminalize marijuana cultivation for
medical uses. In 2000 Mendocino voters took it a step further by
setting a personal use standard of 25 plants per person, at the time
the nation's most liberal.
Voters also directed local law enforcement agencies to make marijuana
arrests and prosecution their lowest priorities. Measure B if passed
will repeal those local provisions but whether the county can conform
to more restrictive state guidelines as dictated is unclear. A state
appellate court has ruled the state guidelines are unconstitutional.
With about 40 percent of the ballots still uncounted, victory is not
a sure thing for backers of a hotly contested campaign to repeal
Mendocino County's liberal marijuana guidelines.
Measure B appeared to win Tuesday by a 52-48 percent margin,
amounting to 701 votes, in a closely watched election that has
attracted national attention.
But county Clerk Susan Ranochak said Wednesday the preliminary
results don't include 10,385 absentee ballots not yet tabulated. In
addition, 439 "provisional" ballots that voters Tuesday dropped by
polling places or the county's election office also are uncounted.
There were 16,364 votes counted Tuesday night from across the county,
compared to the combined 10,824 ballots still outstanding.
The uncounted votes are roughly split between inland southern
Mendocino County, where Measure B posted strong results, and the
Anderson Valley, Mendocino Coast and Willits/Laytonville regions,
where there's a long history of marijuana tolerance.
Ranochak said it could be up to 28 days before official election
results are released, the maximum time allowed under state election laws.
Ranochak's announcement sobered Measure B supporters, who initially
believed there weren't enough ballots left uncounted to substantially
alter the victory margin.
"We're still optimistic, but we had no idea the uncounted vote would
be so large," said Ukiah businessman Ross Liberty, a key Measure B supporter.
Liberty said that based on early polling last winter, he and other
Measure B supporters had hoped for a winning margin of 60 percent or
more in order to "send a big message."
Laura Hamburg, leader of the Measure B opposition, said she's happy
the gap closed in the final weeks.
Liberty and Hamburg agreed the ballots that are to be counted
possibly could shift the outcome.
Even so, both Liberty and Hamburg suggested there might be a middle
ground for residents angry over large-scale marijuana growers
flaunting their presence, and their profits.
Hamburg said marijuana-related issues are complex, and deeply woven
into the culture of a "county we all love."
Liberty said, "We have more common ground than we tended to
acknowledge in the heat of the campaign."
The Measure B campaign drew renewed attention to the scale of
marijuana production in Mendocino and other rural counties. It also
underscored results of a continuing lack of uniform state guidelines.
Law enforcement authorities said the confusion is the fallout from a
1996 statewide vote to decriminalize marijuana cultivation for
medical uses. In 2000 Mendocino voters took it a step further by
setting a personal use standard of 25 plants per person, at the time
the nation's most liberal.
Voters also directed local law enforcement agencies to make marijuana
arrests and prosecution their lowest priorities. Measure B if passed
will repeal those local provisions but whether the county can conform
to more restrictive state guidelines as dictated is unclear. A state
appellate court has ruled the state guidelines are unconstitutional.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...