BLOW DEALT TO POT INITIATIVE

Oct. 6 - In what could be an unprecedented Election Day snafu,
Coloradans may be casting straw votes for the marijuana for medicinal
purposes initiative that the state Supreme Court Monday said should
not have been put on the ballot in the first place.

The ruling is the latest development in the on-again, off-again battle
to put the controversial measure on the ballot ever since the number
of valid signatures has been questioned.

Initiative supporters submitted 88,815 signatures. To get on the
ballot, 54,242 valid ones were needed.

The entire matter will be effectively be decided by Oct. 15, the date
by which the high court has set for Secretary of State Vikki Buckley
to have the ballot signatures recounted.

If she rules that there were enough valid signatures, then the votes
cast on Nov. 3 will decide the fate of the initiative. If, however,
Buckley rules that there still are not enough valid signatures, then
any votes case on the measure are moot.

The measure asking Coloradans to approve the use of marijuana for
medical purposes is on the ballot now, in compliance with last month's
ruling by a Denver District Court judge.

But the Supreme Court ordered Buckley to conduct a line-by-line review
of the signatures.

When the polls close on Nov. 3, Buckley is to count the votes cast for
the initiative "if, and only if," she has already determined there
were a sufficient number of valid signatures among the 88,815, said
the justices.

The marijuana initiative would allow people with "debilitating medical
conditions," such as cancer and AIDS, to legally possess and use
marijuana as a form of treatment.

A Buckley statement Monday said she was happy with the ruling and that
the examination of signatures was starting immediately.

Buckley's Democratic opponent, Ric Bainter, called the ruling
"continuing fallout from mistakes made a few months ago and the kind
of confusion that can result in the mismanagement of a very important
office. I question whether she's going to be able do an adequate
recount in 10 days, if she couldn't get an adequate count in 30 days,"
he said.

Supporters of the measure - Coloradans for Medical Rights - have run
into numerous roadblocks in their efforts to get the initiative on the
ballot.

Ed Ramey, the lawyer for the group, said Monday the latest ruling will
not help.

"It leaves some uncertainty surrounding the question of whether or not
the votes will be counted," said Ramey. "And when there is
uncertainty, it is difficult to raise money, it is difficult to get
people motivated to go out to speak for the measure and it is
difficult to get the public focused on the initiative.

"That is the problem we are facing right now," he said.

"It's definitely disappointing," said Julie Roche, a spokeswoman for
Coloradans for Medical Rights, called the ruling "definitely
disappointing. It's hard to know what kind of impact this will have."
Roche said the group will "remain hopeful" and continue getting out
information. She said the group turned in 30,000 more signatures,
"more than enough to go forward with this."

Deputy Attorney General Maurice Knaizer, who represented Buckley
before the Supreme Court, said Buckley will undertake the
re-examination and believes she can have it finished by the deadline.

Buckley originally ruled that initiative supporters had failed to
gather enough valid signatures for the measure to be on the ballot and
refused to certify it.

Using a random sampling technique, Buckley ruled that only 47,960 of
the 88,815 signatures were valid and did not meet the 54,242
signatures needed.

But Coloradans for Medical Rights claimed that a thorough review of
the Secretary of State's random sampling technique showed it was
severely flawed.

The group claimed that an independent review of Buckley's sampling
technique, which included an entry-by-entry analysis, showed that of
the 4,482 signatures Buckley used as a random sample, there were 225
signatures which were determined invalid which, in fact, were valid.

The group contended that the random sample should have shown that
52,312 of the signatures are valid, or 96.4 percent of the 54,242
required. Under Colorado law, any time the random sample shows that
the number of valid signatures is greater than 90 percent but less
than 110 percent, Buckley is required to examine each signature collected.

However, the group contended that since Buckley had failed to complete
a line-by-line analysis within the 30-day period required by law, the
initiative automatically had to be placed on the ballot.

Denver District Judge Herbert Stern agreed on Sept. 10. and ordered
Buckley to put the measure on the ballot. She did so, and
simultaneously asked the Supreme Court to allow her to recount the
signatures gathered by the measure's supporters.

Stern rejected Knaizer's argument that a line-by-line analysis should
commence immediately, labeling the procedure "awkward and messy." In
its ruling Monday, the Supreme Court said it was specifically
over-ruling Stern.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry