JUDGE TO DECIDE WHETHER PETITION CAN MISS DEADLINE

A Group Says It Shouldn't Be Penalized Because Portland Failed To Certify
Signatures On Time.

AUGUSTA - A group working to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes in
Maine asked a judge on Friday to overturn the state's decision to reject
petitions that call for a statewide vote on the issue.

An attorney for the group Mainers for Medical Rights said the petitioners
met all the requirements under law, and the state's action violates their
right to free speech.

But an assistant attorney general argued that the state had no choice but
to reject the petitions because the City of Portland missed a deadline for
certifying some of the petitions.

The city received about 3,900 petitions on or before Jan. 23, and was
required to certify them within five business days. But the city still
hasn't certified them.

City Attorney Gary Wood said the city clerk's office was too busy working
on the Feb. 10 gay-rights referendum to get to the petitions.

''Everybody who was involved in the process feels badly about not getting
the job done on time,'' said Wood. ''If they have enough valid signatures,
I think they should be on the ballot.''

The court must decide if, by law, groups like Mainers for Medical Rights
must bear the consequences when a city or town fails to meet a
certification deadline. The conflict pits a law governing deadlines against
a law governing the people's right to petition their government.

Superior Court Judge Donald Alexander said he will take at least a week to
issue a ruling.

''This is a somewhat novel and difficult issue,'' Alexander said. The
ballot question proposed by Mainers for Medical Rights would limit the
legal use of marijuana to people who have AIDS, glaucoma or multiple
sclerosis and to cancer patients who are undergoing chemotherapy or
radiation therapy.

The state has decided that, since Portland failed to meet its certification
deadline, Mainers for Medical Rights' petition drive also failed.

If the judge overturns the state's decision, the Secretary of State's
Office will have to immediately start checking the validity of the
signatures . If the petitions contain more than 51,131 valid signatures,
the issue would earn a spot on the November ballot.

If the judge does not overturn the state's decision, the group will not be
able to get the issue on the November ballot. The group would have to try
for November 1999.

The group submitted 48,688 signatures to the Secretary of State's Off ice
before the Feb. 2 deadline. It would have had more than the required amount
if it had the 3,900 signatures from Portland.

But since it didn't have enough signatures, the secretary of state rejected
the petition.

Secretary of State Dan Gwadosky described the case as ''an unfortunate
situation.'' He said state law required him to reject the petitions because
of the deadline.

But, he added, ''We won't be disappointed if a court tells us to do this.''

Phyllis Gardiner, an assistant attorney general, told Judge Alexander that
ruling against the state would weaken the validity of constitutional
deadlines.

"If this one can be moved, what does a constitutional deadline mean?"
Gardiner asked.

She said forcing the petitioners to wait until 1999 would not violate
anyone's fundamental rights.

Not true, said William Knowles, an attorney for Mainers for Medical Rights.

''(The organization's members) exercised their constitutional right, they
did so in a timely manner, and the state actors have frustrated their
constitutional right,'' Knowles said. ''It's no justification to say,
'Maybe you can exercise your constitutional right tomorrow.' ''

Regardless of how the judge rules, there is a chance that Mainers for
Medical Rights don't have enough valid signatures to get on the November
ballot anyway.

Counting the Portland signatures, the group has a total of about 52,600
signatures from throughout the state. Typically, the state finds some
signatures that are not valid. Mainers for Medical Rights has a margin -
counting the Portland signatures - of fewer than 1,500 names.

Craig Brown, a consultant to Mainers for Medical Rights, said the group
does have enough valid signatures. Brown said he is surprised that the
state is fighting.

CASE FACTS

Here are the undisputed facts in the case of Mainers for Medical Rights vs.
The Secretary of State for the State of Maine:

* The Maine Constitution, article IV, part three, section 18, requires that
signatures submitted on behalf of a citizens initiative be filed in the
Secretary of State's Office by 5 p.m. on or before the 25th day after the
convening of the Legislature. This year, that date was Feb. 2.

* The Maine Constitution also says petitions must be delivered to the
appropriate municipal registrar for certification by the 10th business day
before the deadline for filing with the secretary of state. This year, that
was Jan. 23.

* The municipal registrar must certify petitions submitted within five
business days. Mainers for Medical Rights submitted 3,914 signatures to
the City of Portland by Jan. 23. But Portland still hasn't verified the
signatures.

* Mainers for Medical Rights submitted 48,688 signatures to the secretary
of state by Feb. 2. It could not submit the Portland signatures because of
the inaction by the City of Portland.

* The group needs 51,131 validated signatures to get its proposal on the
November ballot.

* Secretary of State Dan Gwadosky sent a letter to Mainers for Medical
Rights dated Feb. 6 stating that its petition was invalid because it did
not contain enough signatures.

* On Wednesday, the group filed suit against Gwadosky and the City of
Portland. On Friday, a superior court judge heard the case and said he
would issue a ruling no earlier than next Thursday.