I 2 3 4 Brett V/. Johnson (ASB #021527) Sara J. Agne (ASB #026950) ffiffipw SNELL&WILMERrrp One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 T : 602.382.6000 o com JUL c{}( j rt' s¡;,{ ¡. j t !, 2016 ¡,,;iCHAI i( jr;\Ni:S, J. (,,¡iRllNAf; LìÈPUI'i CLLI]K CLERK 5 6 7 I IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 10 11 o 9 T2 .ë ! CJ l;3 H I I .. l3 óg lfrrãs I u>@o t4 ,z C) jgeis f;<9 It-si I 15 c= L\í u9 I U) ËE ';s t6 SETH LEIBSOHN, a qualified elector and taxpayer of the State of Arizona, SHEILA POLK, a qualified elector and taxpayer of the State of Arizona,BILL MONTGOMERY, A fìed elector and taxpayer of the State THE ARIZONA CHAMBER OF CO AND INDUSTRY, an Arizona non-profit corporation, SALLY SCHINDEL, a qualified elector and taxpayer of the State of Arizona, MOSES SANCHEZ, a t7 18 19 2l 22 23 24 MOWREY, A elector and taxpayer of the State of IVAN ANDERSON, a quali elector and taxpayer of the State of Arizona, DALE GUTHRIE, M.D., a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of Arizona, TODD GRIFFITH, a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of Arizona, Plaintiffs 25 26 27 28 VERIFIED COMPLAINT (A.R.S. $$ 19-122(A), (C) Challenge to Sufficiency of Initiative Petition) (Entitled to Immediate Trial Under A.R.S. SS 1e-122(A), (C)) o 20 No cv2016-009546 v MICHELE REAGAN, in her official capacity as Secretary of State for the State of Arizona, Defendant, 1 2 and a CAMPAIGN TO REGULATE MARIJUANA LIKE ALCOHOL, SPONSORED BY THE MARIJUANA Þ-olIcv PRoJECT, YES oN I-08-2016' an incorporated Arizona political J 4 5 committee, 6 Real PartY in Interest' 7 I For their verified complaint, Plaintiffs allege as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 9 10 a o 9 1. 11 ,,Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act" (the "Initiative") with the serial number I-08- t2 for which was filed on May 2016 by Defendant Arizonasecretary of State, the application 13 lI,2015.An '1 l¡ I c) I .tl õ cr I -iå_ I 3¡5ã I i.:Í ,z loggS r )?:rä v;- liE U) T4 :d : 2. accurate copy of the Initiative is attached as Exhibit A. manner similar The Initiative's stated purpose is to regulate marijuana "in a twenty- 15 ,'the use of marijuana . . . legal for persons who to alcohol,, by making r6 numerous operative provisions one years of age.,, Initiative $ 2(C). The Initiative contains t7 covering multiple statutory titles, including: C) l{ This is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of an initiative measure titled o a. 18 t9 b. c. 23 Initiative $ 5; and 24 d. 26 27 28 Statutes, the addition of Article 10 to Title 42 of the ArizonaRevised which would add five statutes to Arizona law, Initiative $ 4; 22 25 the addition of Chapter 28.2 to Title 36 of the Arizona Revised law, Initiative $ 3; Statutes, which would add2l wide-ranging statutes to Arizona 20 2l are at least the addition of a new statute to Title 43, Chapter 1, Article 1, the creation of a seven-member "Marijuana Commission," Initiative $$ 3, 6. j. the As set forth in this Verified Complaint, the Initiative circulated among false pretenses. Namely, the electorate to gain support from voters was circulated under party in Interest provided to voters and the summary thatthe Real title of the initiative -1 J danger of were incomplete and materially misleading such that they created a substarftial and an fraud, confusion, and unfairness. The Initiative's title is included in Exhibit A, for Initiative or accurate copy of the Initiative summary is included on the Application 4 Referendum Petition Serial Number, which is attached as Exhibit B' I 2 a 6 voters as to subjects embraced or impacted by the Initiative's text, thereby so misleading 7 cause a fraud on the electorate. 10 The Initiative also violated the Revenue Source Rule in the Atizona to Constitution (42z. CoNsr. art. IX, $ 23) by diverting funds from other sources immediately tund the Initiative. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A'R'S' $ 36-2867(8))' 11 PARTIES I 9 o o 9 The title of the Initiative failed to indicate the sheer volume of different 4. 5 5. plaintiff Seth Leibsohn is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of 6. t2 v. 9l !i trl;i á I n.3! I i dho >, -tLí:,1? ã^ :; ¡,1 ¡ vli Òö ãË : ("ARDP"), Arizona.He is also the Chairman of Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy a t6 the Arizona Secretary of State that both opposes the dangers of legalization of recreational marijuana and that raises awareness about the of the most marijuana legalization, and the Chairman of the Board for notMYkid, one t7 well-known substance abuse prevention organizalions I4 io 4) t t4 i¡: jìõ -rdJ II 5 F¿ dI ual 13 15 o registered political committee with in Arizona. Plaintiff Leibsohn, a 20 is cited on nationally recognized expert on drug policy, regularly studies, opines, and way that national marijuana policy and is concerned about the misleading and confusing do Initiative,s title and "summary" do not reasonably convey what the Initiative would 2l if it passed. plaintiff Leibsohn is also concerned 22 that would result 23 misstatements and falsehoods contained in the Initiative's "summary." 18 t9 24 25 26 27 28 the 7. if about the potential fraud on the electorate the Initiative were placed on the ballot, stemming from the plaintiff Sheila Polk is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of Deputy County Arizona. She is also the Yavapai County Attorney, and was previously a Attorney as well as an Assistant Attorney General. Plaintiff Polk is also the Vice Chair of ARDP, and she is a co-chair of MATFORCE, anon-profit that seeks to reduce substance efforts abuse in yavapai County. plaintiff Polk closely follows marijuana legalization a I throughout the country and is very concerned by the Initiative's confusing and misleading 2 language. Plaintiff Polk brings this action in her individual capacity only. g. a J 4 Arizona. He is also the Maricopa County Attorney, and he is on the Board of Directors 5 for notMykid. plaintiff Montgomery is concerned about the fraud on the electorate that 7 the would occur if the Initiative were placed on the ballot, due to the misleading way that .,summary" either misrepresent what the Initiative actually does or Initiative's title and I before casting a obscure important consequences that Arizonavoters would want to know 9 vote or signing a petition. Plaintiff Montgomery brings this action in his individual 6 10 capacity only. g, 11 o I .v t¡ CJ ¿ Ëç I I I ;'ê r:ì ,j I -iÈ_ I ü¡ãã î Í.:"Î ,z r9B3q r ?:rä I J g;c.) li U) IltÉ3's ! plaintiff Bill Montgomery is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of plaintiff Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry (the "Chamber") is l2 not addressed in concerned that the Initiative's significant impact on employer rights is 13 the t4 o,summ ary,,, aîdthe technical and misleading phrasing of the Initiative's title, text, and ,.summary,, will prevent voters from understanding the true meaning of the Initiative. The will be affected by the Initiative's substantial changes to state laws 15 Chamber's members t6 regarding workplace drug policies, employment law, and landlord rights' 10. t7 o 18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 plaintiff Sally Schindel is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of presentations across Arizona. She is a volunteer with MATFORCE, and gives educational suicide when the country regarding marijuana addiction. Plaintiff Schindel's son died by similar he could not end his marijuana addiction. She fears that other families will face Schindel is tragedies if recreational use of marijuana is legalized in Arizona. Plaintiff as they do not concerned that the title and summary of the Initiative are misleading, impact of the convey the actual scope of the Initiative's changes to state law and the likely Initiative on Arizona families. Plaintiff Schindel is suing in her own capacity only. I 25 l. plaintiff Moses Sanchez is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of 26 Board, an Arizona. He is a member of the Tempe Union High School District Governing 27 Navy Reservist, adjunct professor at South Mountain Community College, a United States 28 and a small business owner. Plaintiff Sanchez -3 - is concerned about the purposefully 2 have on Arizona and the immense harm that the Initiative's proposed language would J students, their schools, his fellow educators, and his colleagues in the United States 5 concerned that military, including citizen reservist and national guard members. He is also misrepresented the Initiative amounts to an unfunded mandate that is being purposefully 6 state to Arizona voters while failing to provide for the exorbitant costs that multiple 7 agencies would incur 8 Plaintiff Sanchez is suing in his personal capacity only' 4 9 to align their policies and procedures with the proposed Initiative' 12. Plaintiff Paul Boyer is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of 11 is a local high school teacher and a member of the Arizona House of House Education Representatives. Representative Boyer is the Chairman of the t2 Committee and 10 9 to describe the principal provisions of the Initiative misleading a o o oosummary,, thaT.purports 1 Arizona. He a member of the House Health and County and Municipal Affairs v. a;3oeQg taa.2¿ 15 0(.)l ,ju .e ÊI UDI ÉË t6 title or "summary" to Committees. He is concerned about the failure of the Initiative's particularly as the accurately capture the Initiative's broad scope of statutory changes, under the current Legislature will not be able to modiff these changes, even if appropriate, text does not voter initiative laws. plaintiff Boyer is also concerned that the Initiative l7 include the required funding plan ! Ø"' r 9l !i Ëlãi 13 È lY-ì:! t4 L I : d6ô -lJL:- : o 18 T9 20 2I to cover the increased costs resulting from the Initiative's changes. Plaintiff Boyer is suing in his own capaoity only' 13. Plaintiff Paul smith is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the state of Unit and Arizona.plaintiff Smith is the practice Administrator for the crisis Stabilization clinic. As a Director of pharmacy operations for a community mental health services 24 of marijuana usage medical professional, plaintiff Smith is aware of the negative effects interactions with other legal on substance abuse and mental health issues, and the potential are convoluted pharmaceutical drugs. He is concerned the Initiative's text and summary 25 significant changes to and deceptive to voters, because they do not explain the Initiative's 26 state drug laws. 27 patients' providing mental health services and legal pharmaceutical drugs to the clinic's 22 23 plaintiff Smith will be impacted by the Initiative's effects on his work 28 -4- I 2 14. Arizona. plaintiff Merilee Fowler is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of plaintiff Fowler is the Executive Director of MATFORCE and the Secretary J Treasurer for Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy. As a substance abuse education 4 provider, plaintiff Fowler is familiar with the dararegarding marijuana use in Arizona and 5 legalization efforts and effects nationwide. Plaintiff Fowler is çoncerned the Initiative's 6 title and summary do not communicate the impact of the Initiative to voters, as neither 7 explains that there 8 addresses 9 describes the statutory changes I 10 11 will not be limits on the amount of THC legally allowed in marijuana, the exceptions to municipal regulation of recreational marijuana stores, or to employment law. Plaintiff Fowler is suing in her personal capacity onlY. 15. plaintiff Michelle Mowrey is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the a 9 't +r (.) ¿ l¿3 l;! I I I (.) lr U) I2 13 Ø ^X,^ öiãã t4 I t¡:i ,z l9c 3n ?:ìa I J g;- ,!! IlzÊ Arizona. She was the co-founder of Drug Free AZ and State of serves as the Director of prevention Works Arizona, a substance abuse prevention education organizalion. She is concerned the Initiative's title falsely indicates that it will regulate marijuana like alcohol, t6 but the Initiative text actually imposes fewer legal restrictions on marijuana use or possession. plaintiff Mowrey has recognized that the Initiative's summary fraudulently t7 and ignores the Initiative's limitations on municipal regulation of marijuana retail stores 18 does not describe how organizations should remain t9 the revised state drug laws. Plaintiff Mowrey is suing in her personal capacity only. 15 .3 2 and o 20 16. in compliance with both federal and Plaintiff Ivan Anderson is a qualified elector and a taxpayer in the State of in Arizona's Verde Valley District, and a 2l Arizona. He is also a firefighter paramedic 22 volunteer with MATFORCE, where he educates youth and adults across Yavapai County 24 on the medical dangers of substance abuse. Plaintiff Anderson is concerned that the purposefully misleading "summaÍy" paints an innocuous picture of the Initiative that 25 appears fraudulent when compared to the actual text of the Initiative. He is also concerned 26 that the expansive, confusing Initiative would greatly harm public safety in Arizona while 27 jobs, making it more challenging for firefighters and public safety personnel to do their 28 including providing effective medical treatment for the public. 23 5 I 2 6 practitioners' He own medical office and medical staff, several of whom are also licensed Academy of Pediatrics' is also the past-president of the ArizonaChapter of the American effects of drug As a physician, Dr. Guthrie is aware of the implications and detrimental its "summary" policy on public health. Dr. Guthrie has recognized that the Initiative and 7 are misleading and a J 4 5 9 lead to voter confusion. He has also recognized that the ,.summary" and title conceal the full effect of the Initiative. Plaintiff Guthrie Initiative,s other will be impacted by the Initiative,s effects in his role as a physician supervising 10 well-being of young licensed practitioners responsible for dearing with the health and 11 people in the State of Arizona. I o o I t2 .; 9l H # I E7 13 al I ursE > "?È-. 7Le:d-. r ira f v9 J t4 c.r Jr¡ 4) d II óö E- ! lg. will plaintiff Todd Griffith is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State of 43 of which he spent Arizona.Plaintiff Griffith has been a forensic scientist for 47 years, he served as the director of at the Department of Public Safety, and the last 20 of which 2l other testing for most DpS,s crime laboratories, which conducts the majority of drug and in the drafting of law enforcement agencies in Arizona. Plaintiff Griffith also assisted impaired driving statutes' As many of Arizona,s drug-related statutes, including Arizona's failure of the Initiative's title a forensic scientist, plaintiff Griffith is concerned about the alteration of impairedand o,sum mary,, to inform the electorate about the Initiative's about the misleading driving statutes he helped draft. plaintiff Griffith is also concerned prevent dangerous chemical and fraudulent way that the Initiative falsely implies it will 22 extraction operations out 23 marijuana like alcohol, despite the Initiative's claim that it will. r4+¿¿ 15 lf i.,a -ro) l ?¿ ç11 plaintiff Dale Guthrie, M.D. is a qualified elector and taxpayer in the State operates his of Arizona. plaintiff Guthrie is a practicing and licensed pediatrician who 17. t6 I7 o 18 t9 20 24 of people's homes and the Initiative's failure to regulate 19. Each of these plaintiffs has a strong interest in maintaining the integrity of 25 the erectoral process and demanding balrot initiatives 26 conform 27 electorate as a whole 28 its misleading and unconstitutional form' thaT. are not misleading and that to constitutional and statutory requirements. Each Plaintiff and the will suffer irreparable injury if the Initiative -6- Atizona appears on the ballot in 20. I 2 a J Defendant Michele Reagan solely in her official officer of this state, and is named as a Defendant in this action placing initiatives on The secretary of State is the public officer responsible for capacity. 5 6 2l.uponinformationandbelief,theRealPartyinlnterest,campaignto 7 Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, sponsored by the Washington' 8 policy project, yes on I-0g-2016 (,,yes on I-0g-2016"), is 9 under the laws of the State 0) ¿ 1,) LL JURISDICTION AND VENUE I 14 o I É (n - o.: i Z1ìä l) z1 lqi ¿o s and sponsor of the circulated by petition to the public' language that was filed with the Secretary of state and 13 I of Arizona and is the primary promoter 11 t2z I;! ö¡5ã :i t.:tl Oo 9: political committee organized proposing the substantive Initiative. yes on I-0g-2016 was responsible for drafting and =u l¡ a D'C'' based Marijuana 10 o . State, a public elections on, and the the ballot and for the conduct of statewide elections, including CoNsr. art.4, pt. 1, $ 1(9)-(11)' canvassing of votes for, statewide ballot measures. Antz. 4 I is the Arizona secretary of rc 22. 14 of the This Court has jurisdiction and venue pursuant to Article 6, $ ArizonaConstitution and A.R.S. $$ 12-123 , 12-1801, 12-1831, and l9-122(D)' of an initiative Because this Verified Complaint challenges the suffîciency I9-t22(A)' (C)' petition, Plaintifß are entitled to an immediate trial under A'R'S' ç 23. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS tl ,, o The Ballot Initiative Process 18 24. t9 proponents The ballot initiative process officially begins when initiative 20 and receive a serial number to submit the text of the initiative to the Secretary of state 2l identiff the initiative. 25. 22 proponents then gather signatures on petition signature sheets, which must 23 Azuz. have attached to them the title and text of the initiative. 24 A.R.s $ le-121(AX3). 26. 25 26 of 27 19- 101(A). 100 words coNsr' art' 4, pt' 1' $ 1(9); a description The petition signature sheets also must have attached to them A'R'S' $ or less that summ arizes "the principal provisions of the measure'" 28 -7 - 1 27. The signatures are then filed with the Secretary of State at least four months 2 before the next general election. ARtz. CoNsr. art, 4, pt. 1, $ l(4). In this election cycle, a signatures were required to be filed by July 7,2016, J 4 2g. Next, the signatures are counted and validated by the Secretary of State and 5 county recorders in a process that is not relevant for the purposes of this Complaint. 6 generally A.R.S. $$ 19-121.01-04. 7 See 29. If the final number of valid signatures exceeds the minimum number of of o'notiff the governor that a sufficient State must 8 required signatures, the Secretary 9 number of signatures has been filed and that the initiative or referendum shall be placed 10 11 a on the ballot in the manner provided by law." A.R.S. $ 19-121.04(B). 30. Initiatives that obtain the number of valid signatures must'ostrictly comply" l2 with these provisions and the relevant provisions in the ArizonaConstitution. A.R.S. $ 19- 9l Ët ;i!Í 13 t2t.0l. > lHs:s T4 I '3 l¡¡ ñ i" I n.4.. 3; ØJ it àira c-rg ! (J lr";I F.¿ ou tl uDI 2t I 15 t6 t7 The Initiative GenerallY 31. On April 17,2015, Yes on I-08-2016 applied for and received a serial number for the Initiative. 32. On May II, 2015, Yes on I-08-2016 refiled its application for a serial o 18 t9 20 2I number based on a change in the text of the Initiative. 33. To date, Yes on I-08-2016 claims to have submitted 258,582 signatures in support of the Initiative. 34. On information and belief, the Arizona Secretary of State has not yet 22 completed her review of the signatures submitted to determine 23 qualified for the November 2016 ballot. 24 35. if the Initiative is actually On information and belief, each petition signature sheet contains the 25 following summary of the Initiative ("Petition Summary"), which was printed on the 26 Application for Initiative filed with the Secretary of State: 27 28 The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act: (l) establishes a l5o/o tax on retail marijuana sales, from which the revenue will be allocated to public -8- 1 2 a J 4 5 6 9 similar to alcohol." Initiative $ 2(B). 11 t2 .v. l¡ I Ø", 9l !¡ I ï õ6ô a J V9 È I:':E . irÞ É.r J - I t.¿ Ê I ,ju a) UDI EË that To accomplish this claim, the Initiative seeks to add a host of statutes of alcohol' impact many areas of law in a way unfamiliar to the regulation 39. As set forth above, and in more detail below, the Initiative's operative 3g. 14 15 the Initiative actually accomplishes. :.;, tI a".i¿ ii,.- 37. ballot initiative' and provisions embrace far too many subjects than allowed for a single when compared to what the Initiative's simple title and Petition Summary are misleading 13 Hlóg È Initiative's The petition Summary fails to address or mention many of the 8 10 9 36. existing Arizona laws. substantive provisions or the direct or indirect impact on other a manner The Initiative claims that it will result in regulating marijuaîa"in 7 o a age and older to health and education; (2) allows adults twenty-one years of of marijuana; possess and to privateiy consume and grow limited amounts (3) creates a system in which licensed businesses can produce and sell Control marijuana; (a) éshblishes a Department of Marijuana Licens.es and and sale of to regulate the cultivation, manufacturing, testing, transportation, regulate marijuana; and (5) provides local governments with the authority to and iimit marijuana businesses. [Exhibit B] t6 o .; t7 o 18 within Yes on The Initiative is so confusing and misleading that even those mean, with Yes on II-0g-2016 disagree about what the Initiative's operative provisions to ban citizens from 0g-2016's attorney stating that the Initiative does not allow cities 40. 2l yes on I-0g-2016's political director says the growing marijuana in their homes, while Arizona MariiuanaInitiative does allow cities to ban home growing. ,See Ray Stern, campaign Insistso Legalízation Initiatíve Doesn,t Let Cities Ban Home cultívation, 22 phoenix New Times, Feb. 25, 2016, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/nervs/arizona- t9 20 23 24 le on on- 8080560. 27 The Initiative's language is so confusing and misleading, the business consequences of the community is greatly concerned about the intended, yet unstated, opposing the Initiative, with Plaintiff Arizona chamber of commerce and Industry 28 despite Initiative due to the many direct and indirect negative impacts in the worþlace, 25 26 41. -9 - I the Initiative's provision that purports to permit employers to disallow consumption and 2 possession J 2852(8)); Mike Sunnucks, Powerful Business Group Opposes Arizona Marijuana 4 Legalization, Phoenix Business Journal, June 12, 5 htþ://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/newsl20l5l06l12lpowerful-business-group-opposes- 6 ar 7 8 of izona- marü 42. Constitution. C) lr õct t- o¿ tö >@ oa9 ci ,z :ä o.! a v; a.) H U) (proposed A.R.S. $ 36- 2015, u an a. htm I . The Initiative also violates the Revenue Source Rule See in Arizona's Aruz. CoNsr. art. IX, $ 23. 43. The Initiative allegedly protects marijuana users twenty-one years and older l1 from "prosecution [or] penalty" for using marijuana, "notwithstanding" any other law. t2 Initiative $ 3 (proposedA.R.S. $ 36-2860(A)). o o li "in the workplace.'o Initiative $ 3 The Initiative significantly impacts public safety laws. 9 10 marijuana 13 44. The Initiative further protects a person from beingpenalized "solely because T4 of the presence of metabolites or 15 Initiative $ 3 (proposedA.R.S. $ 36-2860(B)). components of marijuana in the person's body." có .is l= éf o t6 .t 45. Although silent in the Initiative summary, the Initiative conflicts with, and ("DUID") law, T1 seeks to invalidate, Arizona's per se Driving Under the Influence of Drugs 18 which allows a person to be penalized solely for the presence of active marijuana t9 metabolites or components in the person's body under A.R'S. $ 28-1381(AX3). o 20 46. Because the Arizona Constitution prohibits the Legislature from repealing 2l voter-approved initiatives, AnIz. CoNsr. art. 4 $ 1(6), the Initiative would also prohibit 22 the Legislature from ever creating any per se DUID law in the future based on the 23 presence of a certain amount of marijuana metabolites or components in a person's body. 24 Initiative $ 3 (proposedA.R.S. $ 36-2860(8)). 25 47. Contrary to the Initiative's proposed regulation of marijuana, Atizona law DUI law based on the mere 26 regulates alcohol by includiîg a per se 27 amounts of alcohol in a person's body under A.R'S. $ 28-1384(AX2). 28 -10- presence of certain that the Nothing in the Initiative's title or Petition Summary indicates inability of the Arizona Initiative will have this effect on Arizona's DUID laws or the protect the community in the Legislature to be able to pass reasonable safety laws to 48. 1 2 a J 5 by marijuana remains future. Indeed, the Initiative states, "Driving while impaired ..remains illegal" constitutes a fraud on voters illegal.,, Initiative $ 2(BX5). The phrase 6 because 7 Initiative would significantly change Arizona's DUID laws. 4 .,remains" implies no change to Arizona's DUID laws, when, as shOWn above' the The Initiative impacts employment laws' I for using Despite the Initiative's prohibition against penalizing someone their the Initiative purports to allow employers to not accommodate 49. 9 10 marijuana, 11 employees, t2 (proposed A.R.S. $ 36-2852(8)). oopossession 3 or consumption of marijuana . . . in the workplace." Initiative $ o l¡ c) I lqî 50.Thelnitiativealsopurportstoallowemployers..toenactandenforce 13 eisg l4 rñ.-9 i [o ;.' ,z I 9s.3s 15 II ?:rä Jg; (.) 3! t6 H U) l:É i t7 z I I and marijuana products by workplace policies restrictíng the consumption of marijuana Initiative 3 (proposed A.R.S. $ 36-2352(B) (emphasis added))' employees.,, $ may The Initiative contains no guidance as to the extent that employers ,.restrict[],, an emproyee,s .,eonsumption" of marijuana, and the Initiative prohibits 51. t9 of the presence of metabolites ' ' employers from penalizingan employee "solely because 3 (proposed A'R'S' $$ 36-2852(B) &'36' . of marijuana in the person's body." Initiative $ 20 2860(B)). 18 52. 2l Comparable language in Colorado's recreational marijuana provisions, 23 Project) as the real written by the same sponsoring organization (the Marijuana Policy coNsr. art' 18, $ 16(6) party in interest here, is different in substance. see coto. 24 to restrict their (omitting .,workplace policies" from its provision allowing employers 25 employees' marijuana use). 22 27 to The Colorado recreational marijuana law, therefore, allows employers would only be able marijuana use by employees generally, while Atizona employers 53. 26 ban 28 - 11- to using, as discussed below' to effectuate policies relating to workplace sites and times law. higher potency of marijuana than is referenced in current I 2 54. a J 4 5 I impaired by marijua 9 55. 11 a a2 tr II Í3 ;',r t2 13 L I T dñ-, -t.^ç !> I U>@., t4 Ø, 15 Ò;î"-. -,;, ¡\':^, -JjõçÞg r >+ -.¡ - II ã;<9 Jo.r- I ç I - 04) Î.c uo (r\ !õ : before the employer may take employer to prove an employee is marijuana-impaired ARS S 36-2852(AX7) & $ 36action againsr the employee. Initiative $ 3 (proposed 7 10 v a very high burden of proof on an states that the Initiative "does not 2852(B)). Specifically, proposed ARS $36-2S52(AX7) for " ' performing any task while prevent the imposition of any . . . penalty on a person 6 I Furthermore, the Initiative places a t6 t7 o 18 T9 20 2T 22 for the safety of the community and other employees, "impairment'" from terminating or The Initiative, therefore, seeks to prohibit an employer 56. drug test reveals the possibly even hiring an employee solely because the employee's of marijuana in the person's body' presence of a marijuana metabolite or components 23-493 et seq' Presumably' a contrary to what is currently allowed under A'R'S' $$ an existing duty, a breach of that litigable act of negligence or malpractice (that includes have to first take place' duty, which breach caused some damage) would employ first responders The Initiative includes no exceptions for those that would not be able take or teachers, which means that in most instances, an employer employee first actually commits action against those categories of employees until the being impaired' And the Initiative negligence or professional malpractice, despite actually based on a positive drug test for flatly forbids the State from penalizingpublic employees 57. marijuana. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A'R'S' $ 36-2860(8))' 5g. 24 not contain 26 27 malpractice." . . .that would constitute negrigence or professional malpractice"' or' The Initiative fails to define "negligence," "professional 23 25 îa the Initiative does Unlike the Medical Marijuan a Act, A.R.S. $ 36-2s13(B), agencies' federal any exemptions for employers, such as governmental companies' that are subject to government contractors, construction, or transportation thereby putting employers in the federal laws that conflict with the Initiatives provisions, law or federal law' position of having to choose whether to comply with Arizona 28 -12- 59. I L zÈ , _ 00) -lJL:- I ÉI 6 of the ability to control its marketing brand, infringe upon religious freedoms, and which 7 could lead to serious safety issues in multiple industries, including health and construction 8 industries. UDI F.¿ EE 61. Nothing in the Initiative's title or Petition Summary indicates that the Initiative will have these effects on Arizona's employment laws. 62. Moreover, there is dissonance between what the Initiative's language does t2 and what Yes on I-08-2016 says the Initiative does, with Yes on I-08-2016's spokesman 13 stating that the Initiative has no effect whatsoever on employerso existing drug policies, :ú 03 The Initiative does not allow employers to limit or otherwise regulate an employee's possession of "marijuana accessories," which significantly hinders employers I T dno I Hì:3 t4 - 60. & 36- 5 Ø--, ^ ø. i;ãit I < ra: "marijuana 286r). 11 9l !í Ël;+ ã l:l .3- to possess 3 10 l-¡ ¡ statutory right accessories" such as pipes and bongs. Initiative $3 (proposed A.R.S. $$ 36-2851(8) 9 .v a 2 4 9 The Initiative also areates when the Initiative itself only allows employers to ban marijuana use that would occur "in 15 the workplace." Initiative g 3 (proposed A.R.S. $ 36-2352(8)); Chamber Hears Debate t6 Over Maríjuana Legalizatíon, THEFotxraIN Htt t s TMES, Oct. 1, 2015 (quoting Yes on T7 I-08-2016's spokesman). Additionally, the Initiative does change current worþlace drug l8 testing policies by requiring an actual act of negligence or malpractice before discipline l9 can take place. .3 o 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -13- The Initiative impacts public benefits laws' I a J 4 5 64.Marijuanaisan..illegaldrug',forpurposesofdeterminingeligibilityfor ch' 18' $ 5; 21 like the cash Assistance program. 2015 Atiz. sess' Laws 6 public benefits 7 U.S.C. $ 812(c). I 65.ThelnitiativeseekstoinvalidateArizona,scurrentdrugtestinglawsfor 10 penarizing a person because of the cash Assistance recipients by precruding the state from tests positive for a marijuana person,s use of marijuana or solely because the person 11 component or metabolite' Initiative $ 3 þroposed 9 9 public benefits in Arizona like the cash Assistance program include a drug for an "illegal drug" is ineligible to testing component, and a person that tests positive 2015 Ariz. sess. Laws ch. 18, $ 5' receive cash Assistance for at reast twelve months. 63. 2 t2 A'R's' 9l ii trt;i l ø,1.- 13 È lË:.:: I4 -! I ï õ6ô aJjõesg àv.¿¿ Í Ilì!;' I 00) - I õl F.¿ Ots 2ií 15 t6 .3 17 o 18 19 & (B))' 66. Arizona law also does not allow a person to receive Unemployment .v. $¡ r Ø,, $$ 36-2860(A) Insurance if the person "refusefs] refuse an offer of suitable work an offer of suitable work," and aperson is considered to if the person receives a job offer that is later withdrawn including marijuana' because the person tests positive for drugs, A'R'S' ç 23'776(D)' 6T,ThelnitiativeseekstoinvalidateArizona'scurrentUnemployment by precluding the state from penalizing Insurance drug testing raws as rerated to marijuana based on the personos use of marijuana or a person by denying unemployment Insurance component or metabolite' solely because the person tested positive for a marijuana 2T (B))' Initiative $ 3 (proposed A.R.S' $$ 36-2S60(A) & 68. Nothing in the Initiative's title or Petition Summary indicates that the 22 laws' Initiative will have these effects on Arizona's public benefits 20 23 24 25 26 27 28 associations, as well as The Initiative impacts rights for landlords and homeownerst ProPerties more generallY' 69.undercurrentAtizonalaw,alandlordhastherighttoprohibitatenantfrom A'R'S' $ 33-1368(A)' "using or storing" marijuana on the landlord's property' 70. processing, production' The Initiative only allows a landlord to prohibit "the smoking, on or in" the manufacture or sale of marijuana and marijuana products -t4- 1 landlord,s property, but not the possession of marijuana or use of marijuana through 2 means other than smoking. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A.R.S. $$ 36-2852(C)). a J 4 tr (.) l:Ë E I s:ì I q:ãc ;+ II ð a-) d U) 9>@o cE.-? - Yã.!a r ?:ia I ) v;s', IlpÉ no Arizona law would prohibit a homeowners' association (,,HOA") from banning marijuana possession or growth on or in its members' properties, 6 7 2860(A)) 8 !- Currently, but under the Initiative, an HOA would no longer be able ban its members from possessing, consuming, or growing marijuana. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A'R'S' $$ 36- 5 o a 71. 72. The Initiative also creates the possibility that single properties could become 9 coordinated, large scale drug grow operations, because the Initiative allows a person to 10 grow up to six plants at the person's "residence," and a single building can comprise l1 multiple "residences," such I2 complexes, thereby allowing much more than just six plants to be grown on a single 13 property. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A.R.S. $ 36-2860(AX2)). as dormitories, halfuay houses, condominiums, and apartment it a homeowners' 15 association or landlord under proposed A.R.S. $ 36-2866(F), which makes it a crime for t6 .,any unlicensed person [to] produce[] marijuana plants pursuant to section 36-2860 where t7 they are subject to public view without the use of binoculars, aircraft or other optical aids, 18 where production is prohibited by a person who owns, manages or leases the property r9 where the marijuana is produced, in any outdoor area or outside of an enclosed area that is 20 equipped with 2t 2860(F)). t4 3 o 22 73. The Initiative is entirely unclear on how impacts a lock or other security device." Initiative $ 3 a. (proposed A.R.S. $ 36- Although this provision appears to regulate where 'oany unlicensed to at least three 23 person" may produce marijuana, in reality this provision is 24 interpretations: (1) because there is no disjunctive 25 prohibited," homegrown marijuana plants cannot be banned on any property in Arizona 26 unless the landlord prohibits such growth; (2) likewise, growing marijuana plants in plain 27 sight is restricted only where a landlord has banned production; and (3) a person can 28 -15- ooor" subject before "where production is 1 home-grow marijuana in the person's front or back yard in plain sight, so long as the yard 2 is fenced and has a "lock or other security device." b. a J 9 v- 9l !i trlãi ã I s..3-. ts l;::c I i o6ô ,jö;ãH 4) t >+ i¡. l{'i-õ I - 0, I -iYx -r i¿ Ê II UD óU i¿: a provision that to "take place in an enclosed, locked 4 expressly requires "growing" marijuana at home 5 space lthat] is not conducted openly or publicly." The Marijuana Policy Project chose not 6 to draft the Initiative with the same, clear language, which supports the three 7 interpretations above that the Initiative does not require home-grow operations to occur in 8 "an enclosed, locked space," unless the person doing the growing is a tenant and the 9 landlord has forbidden home-growing. c. 10 a o Colorado's recreational marijuana law includes The Initiative also creates a statutory right to "possess, use, purchase, 11 obtain, process, [and] manufacture" marijuana, which further bolsters the interpretations t2 above that, outside the landlord-tenant context, a person has a right to grow marijuana at 13 his residence in plain sight. t4 15 74. Nothing in the Initiative's title or Petition Summary indicates that the Initiative will have these effects on the rights of Arizona's landlords. The Initiative impacts Arizona's family laws. T6 .;I I7 o 75. Under current Arizona law, when a court makes a decision about custody 18 and parenting time for a minor child, the court makes its decision based on what is in "the r9 best interests of the child." A.R.S. $ 25-403(A). 20 76. Determining the best interests of the child usually includes considering a of the parent's behavior while using those 2T parent's drug and alcohol use, regardless 22 substances . See 23 (App. lgg2) ("[W]hether the father used drugs may be relevant in determining his parental 24 fitness . . . ."); Elaine C. v. Robert C.,No. 25 (Ariz. App. Nov. lg,2013) ("[M]other's continued alcohol abuse . . . supported the trial 26 court's finding that there was substantial likelihood mother would be unable to parent the 27 children effectively in the near future."). Montoya v. Superior Ct. in & for Cty. Of Marícopa, I73 Atiz. 129, l3l I CA-JV 13-0103,2013 WL 6095823,at*34 28 -t6- 4 family laws by precluding a The Initiative seeks to change Arizona's current .,custody of or visitation or parenting time with a minor . ' . court from denying a person Initiative], unless the person's behavíor is sorery for conduct that is ailowed under [the g 3 (proposed A.R.s. $ 36-2s60(Dx1) contrary to the best interest of the child." Initiative 5 (emphasis added)). 77. 1 2 J 6 t2 to deny custody or parenting time than arcohol because courts would still be a[owed a person's marijuana use or home solely for a parent's alcohol use but not solely for by separate "behavior" that is growth, unless that use and growth was also accompanied access or proximity to marijuana use or against the child,s best interest. The fact of child to protect a child's welfare' growth or drug paraphernalia alone would not be enough the in the Initiative's title or Petition summary indicates that 13 law, or that the Initiative will regulate Initiative will have this effect on Arizona's family 7 8 9 10 11 o I .v. l¡ r i"' 9l trl;i Ev q..é â 78. If the Initiative became law, it would regulate marijuana more favorably Þlöss '- \t:- Øitli ãto ä ts 79. marijuana more favorably than alcohol' 2 Ë II çJ\ ,5¡ 2î. I; t6 t7 o 18 t9 Nothing The Initiative impacts military personnel' S0.TheDepartmentofDefense(..DoD',)currentlyrequiresallservicemembers Department of Defense Instruction Number to be tested for marijuana, among other drugs. Program (Sept' 13'2012)' available at 1010.01, Mitítary Personnel Drug Abuse Testing The Arizona National Guard I 20 to these regulations to ensure consistency and and Arizona military reservists are subject 2l cohesiveness in the nation's military force' 22 Sl.ServicemembersthatviolatetheDoD'smandateanduseorpossess 23 artial' 10 U'S'C' $ 912a' Service members marijuana are subject to punishment by court-m 24 punishment. that lawfully drink alcohol are not subject to such 26 in Arizona, but does not The Initiative purports to make marijuana 'olegal" use of marijuana remains illegal and indicate that, for Arizonamilitary service members, 27 subjects them to serious punishment' 25 82. 28 -t7 - 1 2 J 4 Initiative will create this conflict for Arizona service members' The Initiative does not provide most local governments with the authorify to limit marijuana businesses. 6 7 marijuana businesses." (Exhibit B.) 8 9 9 Nothing in the Initiative's title or Petition Summary indicates that the The Petition Summary states that "[t]he Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act . . . provides local governments with the authority to regulate and limit 5 o c 83. 84. 85. In fact, the language of the Initiative operates such that most local governments will actually notbe able to limit marijuana businesses to the extent a medical is operational in that locality when the Initiative becomes law. 10 marijuana business 11 proposed A.R.S. $$ 36-2856(A) and (BX2) explicitly state that localities "may not t2 prohibit a reorganized marijuana business established by a nonprofit medical marijuana 13 dispensary operating within the locality from operating the prohibited type of marijuana I4 establishment within the locality 15 nonprofit medical marijuana dispensary." Importantly, "locality" can mean "a county." t6 Initiative $ 3 (proposedA.R.S. $ 36-2851(5)). v. ti o l;3 I ;., ts I I r' óf ln.éõjS3 I è:ã.-9 I ro;.¡ ,z O H U) j9E!q ?:ië It-3i Il:É ,38 .3 T7 o 86. in any area that is zoned to allow the operation of Given the many medical businesses throughout the state, a it is false and 18 misleading to state that the Initiative provides local governments the authority to regulate T9 and limit marijuana businesses. 20 87. The Initiative also contains no qualified immunity for government officials 2l who face conflicting state and federal laws, thereby potentially putting public servants in 22 the position of facing potential liability for choosing to comply with either state or federal 23 law in the execution of their duties. The Initiative's title and Petition Summary fail to 24 indicate that the Initiative will have this impact on government employees. 25 The Initiative impacts and redefÏnes existing drug laws. 26 88. Arizona law currently defines "marijuana" t9 exclude the resin extracted 27 from a marijuana plant, which is considered the narcotic drug "cannabis." A.R.S. $$ 28 340t(4), (19), (20Xw). -18- 13- 89. I 2 marijuana are different than the possession or production of cannabis. Compøre A.R.S. J A.R.S. $ l3-3405 (marijuana penalties), wíth A.R.S. $ 13-3403 (narcotic penalties) and 4 $ 13-3401(20Xw) (defining cannabis as a narcotic drug). 90. 5 The Initiative redefines marijuana to include the resin extracted from 6 marijuana, contrary 7 28s1(7XA)). gl. 8 9 10 to current Arizona law. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A.R.S. The Initiative, therefore, seeks $ 36- to legalize not only marijuana, as the Initiative's title and Petition Summary suggests, but also hashish, marijuana concentrate, and edible marijuana food products. 92. 11 o o 9 Under cuffent Arizona law, the penalties for possessing or producing Nothing in the Initiative's title or Petition Summary indicates that the I2 Initiative will redefine and alter Arizona's existing drug laws in this way and allow the 13 possession and use of what is colloquially known as hashish. .v- tr I a) H I I I -a' ;.ì .. óg II F:HE u>@o -i.o T4 ,z losSq I ?:åë () t"va itl 15 H U) I I -! ;o 93. On the one hand, the Initiative only allows a person to "possess . one r6 ounce or less of marijuana." Initiative $ 3 (proposed A.R.S. $ 36-2860(AXl)).But on the T7 other hand, the Initiative allows a person to 18 plants . . . at the person's place of residence . . I9 the 'í a The Initiative's text is internally inconsistent. "possess . not more than six marijuana o 20 2l plants on 94. 95. the . and possess the maríiuana produced by premises." Initiative $ 3 (proposed A.R.S. $ 36-2860(AX2)). Six marijuana plants yields more than one ounce of marijuana. The Initiative's own text, therefore, contradictorily prohibits a person from 22 possessing more than one ounce of marijuana, while at the same time allowing a person to 23 possess much more than one ounce of marijuana. 24 25 96. This constitutes a fraud on voters who cannot know what they are voting to legalize when the Initiative both prohibits and allows the same conduct. 26 27 28 -t9- Thelnitiativedoesnotregulatemarijuanalikealcohol. I J "in a manner similar to Despite its stated purpose of regulating marijuana in several respects far differently and often far arcohol,,, the Initiative regulates marijuana 4 less restrictivelY than alcohol' 97. 2 a 5 gs.Underthelnitiative,marijuanawouldbelegalunderstatelawdespiteits 6 which does not share a similar continuing illegality under federal law, unlike alcohol, 7 inconsistencY with federal law' I 9 10 9 .v 9l !i trl;i I s..Z* !.Y.'-,-.2 )ölEp i ! I Ï Ghô a.t taz.ia l i i.:" OI d I -{ EÇ oö u)l :. ! per seDUID law, unlike alcohol. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A'R'S' 100. under the Initiative, $ 36-2860(A) & (B))' far more punishments for underage marijuana use arc t2 (proposed A.R.S. $ 36-2s66) (making lenient than alcohol. Compare Initiative $ 3 marijuana' as well as using a fake ID to obtain underage use and possession of marijuana, 13 or less), wíth A'P*'S' $$ 4-244(9)' a,,petty offense,, usually punishable by a fine of $300 t4 246(B)(makingunderageuseofalcoholaclasslmisdemeanor)andA'R''S'$4-241(N)'- 15 246(F)(makinguseofafakelDtoobtainalcoholaclasslmisdemeanorthatcarriesa 11 o ô gg.Underthelnitiative,marijuanauseisprotectedfromformingthebasisofa I6 t7 o 18 19 carry a possible sentence of up to mandatory fine of at least $250). Class 1 misdemeanors A.R.s. $$ 13-307(A), 13-802(A)' 6 months in jail and a f,rne up to $2,500. amounts of marijuana' 101. The Initiative only legalizes the possession of certain while no anarogous rimit exists for alcohol. concentrated marijuan a, andmarijuana prants, 2l Initiative $ 3 (proposedA.R'S' $ 36-2860(A))' does not exist for 102. The Initiative creates a statutory right to marijuanafhat 22 alcohol. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A'R'S' $ 36-2866(A))' 20 24 possess marijuana accessories' even The Initiative creates a statutory right to right to carry and possess alcohol in the workplace, whereas there is no similar statutory 25 accessories. 26 27 l04.Thelnitiativeonlyauthorizesthesaleofmarijuanaafcertainlicensed and convenience stores' And' the facilities, whereas alcohol may be sold at grooery 28 few years following legalization by Initiative creates a lucrative oligopoly for the first 23 103. -20 - 1 2 only allowing a small group of preexisting medical marijuana retailers to obtain reÇreational marijuana licenses, and then only allowing a lotal number of marijuana J licenses equal to l0o/o of issued liquor licenses 4 g$ 36-2351(18) &.36-2854(8)). Alcohol does not have a similar monopolistic scheme. 105. Initiative 5 6 limited 7 u lr l:Ë O I i.ì ! li ,z I equivalent 9 are allowed to commence operations. Tþis is monumentally unclear to lTYo of issued liquor licenses-are nullified three years after dispensaries O i U) Arizona voters from the Initiative and contrary to the public statements of the Initiative's proponents in 11 their publicity campaign. The Initiative fails to fund itself as required. T2 106. The Arizona Medical Marijuana Act provided for its own funding by 13 I4 ?:rë ItJ9i 15 I ds l:ÉI to 10 I óY I î"3o I õsS8 cE,-9 ì Eo ¿c, j93!q sponsors continually promote that marijuaîarelail stores would be in Arizona, unlike in Colorado (See Press Conference of June 30, 2016, , but such limitsface a o I until202l. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A.R.S. a establishing the Medical Marijuana Fund. A.R.S. $ 36-2817(A). 107. The Initiative's funding provisions seek to order the Department of Health t6 Services to take money from the Medical Marijuana Fund and put that money into the l7 Initiative's own fund, called the Marijuana Fund. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A.R.S. $ 36- 18 2867(B)). o 108. The Initiative states that the money from the newly T9 will eventually repay the Medical Marijuana Fund, "at such time as funds are 20 Fund 2l available." Initiative $ 3 (proposed A.R.S. $ 36-2867(B)). FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 22 Invalid signature Petition sheets (violation of A.R.S. 23 109. Plaintiffs 24 25 26 established Marijuana S 19-102(A)) incorporate the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. 110. A.R.S. $ 19-102(A) requires that initiative petition signature sheets contain 27 a description of the proposed initiative 'oof no more than one hundred words of 28 principal provisions of the proposed measure." -21 - the I II J I existence of the many Arizona laws already covering the Initiative's operative provisions 4 or the Initiative's impact on those laws. Il2. 113. Under A.R.S. $ 19-121(AX1), when initiative petition contain an improper description 9 accompanying signature sheets are invalid. Il4. I c.) I ts ;'è õ., lii I n.éo H U) the Initiative contained the offending language, and therefore all signatures on those t2 petitions are invalid. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 13 Inadequate Title and Text (violation of Anrz. CoNsr. art.4, Pt. 1, S 1(9) 115. Plaintiffs lYlç It-3; I I ,iv, r'í Upon information and beliet all the petition signature sheets in support of 11 I õ9S8 I4 ¿E *9 ,¿ :oeãg 15 (-) signature sheets of the proposed initiative, all signatures on the 8 10 lr The description on the signature sheets was so misleading that it amounted to fraud and creates a significant danger of electorate confusion and unfairness. 7 ë it does not mention either the signature sheets was materially misleading because 6 9 As described throughout this Verified Complaint, the description on the 2 5 o o 1. T6 incorporate the allegations set forth above as if fully set forth herein. R T7 116. The Title and Text Rule in Article 4, Part 1, $ 1(9) of the Arizona 18 Constitution provides that, "Each sheet containing petitioners' signatures shall be attached l9 to a full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure so proposed to be initiated or 20 referred to the people." o 2t tl7. The Tirle and Texr Rule is also codified at A.R.s. $ 19-121(AX3). 22 118. The Title and Text Rule requires that an initiative have "some title and some 23 text," Iman v. Bolín, 98 Ariz.358, 365 (1965), and initiatives must strictly comply with 24 this requirement. A.R.S. S 19-101.01. (While the statute refers directly to 25 ooreferendum," it is in the chapter of the Arizona the Revised Statutes applicable to both 26 initiatives and referenda and the same principles directly apply here, in that the Initiative, 27 if 28 people passed, "may overrule the results ...." of determinations made by representatives of 19-101.01.) ^SeeA.R.S. $ -22- the 119. Although the Title I 2 a J 6 7 franchise,,, 5 8 should Grffin v. Buzard, 86 Atiz. 166, 173 (1959). The Initiative proponents of the Arizona not be permitted to log-roll a wholesale revision to multiple chapters 9 Revised Statutes via the initiative process. o -o dated August 6'2012' at Opposing C-03-2012, et al. v. Bennett, et al., CV20l2-010717, 11 2) H @¿ ei v.i () É U) l= ËÀ È o is t7 18 wheno Initiative seeks to regulate marijuanao.in a manner similar to alcohol," a >ó o9 t4 Iu jõ Éi Ê ,z Act," 120. The Initiative's title, "The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana full breadth of the sweeping misleading to the point of fraud because the title obscures the provisions and the indirect impact on changes hidden within the Initiative's operative any other law," Initiative other laws due to the Initiative's mandate of "notwithstanding as described throughout this verified complaint' $ 3 (proposed A.R.S. $ 36-2360(A)), in stating that the The Initiative's text also is misleading to the point of fraud 13 õ.¡ (Ç/ Minute Entry Ruling in Save Our Vote 10 l2 .2 tr Tucson, Inc',134 Ariz' 46' 49 initiatives , Cottonwood Dev. v. Foothills Area Coalition of many areas of law that (1982), the Initiative here embraces so many subjects and alters so and "[t]he courts must be the Initiative,s modest title is misleading to the point of fraud, not be closed to hearing alert to preserving the purity of elections and its doors must the exercise of a free elective charges of deception and fraud that in any way impede 4 o o and Text Rule generally does not preclude multi-subject 15 t6 o l2l. as discussed 20 how alcohol is regulated' in this verified complaint, its regulations differ greatly from Arizona IZ2. Because the Initiative violates the strict requirements 2I and may not appear on constitution,s Title and Text Rule, the Initiative is unconstitutional 22 the ballot. t9 of THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 23 23) Inadequate self-Funding (violation of Anrz. coNsr. art.9, $ set forth 123. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations set forth above as if fully 24 25 26 herein 27 28 ecisionofanotherSuperiorCourtinArizonaforitspersuasive ";i;é.'sä-Arizona State Bar Ethícs op' 87-14' -23 - J initiative or The Revenue Source Rule in Article 9, $ 23 requires that "[a]n pu{pose ' must also referendum measure that . . . establishes a fund for any specific entire immediate and provide for an increased source of revenues sufficient to cover the 4 future cost of the ProPosal." 1 2 a 5 125. The Revenue Source Rule further requires that "[t]he increased revenues cause a reduction in general may not be derived from the state general fund or reduce or 7 fund revenues." 9 l0 11 t2 9 " 6 8 o I24. its 126. The Initiative seeks to create the Marijuana Fund in order to fund future operations. Initiative $ 3 (proposed A'R'S' $ 36-2867)' Initiative 127. But rather than providing for its own ímmedíate funding, the from another funding would order the Department of Health Services to take money of paying that money back at source, the Medical Marijuana Fund, with the intention v. --", l¡ r 9l trt;i Ei '.i I Yi Éôô > I;:ii t -: 13 l4 òû ,z i;,1ì'.; l5 j" ^- l:! ?¿ =c) I ou dI UDI ËE s t6 (proposed A.R.S' $ 36-2867(B))' some unspecified time in the future. Initiative $ 3 source Rule challenges usually should be considered 128. Although Revenue rowns v. Brewer,2l3 Ariz. after an Initiative becomes law, League of Ariz. cíties and 557, 560 I 15 (2006), the Initiative here-in addition to its other constitutional 18 that pre-election problems-so clearly and facia[y violates the Revenue source Rule with all statutory and review is appropriate, and the Initiative must now strictly comply t9 constitutional provisions. A.R.S. $ 19-101'01' í T7 o 20 2l l2g. Revenue source The Initiative therefore is not self-funded as required by the to appear on the ballot' Rule, which renders the Initiative unconstitutional and ineligible REQUEST FOR RELIEF 22 23 WHEREFORE' Plaintifß PraY for: 24 A. A declaration that the signatures on the petition sheets containing the 25 petition summary described herein are invalid 26 $$ 1e-102(A) and 1e-121(AXl). 27 28 as incomplete and misleading under A'R's' B. A declaration that the Initiative violates Article 4, Part 1, $ 1(9) of the Arizona Constitution. -24- C. A declaration that the Initiative violates Article 9 $ 23 of the Arizona I 2 Constitution. D. a J lr t-1 C) H ,z O li U) I I 5 forthcoming general election in the State 6 petition sheets containing the Petition Summary described herein are invalid l82 l:É : É Arizona for the year 2016 because l, (l) the as l(9) of the Arizona Constitution; and (3) the 8 Initiative violates Article 4, Part 9 Initiative violates Article 9 ç 23 of the Arizona Constitution. E. $ In the alterative, should this case not be resolved prior to the 2016 general 11 election ballot printing deadline, an injunction prohibiting Defendant Secretary of State t2 from counting and canvassing the votes cast on the Initiative. F. 13 of incomplete and misleading under A.R.S. $$ 19-102(A) and l9-121(AX1); (2) the -. óf I f?.3o I ösÐ3 rõ.-9 jr@ È.r joESË I )l:iä y;- certifying and placing the Initiative on the ballot for the Secretary 10 9 .ia of State from Arizona 4 ,7 o Ò An injunction under l9-122(A) and (C) prohibiting Defendant t4 An order awarding Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and nontaxable expenses incurred in this action under: 1. 15 the private attorney general doctrine as established in Arnold v. Ariz. I6 Dep't of Heatth Servs., 160 Ariz.593 (1989), because the rights sought to be vindicated t7 here benefit a large number of people, require private enforcement, and are of societal 18 importance; and o 2. t9 20 nontaxable expenses to Plaintiffs. G. 2t 22 any other applicable law authorizingthe award of attorney's fees and relief An order awarding Plaintifß their taxable costs and such other and further as may be appropriate. ZJ 24 25 26 27 28 -25 - 1 DATED this 1l'h daY of JulY, 2016 2 SNELL & WILMER r.r.P a J 4 By 6 400 E. Van Buren, Suite 1900 Phoenix. Arizona 85004-2202 Teleohoire: 602.3 82.6000 Facsimile : 602.382.607 0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 I 9 10 l1 9 .v l¡ r 9l l2 Ø-., r7l 13 HlóY l_ I új Êx3 t4 Fr iE;;: Ì n- ãø Ø ;;?;t -rdJ lÍÉì; l F¿ - I ôl ó3 ¿t 15 t6 R 'i (/ Johnson Asne J. Sara One Arizõna Center 5 a o 'W. n,.rl6' t7 o 18 T9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -26- Spell ?31 Wilmer - 5.4.9, . Law Elm Came-Li 'f-I'nn Barren: Suite El?lr??il?fa?? ?rizan: IL: ta;- ta; to to 1U b4 :50 Mlde UI: 5-1. ml no wa- can Lxu' 4: ha' C1 '35. '2 24228547 .N . . . I, 331111 Leibsohnial?ainti?f in thig'action? have y?yie?rcd the magnng i I 'Czamplai'nt and verify ?nder panalty 'Qf-p?xjury that it Ema-5nd correct. ID-atedEXHIBIT A OF'F'ICIAL TITLE AN INITIATIVE MEASURE AMENDING TITLE 36, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 28.2; AMENDING TTTLE 42, CHAPTER 3, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 10; AMENDING TITLE 43, CHAPTBR I, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SBCTION 43-108; RELATING TO THE REGULATION AND TAXATION OF MARIruANA. ¡5á TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT lÐ -) Ëffi Ð .Il (h Þ rfl SMOKING' PRODUCTION' A PROPERTY FROM PROHIBITING OR OTHERWISE REGULATING THE PRoCESSING,MANUFACTUREoRSALEoFMARITANAANDMARITANAPRoDUCTSoNoRIN THAT PROPERTY. D'THISCHAPTERDoEsNoTPRoHIBITAPERSoNFR0MPRoHIBITINGoRoTHERWISE AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS RNGULATING THE POSSESSION OR CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA IF EITHER: ON OR iN PROPERTY THE PERSON OWNS, MANAGES OR LEASES I.THEPROPERTYiSAPUBLICBUILDINGTHATISHELDoRowNEDBYTHISSTATE OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE. 2.FAILINGToPROHIBITTHEPOSSESSIONoRCoNSUMPTIoNoFMARITANAoR MANAGES ORLBASES THE MARIruANA PRODUC'IS WOULD CAUSE THE PERSON WHO OWNS' BENEFIT UNDER FBDERAL LAW OR PROPERTY TO LOSE A MONETARY OR LICENSING-RELATED REGULATIONS. E.EXCEPTASPRoVIDEDINSECTION36-2854,sUBsBcTIoNc,SECTION36-2862ANDIN SECTIoN36.2363,SUBSECTIoNc,THISCHAPTERDoESNoTAFFECTAI.{YPRoVIStoNSoFTITLE36' CHAPTBR2S.IoFTHIST]TLERELATINGToTHEUSEoFMEDICALMARIJUANA. F, PROVIDING FOR THE THIS CHAPTER DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE LEGISLATURB FROM REGULATION OR TAXATION OF INDUSTRIAL HBMP. 36-2853. Deparùnent ofmariiuana licenses and control A.THEDEPARTMBNToFMARIJUANALICENSESANDcoNTRoL.ISESTABLISHED CONSISTTNG OF THE MARIruANA COMMISSION AND THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT. B.THEGoVERNoRSHALLAPPoINTADIRECToRoFTHEDEPARTMENTPURSUANT TOSECTIoN3S-2IIwHoISQUALIFIEDBYSUCCESSFULEXPERIENCBINBUSINESS ADMINISTRATIONoRINGOVERNMENT.THEGOVERNORMAYREMovETHEDIRECToRFoR CAUSE.EXCEPTAsPRoVIDEDINsUBSEcTIoNDoFTHISSBCTIoN,THEDIRECToRSHALL 4, ARTICLE 4, THE DIRECTOR MAY ADMINISTBR THiS CHAPTER. SUBJECT To TITLE 41, CHAPTER EMPLoY,DETERMINBTFIEcoNDITIoNSoFEMPLOYMENToFANDSPECIFYTHEDUTIESoF ADVISORS OR CONSULTANTS AS EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACT TO HAVE THE SERVICES OF SUCH THB DEPARTMENT'S DUTIES' THE ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY TO ADEQUATELY PERFORM AUTHORITY TO BXERCISE DIRECTOR MAY DELEGATE TO EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT POWBRS OF THE DIRECTOR. C. WHO ARE THE MARIIUANA COMMISSION CONSISTS OF SEVEN MEMBERS APPoINTEDBYTHEGOVERNoRPURSUANTTosEcTIoN3S.2II,FoURoFwHoMDoNoTHAVE ANYFINANCIALINTEREST,DIRECTLYoRINDIRECTLY,INANYMARITANAESTABLISHMENT ANDTHREEoFwHoMÀREATAILTIMESWHILESERVINGoNTHEMARIJUANAcoMMISSIoN ANDFoRATLEASToNEYEARBEFORESERVINGoNTHEMARIJUANACoMMISSIoN' NOT MORE THAN FOUR MEMBERS CONTROLLING PERSONS OF A MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENT. Two oF THE MEMBERS wHo ARE MAY BE oF THE SAME POLITICAL PAR'IY, NoT MORE THAN PARTY AND AT LEAST ONE NO'I'CONTROLLING PBRSONS MAY BE OF THE SAME }OLITICAL 'I'HE POLITICAL PARTY MEMBER WHO IS NOT A CONTROLLING PERSON MUST BE FROM WHO RECEWED THE SECOND LARGEST ASSOCIATED WITH THE GUBERNATORIAI CANDIDATE NUMBERoFvoTESATTHELASTGUBERNAToRIALELECTIoN.ToBEELIGIBLEFoR APPOINTMENTAPERSONSHALLHAVBAcoNTINUoUSR-ECoRDEDREGISTRATIoNPURSUANTTo TITLE AT LEAST WITH THE SAMB POLITICAL PARTY OR AS AN INDEPENDENT FOR M'AY BE MEMBERS TWO THAN MORE NOT IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING APPOINTMENT. 16, CHAPTER 1 TWO YEARS 'I'ERMS APPOINTMENT IS THREE YEARS AND APPOINTED FROM THE SAME COUNTY, THE TERM OF EXPIR-EoNTHETHIRDMoNDAYINJANUARYoFTHEAPPROPRIATEYEAR. D. 1. THE MARIJUANA COMMISSION SHALL: ADOP'I'RULES TORTHE CONDUCT OF ITS MEETINGS' 2.ANNUALLYELECTFROMITSMEMBERSHIPACHAIRPERSONANDMAYELECT TERMS AS THE MBMBERS DEEM NECESSARY FROM ITS MEMBERSH]P OTHER OF'IIICERS FOR SUCH OR DESIRABLE. 4 > = <, 3. 4. 5, E. KEEP RECORDS OFALL OFITS PROCEEDINGS. APPROVEANDDENYAPPLICATIONSTORLICENSURE. HOLD HBARINGS AS PROVIDED FORBY LAW. * A MAJORITY OF TTIE MEMBERS OF THE MARIruANA COMMISSION CONSTITUTE q9 g QUORIIM. THE CONCURRENCE OF A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM IS SUFFICIENT FOR TAXING ANY ACTION. F. THE COMPENSATION OF THE DIRECTOR AND EMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT SHALL BE DETERMINED PURSUANT TO SBCTION 38-611. NOTWITHSTANDING SECTION 38-6II, il SUBSECTION C, MEMBERS OF THE MARIruANA COMMISSION ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION AT THE RATE OF FIFTY DOLLARS PER DAY WHILE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS 'l OF THE MARIruANA COMMISSION. G. EXCEPT FOR A MEMBER OF THE MARIruANA COMMISSION WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR IN THE CA?ACITY OF A CONTROLLING PERSON, MEMBERS OF THE MARIruANA COMMISSION, BMPLOYEES OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE DIRECTOR MAY NOT HAVE ANY FINANCIAL INTEREST, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, IN ANY MAruruÀNA ESTABLISHMENT. A VIOLATION OF THIS STIBSECTION BY ANY MEMBER OF THE MAzuruANA COMMISSION CONSTITUTES A RESIGNATION BY THAT PERSON, AND A VIOLATION BY ANY EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT OR THE DIRECTOR SHALL RESULT IN IMMEDIATB DISMISSAL. 36-2854. Povr'er and.duties ofthe Department A. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ADOPT RULES PURSUANT TO TITLE 4I, CHAPTER 6 THAT ARE NECESSARY OR CONVEMENT TO CARRY OUT THIS CHAPTER. I. THE DEPÀRTMBNT MAY ADOPT AND ENFORCE RULES TO RBGULATE A}TY PRODUCT SOLD BY A MARIruANA RETAILERTHAT WAS PRODUCED BY AMARIruANA ESTABLISHMENT, INCLUDING PRODUCTS MADE FROM INDUSTRIAL HBMP. 2. UNTIL JANUARY 1,2020, THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT ADOPT AI'{Y RI''LE THAT ALLOWS FOR THE DELIVERY OF MARIruANA TO A CONSI]MER BY A MARIJUANA RBTAILER AT ANY LOCATION OUTSIDE OF THE MARIruANA RETA-ILER'S LICENSED PREMISES. I,'NTIL A MARIruANA TESTING FACILITY HAS BEEN LICENSED BY THE 3. DEPARTMENT FOR AT LEAST NINETY DAYS, THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT ADOPT ANY RULE THAT REQUIRES THE TESTING OF MARIruANA BY A MARIruANA TESTING FACILITY. UNTIL JANUARY 1,2020, THE DEPARTMENT MAYNOT ADOPT ANY RULE THAT 4. ALLOWS FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA ON THE PREMISES WHERE SOLD. AFTER JANUARY I , 2O2O , THE DBPARTMENT MAY ADOPT AND ENFORCE RULES TO ALLOW FOR TIIE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES TO PERMIT THE CONSUMPTION OF MARIruANA WITHIN A SPECIFIED AREA OF A MARIruANA RETAILER, INCLUDING A MARIJUANA RETAILER LOCATED AT THE SAME LOCATION AS A NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY REGISTER-ED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 28.1, OR'fHE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES TO PBRMIT CONSUMPTION OF MARIruANA WITHIN A SPECIFIED AREA OF THE LICENSEE, BUT NOT SALE OR TRANSFBR FOR REMUNERATION OF ANY KIND. 5. RULES ADOPTED BY TIIE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO THIS CHA-PTER AND PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 28.1 MAY PROVIDE FOR DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR MANruANA THAT IS INTENDED FOR MEDICAL USB. RULES ÀDOPTED OR ENFORCED BY THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT CONFLICT IN A WAY THAT WOULD PREVENT A NONPROFIT MBDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY REGISTERED PT'RSUANT TO CI{APTER 28.1 AND A REORGANIZBD MARIruANA BUSINESS FROM OPERATINC COOPERATTVELY AT A SHARED LOCATION, B. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL AIPROVE OR DENY APPLICATIONS FOR LICENSES AND SHALL ISSUE AND RENEW LICBNSES PLTRSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER, AS FOLLOWS: THE DEPARTMENT SIIALL BEGIN ÀCCEPTING AND PROCESSING APPLICATIONS I. FOR UP TO ONE OF EACH TYPE OF MARIJUANA BSTABLISHMENT FROM BACH REORGÀNIZED MARIruANA BUSINESS ON OR BEFORE SBPTEMBBR 1, 2017. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ACCEPT AN APPLICATION FOR UP TO ONE OF EACH TYPE OF MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENT FOR EACH DISPENSARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE HELD BY SUCH NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIruANA 5 Ð rn -l æ o -4 u1 m PROCESSING APPLICATIONS FOR DISPENSARY. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL BECIN ACCEPTING AND MARITANAESTABLISHMENTSFRoMALLoTHERAPPLICANTSoNANDAFTERDECEMBERI, 2017. 2.oNoRBEFoREDECBMBERI,20IT,THEDEPARTMENTSHALLISSUELICENSESTo EACH QUAIIFIED REORGANIZED MARIruANA BUSINESS. MARIruANA UNTIL SEPTEMBER 1,202 ,THEDEPARTMENT MAY NoT ISSUE MoRE 3. SERIES RETAILEIì I,ICENSBS THAN TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF 9 LIQUOR LICENSES ISSUEDBYTHEARIZoNADEPARTMENToFLIQUORLICENSESANDCoNTRoL. oN AND AFTER SEPTEMBER 1,2021, 'I'HE DEPARTMENT MAY IssUE ADDITIONAL 4. MARITANARETAILERLICENSBSIFTHBDEPARTMENTDETERMINESTHATADDITIoNAL LICENSESAREDESIRABLEToMINIMIZETHEILI,EGALMARKETFoRMARITANAINTHISSTATE' ToEFFICIENTLYMEETTHEDBMANDFoRMARIJUANAoRToPRoVIDEFoRREASoNABLE ACCESS TO MARIruANA RETAILERS IN RURAL AREAS. I' 2017' NOTWITI.ISTANDING CHAPI'BR 28.1 OF THIS TITLE' BEGINNING SEPTEMBER TO ADMINISTER AND AUTHORITY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MAY HAVE C. ALL THE DBPARTMENT OF MARIruANA ENFORCE CHAPTER 28.I OF THIS TITLE IS TRANSFERR.ED TO 28'I OF THIS TITLE BY LICENSES AND CONTROL. ALL RULES ADOPTBD PURSUANT TO CHAPTER DEPARTMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES SHALL BE ENFORCED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF BY THE ARE AMBNDED THEY MARIruANA LICENSES AND CONTROL UNTIL MARITANALICENSESANDcoNTRoLPURSUANTToTITLE4I,CHAPTER6'EACHREGISTRATION PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 28'1 CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TI{E DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED IN CHAPTER 28'I THIS TITLË BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1,201? SHALL REMA]N VALID AS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF THIS TITLE LINTIL THE REGISTRATION CERTIF'ICATE EXPIRES. ASSIST AND COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF MARIruÀNA SERVICES SHALL ADVISE, AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER AND LICENSES AND CONTROL TO ENSURE A SMOOTH TRANSFER OF ENFORCE CHATTER 28.1 OF THIS TITLE. D. 41' CHAPTER THE DEPARTMENT SI{ALL CONDUCT HEARINGS PURSUANT TO TITLE 6,ÀRTICLEI0ASNECESSARYoRCONVENIENTToLICENSEANDREGULATEMARITANA AND TESTIMONY' ESTABLISHMENTS AND MAY ACCEPT RELBVANT AND MATERTAL EVIDENCE ADMINISTERoATHSoRAFFIRMATIONS,ISSUESUBPoENASREQUIRINGATTENDANCEAND REQUIRE BY SUBPoENA TESTIMoNY oF WITNESSES, cAUsE DEPoSITIoNS To BE TAKEN AND DUCESTECUMTHEPRoDUCTIONoFBooKS,PAPERSANDOTHERDoCUMENTSTHATARE NBCESSARY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS CHAPTER. E,IHEDEPARTMENTSHALLENFORCETHELAWSANDRULESRELATINGToTHB DISTRIBUTION AND TBSTING PRODUCTION, MANUFACTURE, TRANSPORTATION, SAIE, STORAGE' CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OF OF MARIruANA AND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS AND SHALL coMPLIANcEWITHTHISCHAPTER,INCLUDINGTHEINSPECTIONoFMARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTSANDTHEEXAMINATIoNoFBooKS,RECoRDSANDPAPERSoFANY OR RULES ADOPTED MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT AS NECESSARY TO ENFORCE THIS CHAPTER THE DEPARTMENT WHO IS PURSUANT TO THIS CI-IAPTER. ANY ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITHIN HAVE CREDENTIALS DESIGNATED BY'THE DIRECTOR SHALL, FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES' WHEN BEARINC AND' GOVERNOR SIGNED BY TIIE DIRECTOR AND COUNTERSIGNED BY THE THESECREDENTIAIS,HASTHEPOWERANDDUTIESOFÁ'PEÀCEOFFICER'THEDBPART'MENT TVITH THB DEPARTMENT OF SHALL TAKË STEPS NECÊSSARY TO MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE LIAISON ENFORCEMENT OF TTIIS IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND ALL LOCAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CHAPTER. Þ-. AN THE DIRECTOR SHALL ESTÄBLISH WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPLIANCE INVESTIGATIONS TINIT WHICH HAS AS ITS RESPONSIBILITY THE INVESTIGATION HAVE SOLD TO ALLEGED LICENSEES WITH THIS CHAPTER INCLUDING THE INVESTIGATION OF IS UNDERTWËNTY' MARIIUANA OR MARIruANA PRODUCTS TO A PERSON WHO OR DISTRIBUTED WHEN THERE IS PROBASLE ONE YEARS OF AGB AND INVESTIGATIONS OF UNLICENSI'D PERSONS MARIruÁ'NA OR TRANSFERRBD OR OTHERWISE CAUSE TO BELIEVE TIIAT THE PERSON SOLD 6 MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IN EXCHANGE FOR ANYTHING OF VALUE, ADVERTISBD OR PROMOTED THE SALE ORTRANSFER OF MAzuruANA ORMARIruANA PRODUCTS OR SOLD OROTHERWISE TRANSFERRED MARIJUANA ORMARIruANA PRODUCTS \ryTTERB THE TRANSACTION IS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC VIEW WITHOUT THE USE OF BiNOCULARS, AIRCRAFT OR OTHER OPTICAL AIDS. INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY THIS I.INIT MAY INCLUDE COVERT UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIONS. G, AFTER NOTICE AND A HEARING, THE DEPARTMENT MAY SUSPEND, REVOKE OR REFUSE TO RENB}V ANY LICENSE ISSUED PIJRSUANT TO THIS CHAPTERAND IMPOSE A CTVIL PENALTY ON A LICENSEE FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS CHAPTER, ANY RULE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER OR ANY CONDITION IMPOSED ON THE LICENSEE BY THE LICENSE, AN ACTION TAKEN BY TITE DEPARTMENT PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION IS A FINAL DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 6. ruRISDICTION AND VENIJE ARE VESTED IN THE SUPERIOR COIJRT. H. AFTERNOTICE, THE DBPARTMENT MAY TEMPORARILY SUSPEND ANY LICENSE ISSUED PL'RSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER IF THERE IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE LICENSEE HAS COMMITTED A DELIBERATE AND WILLFUL VIOLATION OF ANY APPLICABLE LAW OR RULB OR THAT THE PUBLIC HBALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE REQUIRES EMERGENCY ACTION. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING PURSUANT TO TITLE € CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 10 WITHIN FOURTEEN CALENDAR DAYS A-FTER A SUSPENSION PURSUÆE .l .l SUBSECTION. I, THE DEPARTMENT Þr TO THIS 36-2855, SHALL KEEP RECORDS OF AIL o N CHAPTER, INCLUDING: PRoCEDURES FoR THE ISSUANCE, RENEWAL, SUSPENSIoN' RELoCATIoN AND REVOCATION OF A LICENSE TO OPERATE A MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENT. 2. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE AND MINIMI,IM STANDARDS FOR EMPLOYMENT THAT ARE DIRECTLY AND DEMONSTRABLY RBLATED TO A PERSON'S FITNESS TO OPERATE A MAzuJUANA ESTABLISHMENT. REQUIREMENTS FORTHE INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SECIruTY OF MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENTS, INCLTTDING LIGHTING, PHYSICAL SECURITY AND VIDEO AND ALARM REQUIREMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SBCURE TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE OF MARIruANA AND MARIruANA PRODUCTS. 4.REQUIREMENTSToPREVENTT}IESALEoRDTVERSIONoFMARIJUANAAND MARIruANA PRODUCTS TO PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE, INCLUDING A SPECIFICATION OF THE ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF IDENTIFICATION THAT A MARIJUANA VVT{EN VERIFYING THB AGE OF A CONSUMER THAT ARE SIMILAR TO REQUIREMENTS FOR VERIFYING THE AGE OF A PBRSON WHO PURCHASES ALCOHOL' 5. TRACKING PROCEDURES TO ENSURE THAT MÀRIruANA AND MARIruANA PRODUCTS PRODUCED, PROCESSED, MANUFACTURED, TRANSPORTED AND SOLD BY ANY MAzuruANA ESTABLISHMENT ARE NOT SOLD OR.OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT BY A MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENT OR A NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIruANADISPENSARY TO ANOTHER MARIJUANA BSTABLISHMENT OR BY A MARIruANA RETAILER TO A CONSUMER AND TO ENSURE THATALL MARIruANA AND MARIruANAPRODUCTS THAT ARE SOLD MARIruANA RETAILER WERE PRODUCED BY A MARIruANA BYA ESTABLISHMENT OR A NONPROFIT MEDICAL MANruANA DISPENSARY. 6. HEALTH AND SAFBTY STANDARDS FOR THE CULTIVATION, PROCESSING' MANUFACTURE AND DISTRIBUTION OF MARIruANAAND MARIJUANA PRODUCTS, INCLUDING RULBS REGARDING THE USE OF PESTICIDES AND RESTNCTIONS ON ADDITIVES TO MARIruANA PRODUCTS THAT WOULD MAKB THE MARIruANA PRODUCTS ADDICTIVE OR INruRIOUS TO HEAITH. 7 fr rñ i OF ITS PROCEEDINGS. Rulemakine ESTABLISHMENT MAY ACCEPT ç? -{ Þ PURSUANT TO TITLE 41, CHAPTER 6 THAT ARE NECESSARY OR CONVBNIENT TO CARRY OUT TI{IS 3. l1I -< A.ONORBEFORESEPTEMBERI,^OLT,THEDEPARTMENTSHALLADOPTRULESS 1' Ð (n *{ \m T.REQUIRIMENTSFoRTFIEPACK.A.GINGoFMARITANAANDMARITANA SIMILAR TO THE PRODUCTS, INCLUDING REQUIREMENTS FOR CHILD-RESISTANT PACKAGING potsoN PREVENTION PACKAGING ACT OF 19?0 (P.L. 9l-601; 84 STAT. 1670; 15 LINITED STATES PRODUCT coDE SECTIONS t47l THROUGH 1477) AND FOR DIVIDING OR SCORING A MARIruANA INTO A STANDARDIZED SERVING SIZE. s.REQUIREMENTSFoRTHELABELINGoFMARITANAPRODUCTSSoLDBY MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENTS, INCLUDING ALL OF TÊIE FOLLOWING: (a)AsYMBoLoRoTHERMARKINDICATINGTIIATTHEPACKAGECoNTAINS MAzuJUANA. (b)THEAMoUNToFTETRAHYDROCANNABINOLANDCANNABIDIOLINTHE PACKAGE AND IN EACH SERVING OF THE MARlruANA PRODUCT. (C) THE NUMBÊR OF SERVINGS IN THE PACKAGE. (d) A LIST OF INGREDIENTS, ALLERGENS AND SOLVBNTS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THE MARIruANA PRODUCT. (e) WARNING LABELS. g.REQUIREMFNTSFoRTHETESTINGoFMARITANAANDMARITANAPRoDUCTS FORHUMAN CONSUMPTION DO TO MEASURE POTENCY AND TO ENSURE THAT PRODUCTS SOLD NOT CONTAIN CONTAMINANTS THAT ARE INJURIOUS TO HEALTH. I0.REQUIREMENTSFoRTHEMARKETING,DISPLAYANDADVERTISINGoF RESTRICTING MARIruANA, MARIruANA PRODUCTS AND MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES, INCLUDING MARK-ETING OR ADVERTISING THAT APPEALS TO CHILDR.EN. 12. PROCEDURßS AND REQUIREMENTS TO ENABLE THE TRANSFER OR SALE OF LICENSE FROM A MARIruANA A ESTABLISHMBNT TO ANOTHER QUALIFIED PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS OR TO ANOTHER SUITABLE LOCATION. 13.ASTATEWIDETIERBDsYsTEMFoRTHELICENSUREoFMARITANA CULTIVATORS THAT: (a)ESTABLISHATLEASTTHREEDIFFERENTLICENSINGCLASSTIERS. (b)ESTABLISHALIMIToNTHEAMoUNToFMARITANATHATAMARITANA THE SIZE OF THE CULTIVATOR WITHIN EACH LICENSING CLASS TIER MAY PRODUCE BASBD ON OF AN PRODUCTION THE PERMIT SHALL CULTIVATION AREA, EXCEPT THAT TTIE HIGHEST TIER TINLIMITED AMOLJNT OF MARIJUANA. (c)UNLESSTHELICENSEEISAREORGANIZEDMARITANABUSINESS,ßSUEoNLY LICENSE TO A LICBNSEE LINTIL THE SMALLEST LICENSING CLASS TIER MARIruANA CULTIVATOR HAS SOLD MORE LICENSEE THE LICENSEE DEMONSTRATES TO TI{E DEPARTMENT THAT THE TO MARIJUANA THAN EIGHTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE MARIJUANA THE LICENSEE HAS PRODUCBD IS LESS THAN WHICH PRICE AT A TRANSACTION ANY IN ESTABLISHMENTS WITHOUT ENGAGING IN THB THE MARTJUANA CULTTVATOR'S COST TO PRODIJCE THE MARIruANA SOLD TRANSACTION. (d) pRovrDES FOR THB ISSUANCE OF THE HIGHEST TIER MARIruANA CULTMTOR LICENSE TO A REORGANIZED MARIJUANA BUSINESS. 14'PRoCEDURESANDREQUIREMENTSToENABLEANONPRoFITMBDICAL CHAPTER 28'I OF MARIruANA DISPENSARY REGISTERED AND IN COOD STANDING PURSUANT TO TO ENGAGE IN THE SAME THIS TITLE AND A REORGANTZED MARIruANA BUSINESS LICENSED TO OPERATE AT THE TYPE OF CONDUCT AS THE NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIruANA DISPENSARY SAME LOCATION. 15. FOR PROCEDURES FOR ENFORCING THIS CHAPTBR, INCLUDING PROCEDURES IMPOSINGCIVILPENALTIESFoRTHEFAILUREToCoMPLYWITHANYRULEADoPTEDPURSUANT FOR COLLECTING TO THIS CIIAPTER OR FOR ANY VIOLATION OF SECTION 36'2859, PROCEDURES OR SUSPBNDING FOR FEES AND CIVIL PENALTIES ]MPOSED tsY THIS CHAPTER, PROCEDURES PROVIDING FOR A TERMINATING A LICENSE ISSUED UNDER THIS CHAPTER AND PROCEDURES LNDER THIS CHAPTER' HHARING FOR THE APPEAL OF PENALTIBS AND LiCENSING ACTIONS B. OF A MARIruANA THE DEPARTMENT MAY REQUIRE EACH CONTROLLING PERSON ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE APPLICANT TO FURNISH BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND TO SUBMIT A FULL SET OF FINGERPRINTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MARIruANA LICBNSES AND CONTROL FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A STATB AND FEDERAL CRIMINAL RECORDS CHECK PURSUANT TO SECTION 4I-1750 AND PUBLICLAW 92-544,THB DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SATBTY MAY EXCHANGE THIS FINGBRPRINT DATA WITH THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WITHOUT DISCLOSING THAT THE RECORDS CHECK IS RELATED TO THIS CHAPTER. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL DESTROY EACH SET OF FINGERPRINTS A,FTER THE CRIMINAL RECORDS CI{ECKIS COMPLETE. '! C. RULES ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT MAY NOT PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENTS, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR THROUGH REQUIREMBNTS THAT MAKT Ti{EIR OPERATION UNREASONABLY IMPRACTICABLE. D. I TO ENSIJRE THAT INDIVIDUAL PRTVACY IS PROTECTED: I.THEDEPARTMENTMAYNoTREQUIREACoNSUMERToPRoVIDEAMARITANA RETAILER WITH PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION OTHER THAN IDENTIFICATION TO DETERMINE THE CONSUMER'S AGE. 2. A MARIruANA RETAILER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ACQUIRE OR R-ECORD PBRSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ABOUT A CONSUMER OTHER THAN INFORMATION TYPICALLY ACQUIRED IN A RETAIL TRANSACTION. 36'2E56. Localitiesl Control ofmariiuana and mariiuana products A. THROUGH ENACTMENT OF A REFERENDUM OR IMTIATTVE THAT IS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO TITLE i9, CHAPTER I, ARTICLE 4 AND THAT APPBARS ON A GENERAL ELBCTION BALLOT, A LOCALITY MAY PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF ONE OR MORB OF THE TYPES OF MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE LOCALITY, EXCEPT THAT IF A LOCALITY PROHIBITS THE OPERATION OF A MARIruANARETAILER, AMARIJUANA PRODUCTMANUFACTURER' ORA MARIJUANA CULTIVATOR, IT MAYNOT PROHIBIT A RTORGANIZED MARIruANA BUSINESS ESTABLISHED BY A NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIruANA DISPENSARY OPERATING WITHIN THE LOCALITY FROM OPERATING THE PROHIBITED TYPB OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE LOCALITY IN AI.TY AREA THAT IS ZONED TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A NOMROFIT MEDICAL MARIruANA DISPENSARY. B. LOCALITIES MAY ENACT REASONABLE ORDINÀNCES OR RULES THAT ARB NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THIS ACT OR WITH RULES ENACTED PURSUANT TO THIS CTIAPTER THAT: I.GOVERNTHETME,PLACEANDMANNEROFMÀRIruANAESTABLISHMENT OPERATIONS. 2. LIMIT THE NUMBER OF MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE LOCALITY, EXCEPT THAT THE LOCALITY MAY NOT LIMIT THE NUMBER OF MARIruANA RBTAILERS, MARIJUANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS, OR MARIruANA CULTIVATORS TO A NUMBER THAT IS LESS THAN THB NUMBER OF LOCATIONS WHBRE NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIruANA DISPENSARIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE SAME TYPE OF CONDUCT IN THE LOCAIITY ON THE BFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHAPTER. 3'RESTRICTTHESMoKING,PRoDUCTIoN,PRoCESSINGoRMANUFACTUREoF MARIruANA AND MARIruANA PRODUCTS '/r'HEN IT IS INruRIOUS TO THE BNVIRONMENT OR OTHERWISB IS A NUISANCE TO A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PERSONS. 4. LIMIT THE USE OF LAND FOR MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENTS AND FOR BUSINESSES DBALING IN MARIruANA ACCESSORIES TO SPECIFIED AREAS IN THE MANNBR PROVIDED IN TITLE 9, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 6.1 AND TITLE 1 1, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 2, EXCEPT ä THAT ZONING MAY NOT PROHIBIT A MARITANA ESTABLISHMENT FROM OPERATING IN AN ARBA THAT IS ZSNED FoR THB oPERATIoN oF A NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARiTANA DISPENSSY ORA MEDICAL MARIruANA CULTIVATION FACILI'IY AND MAY NOT BE ABASIS FORDENYINëä' LICENSE UNDER THIS CHAPTER. ACCESSORTES. MARIruANA f-$ H 9 (: Ð rrl # 7 c) 5.ESTABLISHREASONABLBRESTRICTIoNSoNPUBLICSIGNAGBREGARDINGE MARIJUANA, MÀRIruANA PRODUCTS, MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENTS AND a,/, r'rl -n (n Þ -{ rfi! 6.ESTABLISHCIVILPENALTIESFoRTHBVIoLATIoNoFANoRDINANCEoRRULE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. c.IFTHEDEPARTMENTDOESNoTADoPTRULESINACCoRDANCEWITHSECTIoN36. WITH SECTION 36'2854' 2855 OR ACCEPT OR PROCESS APPLICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE SUBSECTION B OR SECTION 36-2858 A LOCALITY MAY: I.DESIGNATEALocALREGULATORYAUTHoRITYTHATISRBSPoNSIBLEFoR ÌRoCESSINGAPPLICATIoNSSUBMITTEDFoRALICENSETooPERATEAMARITANA ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN THE LOCALITY. THE' 2.ISSUEANANNUALLICENSETooPERATBAMARITANAESTABLISHMENTWITHIN A REVoKx A LICENSE IT HAS ISSUED FoR CAUSE AND ESTABLISH LoCALITY, SUSPEND oR FOR MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS LICENSBD SCHEDULE OF APPLICATION AND LICIJNSING FEES IIY THE LOCAL REGULATORY ÄUTHORITY. 3.ADoPTREASoNABLEoRDINANCESoRRULESNECESSARYoRCONVENIENTFoR THEI.ICENSINGANDRIiGULATINGoFMARIJUANAESTABLISHMENTS. 36'2857, Disoosition offees and oenalties ALLAPPLICATION,LICENSINGANDOTHERFEESANDAILFINESANDCIVILPENALTIES DEPOSITED' PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 35-146 COLLËCTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHÄPTER SHALL BE AND35-l4T,INTHEMARIruANAFUNDESTABLISHEDBYSECTION36'2867' 36-2858. Lioensine of mariiuana establishments A.oNRECEIPToFACOMPLETEMAR]TANAESTABLISHMENTLICENSE OF THE APPLICATION TO THE APPLICATION, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL FORWARD A COPY LOCALITYINWHICHTHEPRoPoSEDLICENSEDPREMISESWILLBELOCATED. B.oNRECEIPToFACOMPLETEMARIJUANABSTABLISHMENTLICENSE APPLICATIoN,THEDEPARTMENT,WITHINSIXTYToNINETYDAYS,MUSTEITHER: I.ISSUETHEAPPRoPRIATELICENSEI¡'THELICENSEAPPLICÀTIONISAPPRoVED' 2,SENDANOTICEoFDENIALSETTINGFORTHSPECIIIICREASoNSwHYTHE DEPAIìTMENT DID NOT APPROVE THE LICENSE APPLICATION' c.THEDEPARTMBNTSHALLAPPRoVEALICENSBAPPLICATIoNANDISSUEoR APPLIES: RENEW A LICENSE UNLESS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING I.THEAPPLICANTFoRAMARITANAESTATLISHMENTI.IASNoTSUBMITTEDAN APPLICATIoNINcoMPLIANcEWITHRULESADoPTEDBYTHEDEPARTMENT,DoESNoTMEET THEREQUIRBMBNTSESTABLISHBDBYTHEDEPARTMENToRISNoTINCoMPLIANCEWITHTHIS CHAPTER OR RULES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER' 2.THELOCALITYINwHIcHTHEPRoPOSEDMARIJUANAESTABLISHMENTWILLBE LoCATEDNoTIFIBSTI]EDEPARTMÊNTTHA'ITHEPRoPoSBDMARITANAESTABLISHMENTIS NoTINCoMPLIANCEWITHORDINANCESoRRULESTHATAREA-DoPTEDBYTHELOCALITY PURSUANTToSECTION36.2356ANDINEFFECTATTHETIMEoFAPPLICATION. 3.THEPROPERTY,ATTHETIMETHELICENSEAPPLIoATIoNISRECEIVEDBYTHE DEPARTMENT,ISLoCATEDWITHINFIVËHUNDREDHoRIZoNTALFEEToFABUILDINGINwHIcH APUBLICoRPRIVATESCHooLoPERATESAKINDERGARTENPRoGRAMoRANYoFGRADESoNE FEET OF A FENCED RECREATIONAL THROUGH TWELVE OR W]THIN FIVE HUNDRED HORZONTAL AREAADJACENTToAPUBLICoRPRIVATEsCHooLBUILDING.THISPARAGRAPHDoESNoT PROHIBITTHER-ENEWALoFAVAIIDLICENSEISSUEDPURSUANTToTHISCHAPTER. 4,ACoNTROLLINGPERsoNoFTHEPRoPOSBDMARITANAESTABLISHMENTHAS BEENCoNVICTEDoFAFELONYoRcoNVIcTEDoFANoFFENSEINANoTHERSTATETI{AT woULDBEAFELONYINTHISSTATEWITHINFIVEYEARSBEFoREAPPLICATIoN. 5.ISSUANCEoFTHELICENSEwoULDEXCEEDANUMERICALLIMITIMPoSEDBY SECTIoNk6.2S54,SUBSECTIoNB,oRENACTEDBYALocALiTYPURSUANTToSECTIoNS6-2856. D.IFTHENUMBBRoFAPPLICATIoNSTo0PERATEMARITANAESTABLISHMFNTS RECEIVEDBYTI-IBDEI,ARTMENTFRoMQUALIFIEDAPPLICANTSISGREATERTHANTHAT ALLOWEDLINDERTHELIMITSIMPOSEDBYSECTIoN36-2854'SUBSECTIoNB,oRENACTEDBYA l0 LOCALITY PURSUANT TO SECTION 36.2856, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL: I. SELECT THE APPLICATION OF A REORGANIZED MARIruANA BUSINESS THAT HAS PRIOR EXPERIENCE PRODUCING OR DISTRIBUTING MARIJUANA PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 28.I OF THIS TITLE IN THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO OPBRATB A MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENT AND THAT IS IN GOOD STANDING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 28.I OF THIS TITLE AND THE RULES ADOPTED PL'RSUANT TO CHAPTER 28.I OF THIS TITLE OVER ANY COMPETINC APPLICATION FROM AN APPLICANT WI{O IS NOT A REORGANIZED MARIruANA BUSINESS. 2. AWARD EACH LICENSE PURSUANT TO A COMPETITIVE PROCESS INTENDED TO SELECT APPLICANTS }VHO ARE BEST SUITED TO MBET THE DEMAND FOR MARIruANA AND MARTruANA PRODUCTS IN TTIIS STATE, OPERATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CHAPTERAND THE RULES A-DOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER AND MINIMIZB THE TTNLAWTUL MÀRKET FOR MARIruANA IN THIS STATE. 3. NOT GRANT A LICENSE FOR À MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENT TO A LICBNSEE WHO HAS ALREADY RECEWED A LICENSE TO OPERATE THE SAME TYPE OF MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENT IF DOING SO WOULD PREVENT ANOTHER QUALIFIED APPLICANT WHO HAS A?PLIED FROM RECEIVING A LICENSB, EXCEPT THAT THIS PÀRAGRAPH SHALL NOT PREVENT EACH INDIVIDUAL NONPROFIT MEDICAL MARIruANA DISPENSARY THAT IS REGISTERED PURSUANT TO CHÄPTER 28.I OF THIS TITLE FROM ESTABLISHING A RBORGANIZED MARIruANA BUSINESS TO OPERATB EACH TYPE OF MARIruANÀ ESTABLISHMENT. 4. SOLICIT AND CONSIDER INPUT FROM THE LOCALITY AS TO TTIE APPLICANTS' COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL ORDINANCES AND THE RBASONS FOR THE LOCALITY'S PREFERENCE OR PREFERENCES FOR LICENSIJRE, IF ANY. E. THE DENIAL OF A COMPLETE MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENT APPLICATION PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION IS CONSIDERED A FINAL DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT TO JI,JDICIAL REViEW PURSUANT TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 6. ruR]SDICTION AND VENUE FOR JUDICIAL REVIE1V ARE VESTED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT. 36-2858.01. Fee schedule A. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL REQUIRE EACH APPLICANT FOR A MARIruANA ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE TO PAY A ONE-TIME APPLICATION FEE OF B. $5,OOO. THE DEPARTMENT MAY REQUIRE PAYMENT OF AN ANNUAL LICENSING FEE OF NOT MORE THAN; FOR THE INITIAL ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE FOR A MARIruANA RETAILER..., FOR A RENEWAL LICENSE FOR A FOR THE MARIruANA ... $20,000 RETAILER.., .....,. $6,600 INITIAL ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE FOR A MARIruANA PRODUCT MANIJFACTURER $I5,OOO FOR A RENEWAL LICENSE FOR A MARIruANA PRODUCT MANUFACTURER.....................,.,....,.. $5,OOO FOR THE INIT]AL ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE FOR A MARIruANA DISTRI8UTOR........................,,. $15'OOO FOR A RENEWAL LICENSE FOR A MARIruANA FOR THE DISTRIBUTOR..........,....... ..,."...". INITIAL ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE FOR A MARIruANA TESTING FACILITY.............,.,. FOR A RENEWAL LICBNSE FOR A MARIruANA TESTING C. F4CILITY.............. $5,OOO $1O,OOO ....... $3,300 THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ESTABLISH A TIERBD SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL LICENSING FEES FOR MARIruANA CULTIVATORS WITH FEE AMOLINTS R-ELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF TTIE LICENSED CULTIVATION AREA. THE DEPARTMENT LICENSING FEB OF NOT MORE THAN MARIJUANA CULTIVATOR OR $3O,OOO $1O,OOO MAY REQUIRE PAYMENT OF AN ANNUAL FOR THE INITIAL ISSUANCB OF A LICENSE FOR A FOR A RENEWAL LICENSE FOR A MARIruANA CULTIVATOR. THE MAXIMUM FEE AMOUNT FOR THE LOWEST TIER SPECIFIED IN THE SCÍIEDULE MAY NOT BE MORE THAN ONE.QUARTER OF THE ANNUAL LICENSING FBE FOR THE HIGHEST TIBR SPECIFIED