State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
| Citation | 948 N.W.2d 244,307 Neb. 142 |
| Docket Number | No. S-20-623.,S-20-623. |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska EX REL. Terry WAGNER, relator, v. Robert B. EVNEN, Secretary of State of the State of Nebraska, respondent, and Nebraskans for Sensible Marijuana Laws, also known as Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, et al., intervenors. |
| Decision Date | 10 September 2020 |
307 Neb. 142
948 N.W.2d 244
STATE of Nebraska EX REL. Terry WAGNER, relator,
v.
Robert B. EVNEN, Secretary of State of the State of Nebraska, respondent,
and
Nebraskans for Sensible Marijuana Laws, also known as Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana, et al., intervenors.
No. S-20-623.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Filed September 10, 2020
I. INTRODUCTION
The Nebraska Secretary of State certified a voter ballot initiative to create a constitutional right for persons with serious medical conditions to produce and medicinally use cannabis, subject to a recommendation by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner. A Nebraska resident challenged the decision, claiming the initiative violated the single subject rule under Neb. Const. art. III, § 2, and should be withheld from the November 2020 general election ballot. We reverse the Secretary of State's decision and issue a writ of mandamus directing him to withhold the initiative from the November 2020 general election ballot.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A voter ballot initiative petition to create a constitutional right for persons with serious medical conditions to produce and medicinally use cannabis, subject to a recommendation by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner, was filed with the Secretary of State, Robert B. Evnen, on February 5, 2019, to certify it for inclusion on the November 2020 general election ballot. Nebraskans for Sensible Marijuana Laws, a ballot question committee, as well as two state senators, Adam Morfeld and Anna Wishart, sponsored the petition. The objective of the petition was "to amend the Nebraska Constitution to provide the right to use, possess, access, and safely produce cannabis, and cannabis products and materials, for serious medical conditions as recommended by a physician or nurse practitioner."
To accomplish this objective, the sponsors proposed the "Nebraska Medical Cannabis Constitutional Amendment" (NMCCA), an addition of Neb. Const. art. XIX, § 1. If approved, the NMCCA would, in nine subsections, (1) establish a constitutional right for adults 18 years or older with serious health conditions "to use, possess, access, purchase, and safely and discreetly produce" medicinal cannabis as recommended by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner; (2) establish the same right for minors younger than 18 years of age, provided they obtain the consent of a parent or legal guardian; (3) provide that private entities "may grow, cultivate, process, possess, transport, sell, test, or transfer possession of cannabis, cannabis products, and cannabis-related equipment for sale or delivery to an individual authorized" under the first two subsections; (4) decriminalize the medicinal use of cannabis for persons who qualify under the first two subsections; (5) subject persons’ rights to use cannabis under the first two subsections to reasonable laws, rules, and regulations; (6) set forth certain limitations on the expansion of medicinal cannabis; (7) provide that employers are not required to allow employees to work while impaired by cannabis; (8) provide that insurance providers are not required to provide coverage for the use of cannabis; and (9) define cannabis.
Evnen transmitted the NMCCA to the Nebraska Attorney General, Douglas J. Peterson, to prepare a statement explaining the NMCCA and the effect of a vote for or against it. Peterson then provided the NMCCA's sponsors with a proposed ballot title and explanatory statement. According to Peterson, the NMCCA, if included on the November 2020 general election ballot, should be presented to voters by the following text:
[EXPLANATORY STATEMENT]
A vote "FOR" will amend the Nebraska Constitution to: (1) Provide individuals the right to use, possess, access, purchase, and produce cannabis, cannabis products, and cannabis-related
equipment for serious medical conditions if recommended by a licensed physician
or nurse practitioner, subject to certain exceptions and reasonable laws, rules, and regulations; and (2) Allow private entities and their agents operating in Nebraska to grow, cultivate, process, possess, transport, sell, test, or transfer possession of cannabis, cannabis products, or cannabis-related equipment for sale or delivery to authorized individual users, subject to reasonable laws, rules, and regulations, including licensing.
A vote "AGAINST" will not cause the Nebraska Constitution to be amended in such a manner. [ (Emphasis in original.) ]
[BALLOT TITLE]
Shall the Nebraska Constitution be amended to: (1) Provide individuals the right to use, possess, access, purchase, and produce cannabis, cannabis products, and cannabis-related equipment for serious medical conditions if recommended by a licensed physician or nurse practitioner, subject to certain exceptions and reasonable laws, rules, and regulations; and (2) Allow private entities and their agents operating in Nebraska to grow, cultivate, process, possess, transport, sell, test, or transfer possession of cannabis, cannabis products, or cannabis-related equipment for sale or delivery to authorized individual users, subject to reasonable laws, rules, and regulations, including licensing?
Peterson also transmitted a copy of his proposed explanatory statement and ballot title to Evnen to determine whether to certify the NMCCA for inclusion on the November 2020 general election ballot.
On August 26, 2020, Terry Wagner, a Nebraska resident, filed an objection with Evnen, claiming the NMCCA was legally insufficient. The NMCCA's sponsors filed letters disputing Wagner's claim. Both parties also submitted additional briefing to Evnen in the form of emails.
On August 27, 2020, Evnen issued a written determination that the NMCCA was legally sufficient. He found that the
NMCCA had only one general subject—"to legalize the use of cannabis in this state for persons with serious medical conditions"—and that any other purposes were naturally and necessarily connected to that primary purpose. Accordingly, Evnen wrote that the NMCCA did not violate the single subject rule under Neb. Const. art. III, § 2, and that he would "not withhold it from the ballot unless otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction."
On August 28, 2020, Wagner filed with this court an application for leave to commence an original action. According to Wagner, this court's review of Evnen's decision was necessary because only 14 days remained until the deadline set by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 32-801 (Reissue 2016) for Evnen to certify the issues appearing on the November 2020 general election ballot.
We granted Wagner leave to commence an original action. Based on Wagner's verified petition for writ of mandamus, we issued an alternative writ of mandamus directing Evnen to show cause why the NMCCA should not be withheld from the November 2020 general election ballot. The NMCCA's sponsors intervened and essentially aligned their arguments with Evnen's decision in defense of the NMCCA's legal sufficiency under the single subject rule.
We note at the outset that the parties do not dispute that the NMCCA petition garnered sufficient signatures and complied with all procedural requirements, except the single subject rule. We therefore presume such other requirements were met
and would not prevent placement of the NMCCA on the general election ballot.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Wagner (1) contends that Evnen erred in failing to find the NMCCA legally insufficient for violating the single subject rule under Neb. Const. art. III, § 2, and (2) prays that this court enter a declaratory judgment finding the NMCCA legally insufficient and issue a writ of mandamus directing Evnen to withhold it from the November 2020 general election ballot.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Questions of justiciability and of constitutional interpretation that do not involve factual dispute are questions of law.1 An appellate court reviews questions of law de novo, drawing independent conclusions irrespective of any decision made below.2
Mandamus is a law action and represents an extraordinary remedy, not a writ of right.3 Whether to grant a writ of mandamus is within a court's discretion.4
V. ANALYSIS
1. JUSTICIABILITY
Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, courts must determine whether the issues presented are justiciable.5 Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine that courts consider in determining whether they may properly decide a controversy.6 The fundamental principle of ripeness is that courts should avoid entangling themselves, through premature adjudication, in abstract disagreements based on contingent future events that may not occur at all or may not occur as anticipated.7
A challenge to a voter ballot initiative based on substantive provisions of law is not ripe before an election because "[a]n opinion on the substantive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Equestrian Ridge Homeowners Ass'n v. Equestrian Ridge Estates II Homeowners Ass'n
...610 (1994).71 See id.72 See id.73 See TNT Cattle Co. v. Fife , 304 Neb. 890, 937 N.W.2d 811 (2020).74 See State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen , 307 Neb. 142, 948 N.W.2d 244 (2020). See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,150 (Reissue 2016).75 See Johnson v. Nelson , 290 Neb. 703, 861 N.W.2d 705...
-
Great Plains Livestock Consulting, Inc. v. Midwest Ins. Exch.
...for appellee UNICO at 10. [7] Id. at 13. [8] Davis v. Moats, 308 Neb. 757, 956 N.W.2d 682 (2021). [9] See State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 142, 948 N.W.2d 244 (2020). [10] Shepard v. Houston, 289 Neb. 399, 855 N.W.2d 559 (2014). [11] See Stewart v. Heineman, 296 Neb. 262, 892 N.W.2d ......
-
Great Plains Livestock Consulting, Inc. v. Midwest Ins. Exch., Inc., S-21-722.
...Brief for appellee UNICO at 10.7 Id. at 13.8 Davis v. Moats , 308 Neb. 757, 956 N.W.2d 682 (2021).9 See State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen , 307 Neb. 142, 948 N.W.2d 244 (2020).10 Shepard v. Houston , 289 Neb. 399, 855 N.W.2d 559 (2014).11 See Stewart v. Heineman , 296 Neb. 262, 892 N.W.2d 542 (......
-
S. Sioux City v. Big OX Energy-Siouxland, LLC
...yet ripe by conventional remedy or, for other reasons, is not conveniently amenable to usual remedies.” State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen, 948 N.W.2d 244, 259 (Neb. 2020). “An action for a declaratory judgment cannot be used to decide the legal effect of a state of facts which are future, conti......
-
TAKING THE INITIATIVE: MARIJUANA LAW REFORM AND DIRECT DEMOCRACY.
...amendment). (63.) See Tupper, supra note 59. (64.) See Epstein & Corasaniti, supra note 54. (65.) State ex rel. Wagner v. Evnen, 948 N.W.2d 244 (Neb. (66.) Thom v. Barnett, 967 N.W.2d 261 (S.D. 2021). (67.) In re Initiative Measure No. 65: Butler v. Watson, NO. 2020-IA-01199-SCT, 2021 W......