March 8, 2016 at 8:31 AM Court is in session now for the hearing on the writ.
March 8, 2016 at 8:36 AM The lawyers for both Forrest Hurd and Nevada County having identified themselves, the pleadings are starting.
March 8, 2016 at 8:39 AM Attorney Heather Burke, representing Forrest Hurd makes the argument that a No vote is not clearly defined. Nevada County, in their opposition to the writ, states “A “yes” vote on Measure W creates a voter-approved codification of marijuana cultivation restrictions contained in that Measure. A “no” vote maintains the status quo.”
March 8, 2016 at 8:40 AM Burke states that significant harm, to any voter, deserves immediate hearing – according to the Elections Code. She states the ballot summary is inaccurate, even patently false.
March 8, 2016 at 8:42 AM The summary, according to Burke, needs to be impartial. We, the voters don’t know what a No vote means – that is the crux of the matter here.
YubaNet is powered by your subscription
March 8, 2016 at 8:46 AM Assistant County Counsel Amanda Uhrhammer, argues that the elections codes listed in the writ are irrelevant. She also argues that the impartial analysis is not misleading, “The impartial analysis also makes clear that in the event of a “no” vote, the urgency ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors on January 12, 2016 remains in effect, but notes the Board’s intention to rescind the outdoor ban on marijuana and consider other cultivation regulations. There is nothing ambiguous or confusing about this language.” The ballot measure upholds certain provisions of the existing ordinance, nothing more. Uhrhammer argues the constitutional challenge to Measure W should be heard after the election.
March 8, 2016 at 8:50 AM This is really a policy challenge, the end goal is to pull the measure of the ballot – in my opinion, Uhrhammer states.
March 8, 2016 at 8:52 AM There is no mystery here, the voters are asked to vote on marijuana cultivation restrictions. This was put forward by the BOS in an effort to let voters have their say, Urhammer concludes.
March 8, 2016 at 8:52 AM Co-Counsel Charnelle James, supporting Burke’s argument, says that information that is confusing is enough to keep a measure of the ballot.
March 8, 2016 at 8:54 AM Judge Heidelberger is taking the matter under submission and will issue a ruling later this morning.