Hensley, et al. v. Attorney General, et al; Allen, et al. v. Attorney General, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-093-16)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12106 SJC-12117 JOSEPHINE HENSLEY & others[1] vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.[2] MATTHEW JOHN ALLEN & others[3] vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.[4] Suffolk. June 8, 2016. – July 6, 2016. Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, & Hines, JJ. Initiative. Constitutional Law, Initiative petition. Attorney General. Marijuana. Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on April 22, 2016. The case was reported by Duffly, J. Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on May 10, 2016. The case was reported by Spina, J. John S. Scheft for Josephine Hensley & others. Robert E. Toone, Assistant Attorney General, for the defendants. Thomas R. Kiley for Matthew John Allen & others. David G. Evans, of New Jersey, for Massachusetts Hospital Association & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. GANTS, C.J. We have before us two cases involving an initiative petition that, if approved by the voters in the November, 2016, election, would legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana and products that contain marijuana concentrate. The plaintiffs in the first case (Hensley case) claim that the Attorney General erred in certifying the petition for inclusion on the ballot under art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution because it contains subjects that are not related or mutually dependent. They also claim that the Attorney General’s summary of the measure is not fair. Finally, they contend that, if the question is to be included on the ballot, we should require the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) to amend the title and the one-sentence statements they prepared because they are clearly misleading, in violation of G. L. c. 54, § 53. The plaintiffs in the second case (Allen case) include eleven of the original fifteen signers of the initiative petition. They challenge only the title and the one-sentence “yes” statement prepared by the Attorney General and the Secretary, but on grounds different from those alleged by the Hensley plaintiffs. We conclude that the Attorney General did not err in certifying the petition for inclusion on the ballot under art. 48 because the petition contains only related subjects. We also conclude that her summary of it is fair. Finally, we conclude that it is clear that the […]