AR Supreme Court: medical marijuana on ballot, casinos not - KAIT Jonesboro, AR - Region 8 News, weather, sports

AR Supreme Court: medical marijuana on ballot, casinos not

(Source: KAIT) (Source: KAIT)

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - The Arkansas Supreme Court says voters can consider a medical marijuana proposal on the November ballot.
    
Justices on Thursday sided with supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment that would legalize marijuana for patients with certain medical conditions. The court rejected a lawsuit by opponents of the measure that sought to disqualify it from being considered in the Nov. 8 election. Justices said language to be presented to voters clearly states what the proposal would do.
    
The proposal is one of two medical marijuana proposals on the ballot. Justices are considering a separate challenge to a similar proposed initiated act.
    
Arkansas voters narrowly rejected legalizing medical marijuana four years ago. Advocates had cast the proposals as a way to prove there's support for medical marijuana even in conservative states.

(Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)


LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Arkansas Supreme Court strikes casino proposal from November ballot, says ballot title is misleading.

(Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)


LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Arkansas' Supreme Court says voters cannot consider whether to impose award limits in medical liability cases because the language to be placed on the ballot doesn't fully describe what the proposal would do.
    
A unanimous court Thursday directed that no votes be counted on the proposal, which would have allowed legislators to cap non-economic damages against health care providers for medical injuries at a minimum of $250,000.
    
Two lawsuits were filed against the proposal. Justices ruled in both of them Thursday.
    
Supporters of the proposal had argued that the limits were needed to control health care costs.
    
The measure had been placed on the ballot by petition. A special master appointed by the court raised questions about the signature-gathering process, but justices said the term "non-economic damages" was not clear.

(Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
 

Powered by Frankly