Two new ordinances aim for the ballot

There are now five draft cannabis ordinances circulating in Plumas County. Three of the draft ordinances are following the ordinance process as outlined by the county. However, two groups of citizens are exercising their right to bring their ordinances directly to the people by a ballot measure.

Two petitions for signatures are now making their way across the county for two different ordinances. One ordinance is called the Medicinal and Adult Use of Cannabis Ordinance and the other is the Indoor Only Cannabis Ordinance. The authors of the ordinances have to get 711 signatures from Plumas County citizens who are registered to vote. The final goal is to get the ordinances onto a ballot for the people of the county to vote on.

Plumas County Clerk-Recorder Kathy Williams said in her entire tenure in her position, she has never seen public initiatives get this far through the process.

“The whole intention for this type of process is so any citizen can get their issue on a ballot,” she said.

According to the state elections code, any proposed ordinance can be submitted to the board of supervisors by filing an initiative petition with the county elections official. The circulator, or the person who filed the petition, must obtain at least 711 signatures, representing 10 percent of county voters who voted in the last gubernatorial election.

If the circulator receives the signatures in a maximum of 180 days, the county then validates them. If the signatures still add up to 711 after the validation process, then the ordinance goes to the Plumas County Board of Supervisors for consideration.

The supervisors have two choices at that point. They can either approve the ordinance as written, as they are barred from making any changes to it, or they can hold an election for the county citizens to vote on the ordinance.

The process of holding the election can be postponed if the board requests reports from county departments on the projected impact the ordinance would have on each department. That process would stall the decision for up to a month.

If the reports are verified, the board can then adopt the ordinance or call for the election. If the initiative is put up for election, there is a period of time for arguments for and against the measures. Those arguments can be prepared by anyone eligible to vote, but the elections office chooses which arguments will go on the ballot based on a selection criterion.

“The board of supervisors cannot say no to an election unless they approve the ordinance as is,” said Williams.

The two initiatives circulating are aiming to get on the November election ballot. If either one passes, it will supersede the current moratorium on cannabis. If the ordinance is voted on and passed it is considered valid and binding. If both the ordinances are voted on at the same time, the one with more votes will become the law.

The county cannot repeal or amend the voter approved ordinance without a vote from the people. Both ordinances propose a tax on cannabis cultivation, which would have to be voted on anyway.

In the meantime, the two new initiative ordinances have stalled progress on the three draft ordinances currently in the pipeline for the county planning commission to review. Planning Director Randy Wilson stated at the last commission meeting March 15 that he is currently seeking advice from county counsel on how to move forward considering the competing ordinance processes.

Persons interested in reading the two initiative ordinances can visit plumaspermaculture.com for the Medicinal and Recreational Use ordinance, and makeplumasgreatagain.com to read the Indoor Only ordinance.