Many, many marijuana felons can and should vote. With the big election right around the corner, it is imperative for current and ex-felons to exercise their right to vote when the law allows them – and, often, felons can vote. This way voters can choose leaders who will most effectively improve the legal, political and social contexts that led to their convictions. (Published in www.WestCoastLeaf.com)

In California, the Court of Appeals ruled in League of Women Voters of CA v. McPherson, 145 Cal. App 4th 1469 (2006), that felons can vote when they are in county jail or off parole. The Court relied on the CA Constitution Article II, Section IV: “The Legislature shall prohibit improper practices that affect elections and shall provide for the disqualification of electors while mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony,” and ruled that when a felon is in county jail, as opposed to state prison, the crime would be treated as a misdemeanor for purposes of voting rights. The League case arose via a writ of mandate, a request for a court to compel a governmental agency to perform its duty when three nonprofit groups and three felons in local jails brought suit to compel the State to accept voter registrations sent from jail.

Oregon’s voting laws are similar,

A little later this month, when the appropriations bill for the Justice Department comes up, the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, proposed by Democrat Maurice Hinchey of New York and Republican Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach, will be offered again. It would specify that no money could be used by the DEA to go after patients in states with medical marijuana laws.

It should be a no-brainer for conservatives who claim to believe in states-rights, but in years past (of course) it has gotten little Republican support. It has, however, gotten more votes each year it has been introduced. It hasn’t received as much publicity as in some previous years, but I would expect at least more votes for genuine compassion this year than last year.

Tell your U.S. Representative to support this amendment that, if adopted, will do two things:

(1) Conserve taxpayers' money by eliminating funding for DEA raids aimed at state-certified medical cannabis patients and caregivers.

(2) Protect legal medical cannabis patients from having their homes and workspaces raided by the DEA.

For phone numbers of your representatives go to: www.house.gov and type in your zip code, or call the congressional switchboard at: (202) 224-3121. You can also lobby from online via this portal:

http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=11280351&type=CO

Federal marijuana decrim bill filed in US Congress

Rep. Barney Frank announced bill on TV’s The Colbert Report

By Dale Gieringer California NORML Director
http://www.westcoastleaf.com/1-2/articles1-2.htm

West Coast Leaf special report -- Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) has introduced a pair of far-reaching cannabis reform bills, one to completely decriminalize personal use by adults and the other to permit states to legally regulate medical marijuana.

The first, HR 5843, would completely eliminate federal penalties for possession of up to 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of cannabis. It would also allow non-profit transfers of up to one ounce of cannabis between adults. Public use of cannabis would remain punishable by a $100 civil fine. The provisions are based on the recommendations of the 1972 Presidential Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, also known as the Shafer Commission. Frank took an opportunity on Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report to announce his bill.

CA High Court Stands By State law to return MMJ

Groundwork laid for ending San Diego attack on Prop 215

By Chris Conrad
http://www.westcoastleaf.com/1-2/articles1-2.htm

The California Supreme Court on March 19 certified the ruling in People v. Kha, an Appeals Court order that Garden Grove officials return a patient’s lawful cannabis despite the claim that federal law prohibited them from doing so. This makes the return of property decision binding precedent in state case law.

“California courts long ago recognized that State courts do not enforce the federal criminal statutes. ‘The State tribunals have no power to punish crimes against the laws of the United States. The same act may, in some instances, be an offense against the laws of both, and it is only as an offense against the State laws that it can be punished by the State, in any event.’ [People v. Kelly (1869)];