![]() In this case, both measures were defeated. The measure that receives the most yes votes supersedes the other measure. ![]() When competing measures are placed on a ballot, only one measure can be approved. The differences between the competing measures can be viewed here. ![]() The competing measures differed in several parameters, including the business tax rate, cultivation revenue allowances, hiring plan, zoning parameters, and level of city authority to implement or amend the measures. Measure I was competing with a city council ordinance on the subject of marijuana businesses, Measure C. The initiative was also designed to impose a tax on marijuana businesses of up to 5 percent of gross receipts and $10 per square foot of canopy on marijuana in indoor facilities.Ī no vote was a vote against allowing marijuana businesses to operate in Compton's limited commercial and commercial manufacturing zones with a tax on such businesses of up to 5 percent of gross receipts and $10 per square foot of canopy on marijuana in indoor facilities. It was defeated.Ī yes vote was a vote in favor of allowing marijuana businesses to operate in Compton's limited commercial and commercial manufacturing zones. ![]() Los Angeles County, California ballot measuresĪ voter initiative on marijuana businesses was on the ballot for Compton voters in Los Angeles County, California, on January 23, 2018. Many community college and school districts across the state have chosen to preemptively make the switch in order to avoid predicaments like that of Palmdale.Measure I: Compton Voter Initiative on Marijuana Businesses Palmdale joins the ranks of Modesto, Compton, Anaheim, Escondido and Whittier, which have all faced similar legal challenges.Ĭalifornia’s counties-as well as many of its biggest cities-already elect representatives by district. ““This ruling is not only highly unusual, it strikes at the heart of our republic, directly thwarting the will of the people.”Įlection lawsuits have been spreading across the state. “The City of Palmdale stands firm in our efforts to protect the Constitutional rights of its residents to have their voice heard through the voting process,” stated Palmdale City Attorney Matthew Ditzhazy. “We have received calls and emails from residents, candidates and even the media wondering just what elections have been cancelled by the judge’s decision in the California Voting Rights Case,” said Palmdale Communications Manager John Mlynar in an official press release on Tuesday. In his ruling, Mooney stated that the three Palmdale residents who filed suit “as well as the general public, would be irreparably harmed” if city officials go through with their plans to hold an election less than five weeks from now. The lawsuit stems from an alleged violation of the California Voting Rights Act on the grounds that Palmdale’s at-large voting system prevents minorities from fair representation. Mooney had canceled its election on November 5 of this year. On Monday, the City of Palmdale was informed that Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark V.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |