Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marijuana Local Ballot Language topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bills to standardize local ballot language for marijuana businesses amid industry opposition
Summary
Two bills that would standardize ballot questions local governments use when asking voters to ban categories of marijuana businesses passed the committee after extended testimony from sponsors and opposition from the cannabis industry and trade groups.
The committee voted to advance two companion bills—HB 688 (marijuana cultivation and manufacturing) and HB 698 (adult‑use dispensaries)—that set specific ballot-question language local governing bodies would use if they decide to put a question before voters to prohibit particular marijuana business categories.
Sponsor Rep. Bill Mercer said the bills aim to remove confusion that arose when counties have offered voters different or convoluted phrasing. He said a concise, standardized question would make it clear to voters whether they were voting to "ban" or "retain" certain kinds of operations.
Opponents included leaders from the Montana Cannabis Guild and the Montana Cannabis Industry Association, who said the measures would remove existing petition‑driven processes and shift power to local governments. Pepper Peterson, CEO of the Montana Cannabis Guild, told the committee the bills would “undo the will of the people” by allowing county or municipal governments to put measures on the ballot that the current statute reserves to petitioners.
Industry witnesses also argued the proposed language could confuse voters by framing a ban as a positive question and that the bills risked repeated local referenda that would increase election costs.
Committee exchange and outcome Committee members pressed the sponsor on whether the bills were intended to re‑open voters’ past choices; Mercer said the bills addressed jurisdictions that now have marijuana businesses and want to give voters the chance to revisit those decisions. Several members asked about parallels with alcohol control; Mercer replied he was not aware of an identical structure for liquor licenses in statute and said the bills only clarify how a jurisdiction would present a ballot question.
Both HB 688 and HB 698 passed committee executive action and now head to the House floor; sponsors and opponents indicated they expect further debate there.
