Senate Local Government tables two House bills on marijuana ballot language after amendments, roll-call defeats

The Senate Local Government Committee on [date not specified in transcript] amended and then tabled two House bills that would revise ballot language relating to marijuana businesses.

Committee members added three amendments to each bill that, collectively, (1) require approval by a majority of the governing body of a county, consolidated city-county or incorporated municipality for certain petition outcomes; (2) clarify petition filing language to initiate votes on prohibiting or approving marijuana businesses; and (3) add a "after a public hearing" requirement to affected subsections, according to committee staff.

Madam Vice Chair (who moved concurrence and the amendments) led the amendment process; committee staff (identified in the transcript as Miss Kurzowski/Krasowski/Kozowski; spelling varies) explained the changes. Representative Mercer was identified in the hearing as the sponsor of House Bill 698.

After amendments were adopted by voice vote, the committee moved to concur on each amended bill. Senator Pope said she would "be voting against this bill" and expressed concern that singling out one industry could create imbalances in the business climate and "may be a way to start a slippery slope." Senator Trevis said the underlying approach was a compromise that allowed local opt-ins and opt-outs and suggested the measure might more properly apply statewide.

Both motions to concur failed on roll-call votes with a recorded tally of 2 yes and 8 no. After each failed concurrence motion, members moved to table the bills; both tabling motions carried (proxies assumed where noted) and the transcript records that HB 688 and HB 698 were tabled.

What changed: the amendments add a new subsection requiring local governing-body approval for certain petition outcomes; add language clarifying how petitions to prohibit or approve marijuana businesses are filed; and place provisions "after a public hearing." Exact statutory text and the bills' fiscal or implementation impacts were not specified in the transcript.

Next steps: Both bills were tabled by the committee and therefore will not advance from this meeting; the transcript records that the committee expects additional executive actions and more bills on upcoming agendas.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded roll-call tallies of 2 yes and 8 no on concurrence motions for both HB 688 and HB 698; tabling motions were carried by voice vote with proxies recorded in the transcript.

(Reporter note: the transcript uses varying spellings for the committee staff member who explained the amendments; the article uses the spelling that appears first in the transcript and flags the variation for clarity.)