Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bills to change how local governments put marijuana bans on ballots draw industry opposition
Summary
House Bills 698 and 688 would clarify how a county or municipality can present a ballot question to prohibit categories of recreational marijuana businesses; sponsor says the bills clarify long-standing statutory intent, while cannabis industry groups and businesses say the bills impose a double standard that reduces citizen initiative power and risks litigation and business harm. No committee votes were taken.
Representative Bill Mercer (House District 52, Billings) presented House Bill 698, which he said clarifies ballot language and process for counties or municipalities that seek to prohibit recreational marijuana dispensaries previously allowed within their jurisdiction. He told the Senate Local Government Committee the measure is rooted in language from House Bill 701 (2001) and Initiative Measure 190 and is intended to clear up a confusing local implementation in Yellowstone County.
Mercer said the bills are not intended to strip voters of power but to “tee up very clearly for the voters” what they are deciding. “When we said in 07/2001 that we were going to allow municipalities and counties to give the voters a chance to change from being green, anyone who is in this business was on full notice,” he said.
Opponents from the cannabis industry and affected businesses strongly disagreed. Pepper Peterson, CEO of the Montana Cannabis Guild, said the bill changes existing petition law and warned it would remove the threshold citizens must meet to place a prohibition on the ballot. “What this bill actually does is it takes the power away from the people,” Peterson told the committee, arguing the change would invite litigation and allow elected officials to bypass citizen initiatives.
Kate Holeva of the Montana Cannabis Industry Association said the bills create a double standard: it would be easier for local governments to place measures that flip a community from “green to red” than it is for citizens to place measures to flip a community from “red to green.” Several business owners and industry representatives echoed that concern, arguing the bills would lower the bar for removing authorized businesses, increase regulatory uncertainty and impose asymmetrical burdens on operators who invested under the existing rules.
Senators asked about constitutional and takings implications, the legal basis in Title 16, and whether the HB 701 language was prescriptive. Mercer said he believes regulatory‑takings law would not prohibit a local decision by voters and noted that his aim was to provide clearer language; he said he would provide the committee with the precise 2001 language and research on timing and frequency limits for successive initiatives.
Opponents urged the committee to preserve citizen petition power rather than substitute a local‑government referral pathway. Representative Mercer closed by saying the bills simply clarify an existing local authority and asked for favorable consideration; the committee closed both hearings without recording any votes during the session.
