LINCOLN — The courtroom buzzed with tension as attorneys wrapped up the final arguments in Nebraska’s high-profile civil trial concerning two medical cannabis ballot initiatives. The stakes are high, with Initiative Measure 437, aimed at legalizing medical cannabis, and Initiative Measure 438, intended to regulate the drug, still set to appear on Tuesday’s ballot. However, a final court ruling on the legality of these measures is not expected for at least two weeks, following the submission of post-trial briefs.
Diverging Perspectives on the Case
The arguments presented by both sides of the case could not have been more different. Proponents for the petition initiatives framed the situation as a few isolated mistakes, attributing discrepancies to “human error.” In contrast, opposing attorneys painted a picture of widespread and intentional misconduct surrounding the petition processes.
Steven Guenzel, representing John Kuehn—who spearheaded the lawsuit—suggested that while the advocates of medical marijuana were driven by passion, that zeal led to unethical practices. “That zeal gave way to, ‘The ends justify the means,’” he contended.
Deputy Solicitor General Zach Viglianco supported this view, claiming that the petition campaign exhibited “widespread, pervasive and serious, intentional wrongdoing.” The Attorney General’s office, alongside Kuehn, challenged over 80,000 signatures collected for the initiatives, citing instances of circulator fraud and notary misconduct as pervasive issues throughout the petitions.
The Legal Landscape
Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen had previously certified nearly 90,000 signatures across both initiatives, with a minimum of 86,499 deemed necessary for ballot inclusion. However, legal challenges have emerged, risking the initiatives’ future.
Guenzel characterized the trial not merely as a debate over the legitimacy of cannabis but as a critical examination of the integrity of the signature-gathering process. He argued that any missteps should not be dismissed as mere oversights but rather seen as part of a larger pattern of negligence.
Arguments of Fraud and Misconduct
Gutman, representing the ballot sponsors, dismissed claims of systematic fraud. He argued that while isolated incidents were documented, the claims of overarching misconduct were unfounded. The defense maintained that if the court accepted the prosecution’s stance, it could have dire implications for all notarized documents, including wills and property agreements.
The prosecution detailed numerous examples of questionable notarization practices, asserting that these instances created an “inescapable shadow of fraud” over the entirety of the petition efforts. Viglianco indicated that the sheer number of issues raised calls into question the authenticity of many signatures collected.
Key Testimonies and Evidence
Central to the trial were testimonies from paid petition circulators. Michael Egbert, one such circulator, admitted to falsifying signatures, asserting that he did so with the guidance of campaign leadership. This assertion was backed by Jennifer Henning, another circulator, who claimed that campaign manager Crista Eggers encouraged unethical practices, including signing off on petitions she did not circulate.
Viglianco emphasized the significance of these testimonies, labeling them as evidence of the “intentional wrongdoing” permeating the campaign.
On the other hand, Gutman criticized Henning’s credibility, highlighting her previous legal troubles and questioning her motivations for testifying against the campaign.
Notarization Controversies
Further complicating the case were discussions around the legalities of notarization. Viglianco highlighted instances where circulators notarized their own petitions or where notaries failed to follow proper procedures, such as lacking a circulator’s oath or incorrectly dating their signatures.
Despite this, Gutman maintained that the state was overreaching by attempting to invalidate entire campaigns based on a handful of errors. He suggested that human error is an inherent part of life and not a valid reason for disqualifying the initiatives.
The Road Ahead
Judge Susan Strong has ordered the opposing parties to submit their post-trial briefs by November 12, with responses due from the ballot sponsors by November 15. Depending on her ruling, the sponsors may have the opportunity to validate challenged signatures. Regardless of the outcome, it is anticipated that any decision will likely be appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, extending the legal drama surrounding medical cannabis in the state.
Nebraska’s constitutional officers are slated to meet on December 2 to certify the election results from Tuesday’s voting, leaving open the possibility for continued legal challenges beyond that date.
