Joint Committee Committee on Legislative Council (09/05/2012)

Final
STAFF SUMMARY OF MEETING

COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

Date:	09/05/2012	ATTENDANCE

Time:	09:03 AM to 11:46 AM	Boyd	X
		Cadman	X
Place:	HCR 0112	Court	X
		Duran	E
This Meeting was called to order by		Ferrandino	X
	Representative McNulty	Grantham	X
		Hodge	*
This Report was prepared by		Kerr J.	X
	Dave DeNovellis	Morse	X
		Nicholson	X
		Nikkel	E
		Priola	*
		Renfroe	*
		Scheffel	X
		Stephens	E
		Todd	*
		Shaffer B.	X
		McNulty	X
		X = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent, * = Present after roll call

Bills Addressed:		Action Taken:
Amendment S Amendment 64 Initiative 82 Amendment 64 - Continued		Witness Testimony and/or Committee Discussion Only Amended, Amended, -

09:03 AM -- Introductory Remarks

Mike Mauer, director of the Legislative Council Staff, gave the committee some introductory remarks regarding the 2012 Colorado Blue Book. Copies of the meeting materials are posted online at the Legislative Council website. He gave an overview of the blue book process and noted that it takes 12 votes, two-thirds of the committee membership, to make any changes to the analysis. Mr. Mauer made special mention that Initiative 46, Application of the Term Person, that was included in the committee members' packets, would not be heard at the meeting because it was not certified by the Secretary of State. He responded to a question from Senator Boyd and said that should Initiative 46 be certified if the signatures were cured, Legislative Council Staff would move as quickly as possible to get the analysis into the Blue Book that would be mailed out or would mail out a supplemental section if that was not possible.

09:06 AM -- Amendment S

Kerry White, Legislative Council Staff, presented the blue book analysis for Amendment S, State Personnel System. She gave the committee an overview of each section of the analysis, including a summary and analysis of the proposed amendment, and arguments for and against the amendment. Ms. White responded to questions from Representative Ferrandino and stated that there was no formal opposition to the proposed amendment. Representative Court asked how Legislative Council Staff formulates the interested persons list and Ms. White said that interested parties can ask to be included on the list. She said that staff also uses prior witness sheets if the issue was heard in a previous committee, and contacts groups or people that have voiced an interest in the issue in the past.

09:12 AM -- Amendment 64

Hillary Smith, Legislative Council Staff, presented the blue book analysis for Amendment 64, Use and Regulation of Marijuana. She gave the committee an overview of each section of the analysis, including a summary and analysis of the proposed amendment, and arguments for and against the amendment. Representative Court asked whether the proponents of the amendment brought a companion proposal for the excise tax that would have to go to voters and Ms. Smith responded that one of the proponents might be better able to provide background on that question. Ms. Smith responded to questions from Speaker McNulty and said that the team used a variety of studies regarding the claim that marijuana may be less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. She stated that the data is inconclusive on either side, so the writing team used "may" rather than "is." Senator Nicholson inquired about the methods of the studies that the writing team used. Ms. Smith said that she was unsure about the exact methods of each study but would provide the studies to Senator Nicholson.

09:20 AM -- Thomas J. Gorman, representing Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, testified as an opponent to the amendment. He stated that the argument on page 5, lines 26-27 of the analysis is incorrect and that there is no evidence that an underground marijuana market has grown in the last decade. Mr. Gorman said that 90 percent of Colorado's population does not use marijuana and that 51 percent of Colorado high school seniors do not use marijuana for fear of being arrested. He stated that these numbers show that Colorado's current drug policy is effective. Mr. Gorman said that it is important for voters to know what Amendment 64 would permit, and that if it passes, Colorado would have the most liberal marijuana laws in the world. He stated that many studies show that the impact of the availability of and the attitude toward marijuana has a significant impact on children and that recent studies show that marijuana use lowers IQ in children, while there are no conclusive studies that show marijuana is safer than alcohol or tobacco. Mr. Gorman responded to questions from the committee and said that he feels uncomfortable labeling marijuana as a "gateway drug" because alcohol and tobacco might also be considered "gateway drugs." Representative Kerr stated that there is a difference because alcohol and tobacco are legal.

09:28 AM -- Brian Vicente, author of Amendment 64, testified in support of the amendment. He said that he wanted to make three points to the committee. First, he stated that the amendment states clearly that public consumption will remain illegal. Second, Mr. Vicente said that the amendment will not change employment policies, and that nothing in the amendment would require an employer to permit marijuana use by his or her employees. He stated that this is misinformation from the opponents of the measure and that the committee and voters should refer to how Colorado courts have treated medical marijuana cases and to the fact that Colorado is an at-will employment state. Mr. Vicente suggested that language from the amendment concerning employment be added to the "arguments for" section. Third, Mr. Vicente said that he is opposed to the inclusion of tobacco in the analysis. He stated that the campaign does not compare marijuana to tobacco and the only comparison should be to alcohol. Mr. Vicente said that he felt that it would be unfathomable that the legislature would not propose the excise tax stated in the measure and that the language in the fiscal impact section should include an estimate of what revenue the excise tax would bring.

Mr. Vicente responded to questions from the committee and stated that his group did not create an excise tax proposal as a companion to the amendment because it would have been cost-prohibitive to get two initiatives on the 2012 ballot. He stated that he proposed a constitutional amendment because the public wants to know that there is a strict regulatory structure in place and that there is stronger protection for the issue if it is in the constitution. He gave an example of a medical marijuana law that was passed by voters in Montana that was overturned by the Montana legislature two years later.

09:41 AM -- Michael Dougherty, representing the Colorado Attorney General's Office, testified on the amendment. He stated that it is important for voters to know how much litigation this amendment will generate. Mr. Dougherty stated that the amendment would only give the Department of Revenue until the summer of 2013 to set up a regulatory structure or the authority to regulate marijuana would transfer to local governments. He stated that this is an unrealistic timeframe that would cause numerous problems and confusion. Mr. Dougherty stated that it should be clear that employers will have the right to base provisions of employment of marijuana use. Regarding the excise tax required in the amendment, Mr. Dougherty said that is unclear if a constitutional amendment can require the General Assembly to vote on an excise tax. He stated that voters should know that the legislature must pass an excise tax that would then have to pass a statewide vote before the proponents can promise $40 million in revenue that would go to public schools. Mr. Dougherty said that voters should know that the amendment proposes strict guidelines for the use of marijuana but does not spell out how marijuana retailers would be regulated.

09:47 AM -- Gina Fenton, representing Vote No on 64, testified as an opponent to the amendment. She stated that it is misleading to say that revenue is going to be generated by the amendment. Ms. Fenton said that increased use of marijuana will lead to an increase in auto fatalities and drug addiction treatment, and that the fiscal analysis of the amendment does not mention these increased costs in relation to revenue. She also stated that there is no factual basis to the statement that an underground drug market has grown in Colorado. Ms. Fenton responded to questions from Representative Todd and said that she would like to submit her suggestions for rewording the language to the committee. Representative Todd asked Ms. Fenton about her thoughts on the effects of marijuana on adolescents. Ms Fenton stated that the availability of and the attitude toward marijuana is the number one problem for kids today and that in today's high schools, kids go out to lunch and then they buy marijuana at dispensaries. Speaker McNulty suggested that Ms. Fenton and Representative Todd confer and discuss possible language changes to the ballot analysis.

09:55 AM -- Heather Jordan, representing Vote No on 64, testified as an opponent to the amendment. She said that, as a parent of elementary and high school students, she sees the availability and use of marijuana by children as a raging concern in the community. Ms. Jordan stated that there is no evidence of the growth of an underground marijuana market and that 91 percent of children 12 years of age and older do not use drugs, according to the Office of Drug Control Policy.

09:57 AM -- Henny Lasley, representing Vote No on 64, testified as an opponent to the measure. She said that she is concerned about the argument for on page 6, lines 6-7. Ms. Lasley said there is no basis or fact to back up the argument that the amendment will add tax revenue and job opportunities. She stated that the best way to estimate revenue and cost is to examine alcohol and tobacco. Ms. Lasley said that the costs associated with alcohol and tobacco far outweigh the revenue those products bring in.

09:59 AM -- Phil Corn, representing Vote No on 64, testified as an opponent of the amendment. He said that he objects to the language saying that the amendment will add revenue. Mr. Corn stated that the amendment could be challenged with federal preemption, so "will" should be replaced with "could." He said that the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that medical marijuana is not a constitutional right and the United States Supreme Court ruled that states may not pursue policies undermining federal law. Mr. Corn said that, should the amendment become law, the additional revenues would be far below the additional costs.

10:03 AM -- Jo McGuire, representing Vote No on 64, testified as an opponent to the amendment. She stated that she objects to the argument that state policies have failed and have contributed to the growth of an underground drug market because there is no evidence that an underground drug market is thriving. Ms. McGuire said that this amendment is dangerous because increased availability of and permissive attitudes toward marijuana increases marijuana use in children. She said that marijuana use by children leads to the early onset of mental health issues. Ms. McGuire stated that Colorado needs to show adolescents that we do not tolerate marijuana use.

10:05 AM -- Roger Sherman, representing Vote No on 64, testified as an opponent of the amendment. He said that he objects to page 5, lines 26-27 regarding current state drug policy and requested that the sentence be removed due to inaccuracy. Mr. Sherman also said the sentence on page 6, lines 6-7 regarding increased revenue and jobs should be removed or that a sentence should be added arguing that the costs to the state may exceed the revenue. He also stated that the word "will" is misleading because many steps must occur before revenue would appear.

10:08 AM

Ms. Fenton returned to the table and discussed possible changes to the ballot analysis language. Representative Todd said that she feels "ongoing brain development" needs to be added somewhere regarding the effect of marijuana on children.

10:11 AM

Mr. Vicente returned to the table and responded to questions from Senator Morse. He said that the proponents went into great detail with the Attorney General's Office, legislators, and the Secretary of State to ensure that the language of the amendment was constitutional and the intent was to give the issue of marijuana regulation the greatest protection, not to undermine the power of the General Assembly. Representative Court said there is a clear distinction that the Secretary of State cannot dictate what citizen initiatives put into the state constitution, only what is in the ballot title.

10:15 AM

Mr. Dougherty returned to the table and responded to questions from the committee. He stated that he was not part of any discussion that the proponents of the amendment may have had regarding language in the amendment itself. Mr. Dougherty said that he was skeptical that voters could mandate that legislators vote a certain way.

10:22 AM

Mr. Vicente returned to the table and responded to questions from the committee. He said that testimony from the opponents was misleading and that the amendment makes it clear that marijuana laws for people under 21 years of age would not be changed at all. Mr. Vicente stated that data backs up the claim that taking marijuana off of street corners and into regulated storefronts actually decreases marijuana consumption by children. He said that he would provide Senator Cadman with the studies that support this statement.

10:25 AM

Speaker McNulty laid over further discussion on Amendment 64 until after the Initiative 82 discussion.

10:25 AM -- Initiative 82

Bill Zepernick, Legislative Council Staff, presented the blue book analysis for Initiative 82, Colorado Congressional Delegation to Support Campaign Finance Limits. He gave the committee an overview of each section of the analysis, including a summary and analysis of the proposed amendment, and arguments for and against the amendment. The committee discussed reversing the order of the arguments against, and also discussed using some of the language from the Initiative 82 arguments against in the Amendment 64 arguments.


BILL:	Initiative 82
TIME:	10:29:55 AM
MOVED:	Boyd
MOTION:	Move to amend page 2 and reverse the order of the two arguments against. The motion passed on a vote of 13-0, with 5 excused.
SECONDED:	Court
		VOTE
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Court	Yes
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino	Yes
	Grantham	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr J.	Yes
	Morse	Yes
	Nicholson	Yes
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola	Yes
	Renfroe	Excused
	Scheffel	Yes
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd	Excused
	Shaffer B.	Yes
	McNulty	Yes

YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 5 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

10:32 AM -- Amendment 64 (Cont.)

The committee resumed its discussion about the Amendment 64 ballot analysis. Staff handed out information from the proponents and opponents regarding the amendment (Attachments A and B, respectively). The committee discussed adding language to the analysis regarding taxes that noted the amendment's excise tax requirement and the constitutionality of requiring members of the legislature to vote a certain way.


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	10:34:16 AM
MOVED:	Morse
MOTION:	Move to amend page 4, line 20, after "Taxes." add "This initiative requires that the General Assembly enact an excise tax. It may be a violation of the Colorado and the United States Constitutions to require elected legislators to cast a particular vote. As a result, there may be litigation concerning this point that ultimately results in no excise tax being imposed as outlined in this measure.". The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:	Cadman
		VOTE
	Boyd
	Cadman
	Court
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino
	Grantham
	Hodge
	Kerr J.
	Morse
	Nicholson
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola
	Renfroe
	Scheffel
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd
	Shaffer B.
	McNulty

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: WITHDRAWN

10:44 AM

The committee discussed whether to add language used in the arguments against Initiative 82 into the arguments against Amendment 64. The committee invited suggestions from Ms. Smith as to where the proposed language might best fit.


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	10:44:22 AM
MOVED:	Court
MOTION:	Move to add the sentence "A state ballot measure cannot require elected representatives in the state legislature to support or vote for certain policies." and have that be the first argument in the "Arguments Against" section in Amendment 64. The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:	Hodge
		VOTE
	Boyd
	Cadman
	Court
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino
	Grantham
	Hodge
	Kerr J.
	Morse
	Nicholson
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola
	Renfroe
	Scheffel
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd
	Shaffer B.
	McNulty

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: WITHDRAWN


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	10:45:00 AM
MOVED:	Court
MOTION:	Move to add the sentence "A state ballot measure cannot require elected representatives in the state legislature to support or vote for certain laws or policies." and have that be the second argument in the "Arguments Against" section in Amendment 64. The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:	Hodge
		VOTE
	Boyd
	Cadman
	Court
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino
	Grantham
	Hodge
	Kerr J.
	Morse
	Nicholson
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola
	Renfroe
	Scheffel
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd
	Shaffer B.
	McNulty

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: WITHDRAWN

10:48 AM

The committee discussed the argument that current state policy has lead to the growth of an underground drug market. Senator Scheffel said that the argument contains nebulous terms and lacks specificity. Representative Ferrandino stated that while there was anecdotal testimony about this statement, there were no facts that showed the statement was not true. The committee discussed whether to change the language, strike the language, or split the language into different arguments.


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	10:53:51 AM
MOVED:	Ferrandino
MOTION:	Move to amend page 5, line 27, strike "the growth of". The motion died due to lack of a second.
SECONDED:
		VOTE
	Boyd
	Cadman
	Court
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino
	Grantham
	Hodge
	Kerr J.
	Morse
	Nicholson
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola
	Renfroe
	Scheffel
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd
	Shaffer B.
	McNulty

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: WITHDRAWN


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	10:54:37 AM
MOVED:	Scheffel
MOTION:	Move to strike all of the first Argument For, page 5, lines 26-35, and replace it with "By creating a framework for marijuana to be legal, taxed, and regulated under state law, Amendment 64 provides a new direction for the state." The motion failed on a vote of 9-5 with 4 excused.
SECONDED:	Cadman
		VOTE
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Court	No
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino	No
	Grantham	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr J.	Yes
	Morse	No
	Nicholson	No
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola	Yes
	Renfroe	Excused
	Scheffel	Yes
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd	No
	Shaffer B.	Yes
	McNulty	Yes

YES: 9 NO: 5 EXC: 4 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	10:56:16 AM
MOVED:	Court
MOTION:	Move to amend page 5, strike line 26. Amend page 5, line 27, strike "availability and have contributed to the growth of an underground market." Amend page 5, line 29, strike ", more logical". The motion died for lack of a second.
SECONDED:	Scheffel
		VOTE
	Boyd
	Cadman
	Court
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino
	Grantham
	Hodge
	Kerr J.
	Morse
	Nicholson
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola
	Renfroe
	Scheffel
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd
	Shaffer B.
	McNulty

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	11:02:51 AM
MOVED:	Scheffel
MOTION:	Move to amend the first argument for to read as follows: "Current state policies that criminalize marijuana fail to prevent its use and availability and have contributed to an underground market. By creating a framework for marijuana to be legal, taxed, and regulated under state law, Amendment 64 provides a new direction for the state." The motion passed on a vote of 14-0 with 4 excused.
SECONDED:	Morse
		VOTE
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Court	Yes
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino	Yes
	Grantham	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr J.	Yes
	Morse	Yes
	Nicholson	Yes
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola	Yes
	Renfroe	Excused
	Scheffel	Yes
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd	Yes
	Shaffer B.	Yes
	McNulty	Yes

YES: 14 NO: 0 EXC: 4 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

11:05 AM

Representative Todd proposed adding language about adolescent brain development to the arguments against section of the analysis. The committee discussed where this language should be added and invited suggestion from Ms. Smith.


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	11:05:30 AM
MOVED:	Todd
MOTION:	Move to amend page 6, line 30, strike "Greater" and replace with "Due to ongoing brain development of children and young adults, greater". The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:	Priola
		VOTE
	Boyd
	Cadman
	Court
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino
	Grantham
	Hodge
	Kerr J.
	Morse
	Nicholson
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola
	Renfroe
	Scheffel
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd
	Shaffer B.
	McNulty

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: WITHDRAWN


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	11:08:08 AM
MOVED:	Todd
MOTION:	Move to amend page 6, line 31, strike "drug" and insert "drug, which, due to their ongoing brain development, may be especially dangerous.". The motion passed on a vote of 13-0 with 5 excused.
SECONDED:	Priola
		VOTE
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Court	Yes
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino	Yes
	Grantham	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr J.	Yes
	Morse	Yes
	Nicholson	Yes
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola	Yes
	Renfroe	Excused
	Scheffel	Yes
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd	Yes
	Shaffer B.	Excused
	McNulty	Yes

YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 5 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

11:09 AM

The committee recessed.

11:28 AM

Speaker McNulty called the committee back to order. The committee discussed whether to add language to the analysis stating that ballot measures cannot direct votes cast by legislators.


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	11:29:41 AM
MOVED:	Court
MOTION:	Move to amend page 6, line 34, add "A ballot measure cannot direct any vote cast by a legislator." before "Amendment 64". The motion passed on a vote of 13-0 with 5 excused.
SECONDED:	Cadman
		VOTE
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Court	Yes
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino	Excused
	Grantham	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr J.	Yes
	Morse	Yes
	Nicholson	Yes
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola	Yes
	Renfroe	Yes
	Scheffel	Yes
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd	Yes
	Shaffer B.	Excused
	McNulty	Yes

YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 5 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	11:30:48 AM
MOVED:	Court
MOTION:	Move to amend page 6, line 6, strike "will" and replace with "may", strike "needed". The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:	Kerr J.
		VOTE
	Boyd
	Cadman
	Court
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino
	Grantham
	Hodge
	Kerr J.
	Morse
	Nicholson
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola
	Renfroe
	Scheffel
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd
	Shaffer B.
	McNulty

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: WITHDRAWN

11:33 AM

The committee discussed whether they should amend the language about tax revenue and whether it is referring to the discussed excise tax or to sales taxes.


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	11:33:28 AM
MOVED:	Court
MOTION:	Move to amend page 6, line 6, strike "needed" and substitute with "sales". Line 7, after "and" insert "may add". The motion passed on a vote of 12-1 with 5 excused.
SECONDED:	Cadman
		VOTE
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Court	Yes
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino	No
	Grantham	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr J.	Yes
	Morse	Yes
	Nicholson	Yes
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola	Excused
	Renfroe	Yes
	Scheffel	Yes
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd	Yes
	Shaffer B.	Excused
	McNulty	Yes

YES: 12 NO: 1 EXC: 5 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

11:35 AM

The committee discussed adding language proposed by Senator Morse regarding the constitutionality of a ballot measure requiring a legislator to vote a certain way.


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	11:35:58 AM
MOVED:	Morse
MOTION:	Move to amend page 4, line 20, after "Taxes." insert "This initiative requires that the General Assembly enact an excise tax. The current Colorado Constitution forbids a member of the General Assembly to be bound to vote for or against any bill or measure pending or proposed to the General Assembly. Because of this inherent conflict, the excise tax outlined in the measure may not be imposed. Additionally, the issue may result in significant litigation.". The motion was withdrawn.
SECONDED:	Scheffel
		VOTE
	Boyd
	Cadman
	Court
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino
	Grantham
	Hodge
	Kerr J.
	Morse
	Nicholson
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola
	Renfroe
	Scheffel
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd
	Shaffer B.
	McNulty

YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 3 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: WITHDRAWN


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	11:37:00 AM
MOVED:	Morse
MOTION:	Move to amend page 4, line 20, after "Taxes." insert "This initiative requires that the General Assembly enact an excise tax. The current Colorado Constitution forbids a member of the General Assembly to be bound to vote for or against any bill or measure pending or proposed to the General Assembly. Because of this inherent conflict, the excise tax outlined in the measure might not be imposed. Additionally, the issue may result in significant litigation.". The motion passed on a vote of 13-0 with 5 excused.
SECONDED:	Scheffel
		VOTE
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	Yes
	Court	Yes
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino	Yes
	Grantham	Yes
	Hodge	Yes
	Kerr J.	Yes
	Morse	Yes
	Nicholson	Yes
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola	Excused
	Renfroe	Yes
	Scheffel	Yes
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd	Yes
	Shaffer B.	Excused
	McNulty	Yes

YES: 13 NO: 0 EXC: 5 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

11:40 AM

Speaker McNulty noted that there was some question regarding an earlier motion. Representative Ferrandino and Senator Scheffel discussed whether the last three sentences from the first argument for were stricken.


BILL:	Amendment 64
TIME:	11:41:45 AM
MOVED:	Ferrandino
MOTION:	Move to amend page 5, line 29, after "state." add "The use of marijuana by adults may be less harmful than the use of alcohol or tobacco, both of which are already legal for adults to use and are regulated by the state. Furthermore, marijuana may be beneficial for individuals with certain debilitating conditions. The consequences of burdening adults with a criminal record for the possession of small amounts of marijuana are too severe, and there are better uses for state resources than prosecuting such low-level crimes.". The motion failed on a vote of 6-7 with 5 excused.
SECONDED:	Court
		VOTE
	Boyd	Yes
	Cadman	No
	Court	Yes
	Duran	Excused
	Ferrandino	Yes
	Grantham	No
	Hodge	No
	Kerr J.	No
	Morse	Yes
	Nicholson	Yes
	Nikkel	Excused
	Priola	Excused
	Renfroe	No
	Scheffel	No
	Stephens	Excused
	Todd	Yes
	Shaffer B.	Excused
	McNulty	No

YES: 6 NO: 7 EXC: 5 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: FAIL

11:46 AM

The committee adjourned.