Follow-up

Problems for Petition P

by Kristen Lombardi

Ever since drug-policy reformers with the Coalition for Fair Treatment launched an aggressive drive to put an initiative petition on the November ballot (see "Reform Movement," News and Features, May 5), they've anticipated resistance from law-enforcement authorities, who have denounced the proposal as a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

But even the coalition was shocked this past Tuesday when all 11 of the state's district attorneys took a radical approach to fight what's known as Petition P: they filed a lawsuit with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which in effect jeopardizes the ballot initiative's future.

On June 6, the DAs staged a press conference to announce the suit, which challenges whether Petition P was properly certified by the state attorney general's office. Six of the state's DAs, including Martha Coakley and Ralph Martin, attended the event.

In the suit, the DAs allege that Petition P violates key legal requirements needed for an initiative to appear on the ballot. If the SJC finds merit with the case and declares Petition P unconstitutional, that will prevent the coalition from placing the proposal on the ballot this November.

As Anson Kaye, a spokesperson for Coakley, admits, "The DAs are determined to stop the petition. That is the objective of the lawsuit."

Petition P centers on two basics in drug policy -- substance-abuse treatment and the state's civil-asset-forfeiture law. The ballot initiative, if approved by voters, would fund treatment for drug users with assets forfeited by drug offenders. It would also make it harder for authorities to seize property from suspected offenders.

But Geline Williams, who heads the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, charges that Petition P has several "fundamental flaws" on which the lawsuit is based. One violation has to do with state legislation requiring that ballot initiatives put only one issue before voters. Petition P addresses what Williams calls "separate and distinct" issues -- the forfeiture funds, the treatment funds, and the sentencing for drug offenders.

Another violation is rooted in the state legislature's authority to appropriate funds. Petition P, Williams says, would override this by dictating how forfeiture funds should be used.

If the lawsuit reflects anything, it's the concern among DAs that residents are being fooled by the coalition. "Behind the appealing façade," Williams says, "is an initiative that provides drug defendants with everything they could want."

The coalition sees things differently, of course. In December, the DAs wrote to the AG's office and questioned the petition's legality -- to no avail. That they have filed a suit nearly six months later leads coalition members to decry what they consider a "last-minute, desperate" attempt to derail the democratic process.

Yet Rob Stewart, the petition coalition coordinator, insists that the coalition will plod forward. As he says, "This is some smoke screen or delay tactic the DAs are throwing out because they don't like the petition."