health care

Overall, the year has not lived up to expectations.

This was supposed to be the big year for marijuana legalization. But in many state capitols across the country, efforts have stalled or collapsed as Democrats clash over everything from race and criminal justice to how to divvy up a gold mine of pot tax revenue.

Legalization of recreational marijuana seemed all but inevitable in at least a half dozen states when the year began — including Democratic legislatures in New York, New Jersey and Illinois.

Story Continued Below

But in state after state, proposals encountered significant turbulence, and the clock is now running out on the legislative season.

New Jersey’s top lawmaker declared the state’s legalization drive dead and will instead support a 2020 ballot referendum. New York Democrats are trying to rekindle efforts to pass a bill that would permit recreational use after negotiations stalled out during the budget process in March. And in New Mexico, a legalization bill got pushed aside for more pressing priorities, most notably boosting education funding.

Disputes over addressing racial and economic justice issues, home cultivation of cannabis plants and marijuana-related state revenue have splintered Democrats as they seek to corral enough votes for passage.

“The legislative process is difficult, it’s complicated and it’s really challenging to get agreement on a large-scale social reform,” said John Hudak, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and author of “Marijuana: A Short History”, noting that marijuana advocates often overestimate its salience. “While cannabis reform is very popular, it’s not something that most Americans feel passionately about.”

Marijuana advocates point to some unlikely victories in parts of the country that have previously been hostile. The Alabama Senate, for example, recently approved medical marijuana legislation, and the Texas House has advanced bills reducing penalties for marijuana possession and expanding its medical program.

But overall, the year has not lived up to their expectations.

At this point, Illinois appears to be the best bet for getting a full legalization bill across the finish line, but it’s still iffy with two weeks left until adjournment. Freshman Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s budget plan is counting on pot to generate an estimated $500 million for the cash-strapped state.

“We think we’re getting close,” Illinois state Sen. Heather Steans, chief sponsor of the legalization bill, SB7, told POLITICO recently. “We’ve been working on this two years. It’s been a collaborative process with many stakeholders at the table.”

One key sticking point in Illinois — particularly with law enforcement — is whether to allow people to grow cannabis plants at home. Steans said she expects the bill’s final language will allow only medical marijuana users to grow their own.

“We think there’s a strong rationale for that since it can’t be covered by insurance or Medicaid,” Steans said. “And that makes it easier for law enforcement.”

But some top Illinois Democrats, including outgoing Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, are worried that lawmakers are trying to jam legalization through too quickly in order to reap the financial windfall.

“Don’t go head first into this just because we’re thirsty and hungry for revenue,” he told POLITICO.

Across multiple states, one of the thorniest issues is how to address equity concerns raised by the War on Drugs, with minorities subject to disproportionate financial and criminal penalties for drug possession for decades.

In New York, some Latino and African American lawmakers have withheld support for legalization because they say criminal justice reform and provisions designed to ensure minority participation in the newly-legalized — and potentially very lucrative — market don’t go far enough to redress historical inequities.

On Thursday, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the Illinois Capitol to demand that a dedicated funding stream from marijuana sales go toward violence reduction and programs that boost communities disproportionately affected by the enforcement of lower-level drug offenses.

By contrast, in New Jersey, some elements of the three-bill package rankled conservative and moderate Democrats from the powerful South Jersey voting bloc. One sticking point: a provision that allowed for expunging third-degree distribution convictions, which covers up to five pounds of marijuana.

Ultimately, those fractures derailed the New Jersey legislation. Senate President Steve Sweeney instead is backing a 2020 ballot referendum on full legalization.

“I know the governor tried. We would speak two or three times a week when we were trying to get it done, but there were never a list of votes provided to me to show they were close,” Sweeney said at a press conference on Wednesday. He added that Gov. Phil Murphy “didn’t listen to the advice that legislators gave him” on how to shore up support for legalization.

The rocky path that legalization bills have encountered in state legislatures isn’t entirely surprising given the lack of past success. Of the 10 states that have full legalization, just one — Vermont — enacted it through the legislative process. And there, possession was legalized, but recreational sales remain prohibited. All of the others were passed through ballot referendums, a much cleaner process since voters can only approve or reject the proposals as written. Medical marijuana bills have enjoyed more success in state capitols, with 16 states enacting laws.

“It’s hard to do it legislatively, I admit,” Murphy told a press conference recently, adding that he considered the expungement and social justice elements to be the most important reasons for legalizing cannabis through legislation, rather than via referendum. “We’re a lot more complicated than Vermont. It’s always been default to go to a referendum and ask the people.”

Marijuana advocates point out that they are making progress, including in parts of the country that have previously been hostile, even if this year didn’t live up to their hopes.

Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy Project, also notes that it took years in both New York and Illinois to garner support for medical marijuana bills.

“I’ve worked in marijuana policy for 15 years and having Democratic majorities in both chambers hasn’t even made it easy to pass medical marijuana,” O’Keefe said. “Elected officials tend to be way behind the public on this issue.”

But legalization opponents argue that lawmakers inevitably turn against the proposals when presented with evidence of public health concerns, particularly around driving on drugs, and marijuana use by kids. They insist that the legalization movement is waning.

“Each year, well-paid pot lobbyists come to state capitols promising marijuana legalization bills are a panacea to state budgets and social justice,” said Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which has worked to defeat legalization bills across the country, in a statement to POLITICO. “The fact is, marijuana legalization is a failed policy that is having disastrous effects in every state that legalizes.”

Legalization advocates scoff at such assertions. They point to polling data that shows strong bipartisan support for legalization as evidence that, whatever the setbacks, progress will continue. Even if the legislative efforts in Illinois and New York collapse this year, they’ll be pushing bills again in 2020, and Connecticut’s push to pass full legalization this year is making steady progress. In addition, marijuana legalization referendums are likely to be on the ballot in states beyond New Jersey, possibly including the presidential battlegrounds of Florida and Ohio.

“In the grand scheme of things, our reform movement is just beginning to crest after all these years of prohibition,” said Carly Wolf, state policies coordinator for the marijuana advocacy group NORML. “It comes down to managing expectations and thinking realistically. … It’s not realistic to expect that five state legislatures are going to approve legalization bills in a single year.”

Nick Niedzwiadek contributed to this report.

congress

“Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” Justin Amash wrote.

Michigan Rep. Justin Amash became the first Republican lawmaker to declare that President Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses and that Attorney General William Barr “deliberately misrepresented” special counsel Robert Mueller’s report.

Amash, whose libertarian views often put him at odds with Trump and his fellow Republicans, posted a series of tweets Saturday afternoon outlining positions that even some Democrats have been unwilling to embrace — an extraordinary development that comes as Democratic leaders face increasing pressure from progressives to launch impeachment proceedings.

Story Continued Below

“Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” Amash wrote, arguing that lawmakers have become too afraid of using impeachment to deter presidential misconduct.

“Impeachment, which is a special form of indictment, does not even require probable cause that a crime (e.g., obstruction of justice) has been committed; it simply requires a finding that an official has engaged in careless, abusive, corrupt, or otherwise dishonorable conduct,” Amash wrote.

In recent days, more rank-and-file Democrats have said they support initiating impeachment proceedings against the president; but Speaker Nancy Pelosi and most Democratic leaders and committee chairs have resisted those calls, citing their ongoing investigations into the president’s alleged conduct. The House Judiciary Committee, for example, is investigating Trump for allegations of obstruction of justice and abuses of power.

Around half of Mueller’s 448-page report is devoted to allegations that the president sought to undermine or shut down the special counsel’s investigation altogether. The report outlined several episodes that meet all the element of an obstruction of justice offense, most notably former White House Counsel Don McGahn’s testimony about Trump’s persistent efforts to have McGahn fire the special counsel.

Amash argued that Congress is failing to live up to its constitutional duties in part because of “extreme partisanship” that has worsened under Trump.

“While impeachment should be undertaken only in extraordinary circumstances, the risk we face in an environment of extreme partisanship is not that Congress will employ it as a remedy too often but rather that Congress will employ it so rarely that it cannot deter misconduct,” Amash said. “Our system of checks and balances relies on each branch’s [sic] jealously guarding its powers and upholding its duties under our Constitution. When loyalty to a political party or to an individual trumps loyalty to the Constitution, the Rule of Law — the foundation of liberty — crumbles.”

The Michigan Republican also echoed Democrats and hundreds of former federal prosecutors who have argued that Trump would have been charged with obstruction of justice if he were not president — a reference to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. In his report, Mueller cited that policy when explaining his decision not to charge Trump with a crime.

Amash took aim specifically at Barr, putting the GOP lawmaker in line with Democrats who have accused the attorney general of trying to portray Mueller’s report in a favorable light for the president.

“In comparing Barr’s principal conclusions, congressional testimony, and other statements to Mueller’s report, it is clear that Barr intended to mislead the public about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s analysis and findings,” Amash said, adding that “Barr’s misrepresentations are significant but often subtle, frequently taking the form of sleight-of-hand qualifications or logical fallacies, which he hopes people will not notice.”

Despite Amash’s frequent opposition to Trump, he is one of the most conservative members of Congress and sits on the powerful House Oversight and Reform Committee, which is investigating Trump for alleged financial crimes. His fellow Republicans have maintained that Democrats’ various investigation of Trump are politically motivated and illegitimate, and they’ve largely declared Mueller’s Russia probe to be a settled issue that warrants no further action or investigation.

Amash claimed that most members of Congress haven’t even read Mueller’s report, and he slammed those lawmakers whose minds were made up “within hours” of the release of the redacted version of Mueller’s report.

“America’s institutions depend on officials to uphold both the rules and spirit of our constitutional system even when to do so is personally inconvenient or yields a politically unfavorable outcome. Our Constitution is brilliant and awesome; it deserves a government to match it,” he concluded.