WASHINGTON STATE

Washington State House Democrats

HOUSE DEMOCRATS

To preempt or not to preempt

That is the question.

Or more accurately, it’s one of the questions swirling around legalization of recreational marijuana use in Washington state, approved when voters statewide passed Initiative 502 in 2012.

Or put another way, Who gets to preempt whom?

No marijuana shops have opened yet, but the state Liquor Control Board has approved licensing regulations and is accepting applications from would-be growers, distributors and retailers. It’s expected the first store could open in a few months.

 But not, apparently, in unincorporated Pierce County. Or in the city of Kent. Or in Renton, Yakima or three dozen other cities across the state.

That’s because the governing bodies in those locales have passed bans or moratoria on marijuana sales in their jurisdictions, initiative or no. And that raised the question of whether those local governments have the legal authority to preempt the initiative – or whether the initiative preempts the local governments.

The liquor board asked Attorney General Bob Ferguson to weigh in, and he issued an opinion saying that the local governments could preempt the initiative, because the initiative wasn’t clear about the state preemption of local governments in this case (“preemption,” according to the Meriam-Webster online dictionary, is from “Medieval Latin praeemption-, praeemptio previous purchase, from praeemere to buy before, from Latin prae- pre- + emere to buy;” to preempt basically means to supersede, or to act before someone else can).

But that’s just an opinion, and not legally binding. Lawsuits seem sure to follow.

Rep. David Sawyer D-29 Aaron Barna
Rep. David Sawyer D-29

Rep. David Sawyer has filed a measure to resolve the question legislatively: House Bill 2322 would confer the power of preemption on the state, making the local bans illegal. The bill has been referred to the House Government Accountability & Oversight Committee.

Meanwhile, the Seattle Times has chimed in with an editorial splitting the difference, arguing that the local governments should retain the power of preemption – but that they shouldn’t exercise it. To read it, click here (subscription may be required).