Dallas Proposition R Faces Hurdles Amid Marijuana Law Reform Debate

The Texas AG is suing Dallas after voters decide to decriminalize marijuana possession.

This is going to be a huge fight.

At a Glance

  • Dallas voters approved Proposition R, decriminalizing marijuana possession up to 4 ounces
  • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Dallas, claiming the measure violates state law
  • The lawsuit follows similar actions against other Texas cities with similar measures
  • Supporters argue the measure aims to reduce racially biased policing and save public funds
  • The case highlights tensions between local autonomy and state law enforcement priorities

Dallas Voters Approve Marijuana Decriminalization Measure

In a decisive move that has ignited a fierce legal battle, Dallas voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition R, a measure aimed at reforming the city’s approach to marijuana law enforcement. The proposition, which passed with 66.82% of the vote, amends the city charter to make marijuana possession a low enforcement priority for local police. This sweeping change prohibits Dallas police from making arrests or issuing citations for marijuana possession and bars the use of marijuana odor as probable cause for searches.

The measure also restricts city resources for THC testing, except in limited circumstances, and prioritizes enforcement of Class A and B misdemeanor marijuana possession as the lowest priority for police officers. This bold move by Dallas voters reflects a growing national trend towards marijuana decriminalization and has set the stage for a showdown with state authorities.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Launches Legal Challenge

In response to the voter-approved measure, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against the city of Dallas, arguing that the proposition conflicts with state law and threatens the uniform application of drug enforcement across Texas. Paxton’s legal action follows similar suits against other Texas cities that have attempted to decriminalize marijuana, including Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Elgin, and Denton.

“Cities cannot pick and choose which State laws they follow. The City of Dallas has no authority to override Texas drug laws or prohibit the police from enforcing them. This is a backdoor attempt to violate the Texas Constitution, and any city that tries to constrain police in this fashion will be met swiftly with a lawsuit by my office,” Ken Paxton said.

Paxton’s lawsuit claims that cities cannot pass charters conflicting with Texas law, asserting that Dallas cannot override state drug laws. The Texas Attorney General’s office maintains that Texas law mandates municipalities to enforce state drug laws, including those related to marijuana possession and distribution. Furthermore, the Texas Local Government Code and the Texas Constitution prohibit municipalities from adopting policies that do not fully enforce state drug laws.

City of Dallas Responds to Legal Challenge

Despite the looming legal battle, Dallas city officials are moving forward with implementing the voter-approved changes. Interim City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert stated that the City Council has directed compliance with the new provisions, and the Dallas Police Department is prepared to implement them while ensuring public safety.

“The Dallas Freedom Act was adopted by a majority of the voters, and the City Council has directed that the city comply with the amendment’s provisions. The Dallas Police Department is prepared to implement these changes while maintaining its commitment to public safety,” Bizor Tolbert said.

The Dallas city attorney’s office has acknowledged the lawsuit and plans to respond appropriately. Meanwhile, the interim police chief has already issued a directive to comply with the new policy, signaling the city’s commitment to honoring the will of its voters.

Supporters Argue for Reform and Fiscal Responsibility

Proponents of Proposition R, including the progressive advocacy group Ground Game Texas, argue that the measure aims to reduce racially biased policing and save public funds. They contend that the overwhelming support for the proposition reflects the will of Dallas voters and represents a necessary step towards criminal justice reform.

Supporters also point out that the measure could lead to more efficient use of law enforcement resources by allowing police to focus on more serious crimes. Additionally, they argue that decriminalization could help reduce the disproportionate impact of marijuana laws on minority communities.

Constitutional Showdown Looms

As the legal battle unfolds, the case raises important questions about the balance of power between state and local governments, as well as the limits of voter-driven initiatives. The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for other Texas cities considering similar measures and may shape the future of marijuana policy in the state.

With both sides digging in for a protracted legal fight, the eyes of the nation are on Dallas as it becomes the latest battleground in the ongoing debate over marijuana decriminalization. As the case moves forward, it will undoubtedly test the boundaries of local autonomy and state authority, potentially setting a precedent for how similar conflicts are resolved in the future.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR