Judge: Yuba County’s Marijuana Ordinance Urgency Declaration Valid

Judge Wirtshafter Turns Down Temporary Restraining Order Denying Bid for Referendum

By Elden Fowler--

At a hearing Friday, April 3rd in Yuba County Superior Court, Judge Benjamin Wirtshafter denied a request for a temporary restraining order barring Yuba County from enforcing the newly enacted Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance No. 1538.

Representing six cultivators and Yuba Patients Coalition’s request for a temporary restraining order, Attorney Joseph Elford submitted documents to the Court which presented arguments which included “Because the Board’s urgency findings are insufficient as a matter of law and the ordinance was enacted as a urgency measure in a bad-faith attempt to nullify the referendum process, this court should enjoin or stay its enforcement and direct the county clerk and board to consider and act upon a referendum petition filed before the expiration of thirty days from the date of enactment.”
On March 10, after a long series of meetings and workshops the, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) passed the ordinance with the urgency declaration placing it into effect immediately. The BOS action halted plans by opponents to force the ordinance before the voters in a referendum.

Judge Wirtshafter ruled against the six growers and Yuba Patients Coalition’s request for a temporary restraining order leaving in place the County’s urgency declaration.

When interviewed after the hearing, Elford said “We will be filing an emergency writ with the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Sacramento in an attempt to overturn the ruling.” He added, “However, the clock is ticking and the Court must grant a favorable ruling by next Thursday if we are to have the opportunity to submit signatures for a referendum.

Opponents to the ordinance have been gathering signatures for a referendum and claim to have more than enough. If they are still denied the referendum, it is probable they will seek to place a voter initiative on the ballot. A much more difficult and complex process.

One of the findings that seemed key to Judge Wirtshafter’s ruling is the County’s assertion of the need to conserve water during a drought. The urgency declaration notes that cultivators would be planting before the ordinance could take effect.

Elford has also filed a lawsuit on behalf of four cultivators which is based on constitutional compliance which is set for a hearing at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 7th. He is seeking a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the ordinance until that suit is settled.

“This is just part of a long process” Elford said. Although the Judge apparently thought differently, he reiterated his belief “the County did this wilfully to avoid a referendum.
During the hearing, Deputy County Counsel John Vacek stated “the urgency ordinance was approved legitimately.” When interviewed outside the courtroom, Vacek said “some board members” were unaware the urgency declaration would preclude a referendum but did not intend to stop it.