.png)
City strikes down decriminalization, but proponents aren’t giving up
While Elgin officials have agreed to rescind the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the city, cannabis advocates won’t let the issue go up in smoke.
Paxton’s legal action, filed in February, targets Elgin and other cities that adopted ordinances eliminating enforcement of low-level marijuana possession offenses, claiming these measures violate the Texas Constitution.
Seventy percent of voters turning out to the polls in Elgin approved the decriminalization initiative during the November 2022 election.
However, a recent consent decree with the state signed by city officials agrees to label the ordinance as “void,” according to court records.
“We reached an agreement, and all we have to do is come back next week and settle that consent agreement,” Assis- tant Texas Attorney General Jacob Przada said.
Third-party supporters of Elgin’s voter-approved decriminalization law, known in legal parlance as defendant intervenors, include Courtenay Paris and Decriminalize Elgin.
They were not consulted prior to the proposed settlement between the state and the city, said their legal representative, Richard Gladden.
According to Gladden, the intervenors are “adamantly opposed” to the consent agreement and asserted two “purely defensive” claims during a May 29 hearing led by 21st state District Court Judge Carson Campbell.
Campbell will issue a decision in the coming days, officials said.
According to court documents, the intervenors contend the court has no jurisdiction over the case because the city never enforced nor applied the ordinance and the state cannot demonstrate it ever will.
In addition, the Attorney General’s Office is prohibited from representing the state in a district court unless the Texas Constitution expressly allows such an action, according to the filing.
During the two-hour proceeding, the plaintiffs asked the court to rule that the third parties have no interest in requiring the city to comply with the ordinance.
“Obviously, that’s untrue. The attorney general is doing this because otherwise no consent decree could be approved by the judge, even if the court had jurisdiction to consider the attorney general’s legal arguments,” Gladden said later.
Paxton’s office has expressed on several occasions it wants to speed up the legal process and avoid dragging out the case.
“They are not city officials, they are a group that enjoys recreational marijuana,” Przada added about those opposing the state’s legal action.
Without the state being able to show it is likely the ordinance will be applied by the city in the “imminent” future, the court will have to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims, Gladden countered.
“The attorney general knows it can’t do that, and he wants (decriminalization) out of the case so he can possibly sneak this by the judge and thereby ‘save face’ for filing a frivolous lawsuit,” Gladden added.
City representative Gabrielle Smith only spoke in the court to verify and answer questions surrounding the voter-initiative process.
The city is waiting for final approval of the consent agreement before releasing a statement, said Community Services Director Amy Miller.
