Opinion ID: 2455719
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Voters pamphlet

Text: ¶ 25 If a statute passed by initiative is ambiguous, the voters pamphlet may provide extrinsic evidence of the voters' intent. Amalgamated Transit, 142 Wash.2d at 205, 11 P.3d 762. The official ballot title of I-692 was, Shall the medical use of marijuana for certain terminal or debilitating conditions be permitted, and physicians authorized to advise patients about medical use of marijuana? State of Washington Voters Pamphlet, General Election 8 (Nov. 3, 1998) (1998 Voters Pamphlet). The attorney general's statement explained that the initiative would not require the accommodation of any medical use of marijuana in any place of employment.... Id. at 16. In the Statement For I-692, proponents of the initiative stated, [P]atients who use medical marijuana, and doctors who recommend it, are still considered criminals in this state. Initiative 692 will protect patients who suffer from terminal and debilitating illnesses, and doctors who recommend the use of medical marijuana. That's why we need I-692. Id. at 8. The only statement in the voters' materials referencing employment was also in the Statement For I-692, where proponents assured voters that MUMA would [p]rohibit[ ] marijuana use ... in the workplace. [7] Id. The Statement Against I-692 was silent as to any employment protections possibly granted by I-692. Id. at 9. ¶ 26 Nothing in the 1998 Voters Pamphlet demonstrates that an average voter would understand the proposed initiative to offer employment protections to medical marijuana users. If proponents of I-692 wanted voters to approve language that would enact employment protections, they should have clearly explained to voters the consequences of the initiative. See Ross v. RagingWire Telecomms., Inc., 42 Cal.4th 920, 929, 174 P.3d 200, 70 Cal.Rptr.3d 382 (2008) (holding that proponents of California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5, intended a delicate balance and presented only modest objectives to the voters that could not support a broad reading of the act to include employment protections that were not in the text of the statute).