The Lockhart and Bastrop residents who fought for marijuana decriminalization celebrated a resounding victory when the measures passed with roughly 70% support in November.
But for the respective city leaders, the election results put them in a Catch-22.
Adopting the marijuana decriminalization charter amendment would almost guarantee them a legal battle with Attorney General Ken Paxton. However, rejecting the will of the voters is also illegal.
Despite backlash from community members, Lockhart and Bastrop city councils chose the second route.
The amendment asks local law enforcement to decriminalize the possession of four ounces or less of marijuana. It still allows police to seize drugs, and it does not apply to felonies.
For example, if a minor was caught smoking a joint, local law enforcement would be allowed to take it away, but would not be allowed to arrest them for the offense or issue a citation.
Lockhart City Attorney Brad Bullock said that policy conflicts with a 1997 state law that prohibits cities from adopting policies that do not fully enforce drug laws. Paxton has filed six lawsuits against a slew of Texas cities who passed similar marijuana decriminalization measures under the same logic.
But not everyone agrees these measures conflict with state law.
Judge Jan Soifer, who dismissed Paxton’s lawsuit against Austin last summer, argued that the marijuana decriminalization policy did not mandate police to stop enforcing drug laws. Instead, it tells police to prioritize more serious offenses, such as those involving fentanyl, over lower-level marijuana cases. A judge also dismissed the lawsuit in San Marcos. Paxton is in the midst of appealing those decisions.
But for Bastrop and Lockhart, the charter amendment might be less about legalities and more about money. A lawsuit from the state could saddle the cities with hundreds and thousands of dollars in legal fees.
“If they bring a lawsuit against us, how much would that cost the City of Bastrop? Does that affect our grant funding for the police department? These are things that as a smaller agency we depend on,” Bastrop Police Chief Vicky Steffanic told KUT in October.
Attorney Susan Hays, who specializes in cannabis law, said ironically, in avoiding a costly litigation with the state, Lockhart and Bastrop may be violating the law they’re trying to bypass.
“To refuse to follow what they know to be the law, or a court ruling, is unethical, immoral, illegal and rips at the fabric of our democracy and our republic,” Hays said.
Hays said failing to respect the outcome of the election could put the cities at risk of a lawsuit from community members or advocacy groups. However, she said it appearsthe city is hedging its bets that the state government has more resources behind it than an advocacy group, and litigation with the state would be more costly.
Lockhart resident Taylor Burge said the city’s response to the charter amendment could cause confusion within the community about where the local laws around marijuana decriminalization stand.
“The whole bottom line of passing this charter amendment was to help alleviate the fears surrounding marijuana and the police,” she said.
Burge said waiting for litigation in other cities to guide how Lockhart officials should move forward could leave residents in limbo for years.
“City council is supposed to be speaking on the people’s behalf. They are meant to advocate for the general person. [I feel like they’re] speaking up for the 32%,” she said. “How are the people of Texan supposed to make our voices heard?”
Adopting the marijuana decriminalization charter amendment would almost guarantee Lockhart and Bastrop a legal battle with Attorney General Ken Paxton. Yet disregarding the will of the voters could also result in a lawsuit. Read More
