Dallas Proposition R: How It Could Alter Marijuana Laws and Enforcement Dynamics

Texas AG Ken Pazton is suing Dallas after voters approved Proposition R, a measure that decriminalizes marijuana possession.

The state is about to go to war with itself.

At a Glance

  • Dallas voters approved Proposition R, decriminalizing marijuana possession up to 4 ounces
  • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sues Dallas, claiming the measure violates state law
  • The proposition prohibits arrests, citations, and using marijuana odor as probable cause
  • Paxton argues cities cannot override state drug laws or constrain police enforcement
  • Similar lawsuits have been filed against other Texas cities with comparable measures

Dallas Voters Approve Marijuana Decriminalization Measure

In a significant shift for marijuana policy in Texas, Dallas voters recently approved Proposition R with an overwhelming 66.82% support. This ballot measure, added through a petition by the progressive advocacy group Ground Game Texas, amends the city charter to effectively decriminalize marijuana possession. The proposition prohibits Dallas police from making arrests or issuing citations for possessing up to 4 ounces of marijuana, with exceptions for certain felony investigations.

The measure goes beyond simple possession, also banning the use of marijuana odor as probable cause for searches and making enforcement of Class A and B misdemeanor marijuana possession the lowest priority for police officers. Additionally, it restricts city resources for THC testing, except in limited circumstances, potentially saving taxpayer money and redirecting police efforts to more serious crimes.

Texas AG Ken Paxton’s Legal Challenge

In response to Dallas’s voter-approved measure, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against the city. Paxton argues that the proposition directly conflicts with state law and the Texas Constitution, which requires cities to enforce statewide drug laws. This legal action is part of a broader effort by Paxton to challenge similar measures in other Texas cities, 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 Local Government Code and the Texas Constitution prohibit municipalities from adopting policies that do not fully enforce state drug laws, including those related to marijuana possession and distribution.

Dallas City’s Response and Implementation Plans

Despite the looming legal challenge, Dallas city officials are moving forward with implementing the voter-approved changes. The Dallas City Council has certified the election results, and the interim police chief has issued a directive to comply with the new policy. Interim City Manager Kimberly Bizor Tolbert stated that the city is prepared to implement these changes while maintaining its commitment to 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. However, the city’s stance appears to be one of compliance with the voters’ will, setting the stage for a potential legal showdown with the state.

Implications and Ongoing Debate

This conflict between local voter initiatives and state law enforcement priorities highlights the ongoing debate over marijuana policy in Texas. Supporters of Proposition R argue that it aims to reduce racially biased policing and save public funds, reflecting the will of Dallas voters. However, opponents, including Attorney General Paxton, contend that such measures undermine state control and could potentially lead to increased crime rates.

The outcome of this legal challenge could have far-reaching implications for other Texas cities considering similar measures. It also underscores the tension between local autonomy and state authority in drug enforcement policies. As the lawsuit progresses, it will likely fuel further discussions about marijuana decriminalization and the balance of power between state and local governments in Texas.

As this legal battle unfolds, Dallas residents and law enforcement agencies find themselves caught between conflicting directives. The city’s commitment to implementing the voter-approved changes, despite the state’s opposition, sets the stage for a complex legal and political struggle that could reshape marijuana enforcement policies across Texas.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR