By LINDSAY WHITEHURST and JENNIFER PELTZ Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A decision on whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the U.S. won’t come until after the November presidential election, a timeline that raises the chances it could be a potent political issue in the closely contested race.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration last week set a hearing date to take comment on the proposed historic change in federal drug policy for Dec. 2.

The hearing date means a final decision could well come in the next administration. While it’s possible it could precede the end of President Joe Biden’s term, issuing it before Inauguration Day “would be pretty expedited,” said cannabis lawyer Brian Vicente.

That could put a new spotlight on the presidential candidates’ positions on marijuana. Vice President Kamala Harris has backed decriminalizing the drug and said it’s “absurd” to have it in the DEA’s Schedule I category alongside heroin and LSD. The Democratic nominee’s position has shifted over the years; she once oversaw the enforcement of cannabis laws and opposed legalized recreational use for adults in California while running for attorney general in 2010.

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, signaled support for a Florida legalization measure on Saturday, following earlier comments that he increasingly agrees that people shouldn’t be jailed for the drug now legal in multiple states, “whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.”

During his run for president in 2016, Trump said that he backed medical marijuana and that pot should be left up to the states. But during his first term, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions lifted an Obama-era policy that kept federal authorities from cracking down on the pot trade in states where the drug is legal.

Trump’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a query about his position on rescheduling the drug.

The Justice Department proposed reclassifying it in May, saying the change would recognize marijuana’s medical uses and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. The proposal, which would not legalize marijuana for recreational use, came after a call for review from Biden, who has called the change “monumental.”

The DEA has said it doesn’t yet have a position on whether to go through with the change, stating in a memo that it would keep weighing the issue as the federal rulemaking process plays out.

The new classification would be the most significant shift in U.S. drug policy in 50 years and could be a potent political issue, especially with younger voters. But it faces opposition from groups such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Its president, Kevin Sabet, argues there isn’t enough data to move cannabis to the less-dangerous Schedule III category, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids. The DEA’s move to hold the hearing is “a huge win in our fight to have this decision guided by medical science, not politics,” he said in a statement, adding that 18 states’ attorneys general are backing his opposition.

The hearing sparked some consternation among pot industry players, though little surprise about the DEA decision to hold one.

“While the result ultimately may be better, I think we’re so used to seeing delays that it’s just a little disappointing,” said Stephen Abraham, chief financial officer at The Blinc Group, supplier of cartridges and other hardware used in pot vapes. “Every time you slow down or hold resources from the legal market, it’s to the benefit of the illicit market.”

The proposal, which was signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland rather than DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, followed a recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Federal drug policy has lagged behind that of many states in recent years, with 38 having already legalized medical marijuana and 24 legalizing its recreational use.

Lawmakers from both major political parties have pushed for the change as marijuana has become increasingly decriminalized and accepted. A Gallup poll last year found 70% of adults support legalization, the highest level yet recorded by the polling firm and more than double the roughly three in 10 who backed it in 2000.

The marijuana industry has also grown quickly, and state-licensed pot companies are keen on rescheduling partly because it could enable them to take federal business-expense tax deductions that aren’t available to enterprises involved in “trafficking” any Schedule I or II drug. For some of Vicente’s clients, the change would effectively reduce the tax rate from 75% to 25%.

Some legalization advocates also hope rescheduling could help persuade Congress to pass legislation aimed at opening banks’ doors to cannabis companies. Currently, the drug’s legal status means many federally regulated banks are reluctant to lend to such businesses, or sometimes even provide checking or other basic services.

Rescheduling could also make it easier to research marijuana, since it’s difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances. Some medical marijuana patient advocates fear that the discussion has already become deeply politicized and that the focus on rescheduling’s potential effect on the industry has shifted attention from the people who could benefit.

“It was our hope that we could finally take the next step and create the national medical cannabis program that we need,” said Steph Sherer, founder and president of Americans for Safe Access. The organization advocates for putting cannabis in a drug category all its own and for creating a medical cannabis office within DHS.

The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation’s criminal justice system, though, would likely be more muted, since federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years.

Peltz reported from New York.

By BRIAN SLODYSKO and DAN MERICA Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Italo Medelius was leading a volunteer drive to put Cornel West on North Carolina’s presidential ballot last spring when he received an unexpected call from a man named Paul who said he wanted to help.

Though Medelius, co-chairman of West’s “Justice for All Party,” welcomed the assistance, the offer would complicate his life, provoking threats and drawing him into a state election board investigation of the motivations, backgrounds and suspect tactics of his new allies.

Across the country, a network of Republican political operatives, attorneys and their allies is trying to shape November’s election in ways that favor former President Donald Trump. Their goal is to prop up third-party candidates such as West who offer liberal voters an alternative that could siphon away support from Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.

It’s not clear who is paying for the effort, but it could be impactful in states decided by miniscule margins in 2020.

It’s money West’s campaign does not have and he has encouraged the effort. Last month the academic told The Associated Press that “American politics is highly gangster-like activity” and he “just wanted to get on that ballot.”

Trump has called West “one of my favorite candidates.” Another is Green Party candidate Jill Stein. He favors both for the same reason. “I like her very much. You know why? She takes 100% from them. He takes 100%.”

Democrats are exploring ways to lift Randall Terry, an anti-abortion presidential candidate for the Constitution Party, believing he could draw voters from Trump.

But the GOP effort appears to be more far-reaching. And after years of Trump accusing Democrats of “rigging” elections, it is his allies who are now mounting a sprawling and at times deceptive campaign to tilt the vote in his favor.

“The fact that either of the two major parties would attempt financially and otherwise to support a third-party spoiler candidate as part of its effort to win is an unfortunate byproduct” of the current election laws “that facilitate spoilers,” said Edward B. Foley, a law professor who leads Ohio State University’s election law program.

Related Articles

The presidential campaigns brace for an intense sprint to Election Day

Walz unharmed after some of the vehicles near the back of his motorcade crash in Milwaukee

It’s a pork chop on a stick and a vanilla shake for Tim Walz at the Minnesota State Fair

MAP: Track campaign stops by Democratic, Republican presidential tickets

Helping a minor travel for an abortion? Some states have made it a crime

One key figure in the push is Paul Hamrick, the man on the other end of the call with Medelius in North Carolina.

Hamrick is counsel for the Virginia-based nonprofit People Over Party that has pushed to get West on the ballot in Arizona, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Virginia, as well as North Carolina, records show.

In an interview, Hamrick declined to say who else besides him was orchestrating the effort and would not divulge who was funding it. He disputed any suggestion he was a Republican, but acknowledged he wasn’t a Democrat, either.

Hamrick was chief of staff to former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, a one-term Democrat booted from office in 2003 and later convicted and sentenced to prison on federal bribery, conspiracy, and mail fraud charges. Hamrick was charged alongside his former boss in two separate cases. One was dismissed; he was acquitted in the other.

Hamrick voted in Alabama’s Republican primary in 2002, 2006 and 2010, according to voting records maintained by the political data firm L2. He was tapped briefly in 2011 to work for the Alabama state Senate’s Republican majority. Since 2015, federal campaign finance disclosures show, he has contributed only to GOP causes.

Hamrick denied voting in any Republican primaries, suggesting that the voting data was inaccurate.

For years, he was a consultant for Matrix LLC, an Alabama firm known for its hardball approach.

Matrix LLC was part of an effort in Florida to run “ghost candidates” against elected officials who had raised the ire of executives for Florida Power & Light, the state’s largest utility.

Daniella Levine Cava, the current mayor of Miami-Dade County, was a target, but the effort failed and she won her race for county commissioner, the Miami Herald reported in 2022.

A company Hamrick created paid a spoiler candidate a $60,000 salary and rented a $2,300-a-month home for him, according to the newspaper and business filings made in Alabama. Hamrick said the candidate worked for him to help recruit business. Hamrick denied having anything to do with the man’s campaign.

Hamrick is playing a prominent role to place West’s name on the ballot in battleground states. Hamrick surfaced in Arizona two weeks ago after a woman told The Associated Press that a document was fraudulently submitted in her name to Arizona’s secretary of state, in which she purportedly agreed to serve as an elector for West. She said her signature was forged and she never agreed to be an elector.

After the AP published her account, Hamrick said he spoke to the woman’s husband, attempting to rectify the situation and “gave some information.” Hamrick declined to say what information was shared. He also tried to persuade another elector who backed out to recommit to West, according to interviews and voicemails.

The next day, with the deadline to qualify for the Arizona ballot hours away, Brett Johnson, a prominent Republican lawyer, and Amanda Reeve, a former GOP state lawmaker, made house visits to each as they tried to persuade them to sign new paperwork to serve as West electors.

Johnson and Reeve work for Snell & Wilmer, which has done $257,000 worth of work for the Republican National Committee over the past two years, campaign finance disclosures show.

Hamrick declined to comment on the role of Johnson and Reeve, who did not respond to requests for comment.

West did not qualify for the Arizona ballot.

Medelius, the North Carolina co-chairman of West’s “Justice for All Party,” said the partisan battles over third-party candidates amounted to a “gang war.”

“If they want to use us for cannon fodder, there’s not much I can do about it,” he said.

Associated Press writers Jonathan J. Cooper in Phoenix, Farnoush Amiri in Chicago and Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, contributed to this report.

We live and/or work near the Northern Iron foundry, an industrial facility in St. Paul that is currently fighting an enforcement action over air quality violations. We write in response to a recent article in the Pioneer Press (“Northern Iron Foundry owner hopes to expand production,” Page 1A, Aug. 18) and other public statements recently made by Northern Iron.

Before learning of the enforcement action by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), we knew our neighborhood had poor air quality. Clinic data shows high asthma rates and elevated child blood lead levels. At times there is a manufacturing smell in the air.

After learning that the foundry had been operating unpermitted equipment for many years, we became concerned and gathered public documents on the facility. We are following the court proceedings closely. Some of us have attended meetings with Alex Lawton, the foundry owner. We write to respond to statements that appear incorrect or could be misleading without more context. A meaningful dialogue between Lawton and the community must begin with full transparency.

First, it stood out to us that Lawton says he wants to conduct outreach because says he cannot “pretend to know what the community needs.” But Lawton did speak with the community at a well-attended meeting in April, with a diverse audience. Community members made specific requests, including that Northern Iron sponsor lead testing for residents living near the foundry.

This seems like a reasonable request, and it was made by a respected community member. But Northern Iron has yet to respond. And Lawton apparently has not mentioned it to the press. Instead, Lawton suggests he might fund a Little League team. In our opinion, collecting community health data would be far more useful than a team sponsorship.

The article contains other questionable statements. For example, it says that “two years ago, state authorities came calling, requiring greater monitoring of air quality and particulate matter in the surrounding area.”

To be clear, Northern Iron’s permit already required modeling emissions for equipment that the company had installed on its own initiative. The modeling and reporting requirements were not new, or “greater,” than before. Only the enforcement and compliance were new.

The statement also conflates modeling and monitoring, which are two different processes. Modeling calculates how pollutants spread across a neighborhood vertically and horizontally. It uses various inputs, including the type and amount of pollution, local meteorology, and other factors. The modeling for Northern Iron was developed based on emissions tests collected directly from the foundry stack.

By contrast, monitors collect readings at specific locations. Monitors do not inherently account for wind directions or other events. Instead, those factors must be accounted for by the regulators and engineers who design monitoring plans.

After the enforcement action began, Northern Iron chose to install low-cost Purple Air monitors. It has also chosen to cite those monitors as proof that it is not violating the law. But this kind of monitor is not considered appropriate for regulatory purposes. Northern Iron is only beginning to install regulatory-grade monitors.

However, we do have a vetted model, developed using a stack test from the foundry itself. MPCA scientists determined that the model was accurate enough to warrant an enforcement action.

This brings us to another point: Northern Iron claims a court victory against the MPCA. This should not be taken to mean that Northern Iron has won its challenge to the enforcement action. What Northern Iron did win is a temporary court order. This type of order preserves the status quo until the case has been resolved. Court documents confirm that the judge has not issued a decision resolving Northern Iron’s claims, and more hearings are already scheduled.

We are disappointed that Northern Iron is making questionable statements. And we are discouraged to see community requests unacknowledged. If Northern Iron wants a community dialogue, the first step is to build trust with full transparency.

Patricia Enstad, Clarence White, Rebecca Nelson, Jim Mondoux, Chelsea DeArmond and Peter Rachleff also contributed to this column.

Related Articles

After 17-year-old wounded in shooting near Fairgrounds, two more teens arrive at hospitals with gunshot wounds

Local youth spent part of their summer immersed in journalism. Here’s their take on the state of it.

Students at St. Paul’s Hidden River Middle School relocate during $43 million renovation

Artist profile: Budding St. Paul playwright saw own choreopoem for Black teens produced this summer

St. Paul: A hard look at the struggling corner of Snelling and University avenues