PINEHURST, N.C. — The temptation would be to refer to a change in the scorecard procedure as the “Jordan Rule,” only because Jordan Spieth was the most recent example. Players now have an additional 15 minutes to correct their scorecard before it is deemed to have been returned.

Players were informed at the U.S. Open of the change. The USGA adopted the amended definition of when a card is “returned” at the U.S. Women’s Open two weeks earlier. It now goes into effect on most major tours this week.

The PGA Tour said the goal was “minimizing penalties or disqualifications related to scorecard errors.”

Spieth was at Pinehurst No. 2 on the Sunday before the U.S. Open. He said Scott Langley, the USGA’s director of player relations, approached him and said: “This isn’t because of you. But this is what we’re doing here.”

The scorecard previously was considered “returned” when the player left the scoring area.

Spieth was battling stomach issues at Riviera when he made double bogey on the last hole for a 73, rushed up the hill to scoring, signed his card and hustled off to the bathroom. He inadvertently wrote down a 3 instead of a 4 on the par-3 fourth hole, and therefore signed for an incorrect score and was disqualified.

Under the new rule, he would have had 15 minutes to fix the mistake or for an official to find him and alert him to the error.

“For an honest mistake that I guess could be the difference in the tournament, I think it’s great,” Spieth said. “I don’t think it’s a skill of the game, especially at the professional level. If somebody plugged in a wrong score, they can go back and re-plug it in.”

As for the 15 minutes, there is a time stamp when a card is accepted, and the 15 minutes is not down to the second. It doesn’t happen very often, especially on the PGA Tour where scores are checked against a computer.

And there are exceptions. If a player stays in scoring for 15 minutes (Phil Mickelson was known to linger there), the scorecard would be considered returned when that player leaves the area. Also, the 15-minute rule could be affected by a playoff, or by tee times having to be posted immediately after a cut.

Related Articles

Xander Schauffele wins PGA with final birdie putt

Scheffler adds another jacket; this one plaid after winning RBC Heritage

A state appeals court panel has affirmed the city of St. Paul’s decision that a more detailed environmental review is not needed to proceed with the demolition and rebuild of the historic Hamline-Midway Library.

In the 16-page ruling filed Monday, the panel of three judges agreed that an Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, is not required and that the city’s decision is not “arbitrary and capricious or unsupported by substantial evidence,” as a coalition of neighborhood residents and historic preservationists contended.

The appeals court panel concluded the city took “a hard look” at the adverse impact of a demolition and “appropriately considered and reasonably” relied on mitigation measures recommended by the State Historic Preservation Office. The city also “genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making,” the ruling said.

In a written statement, Mayor Melvin Carter said the appellate court’s decision “is a positive step forward … We remain committed to the vision of a modern, accessible, one-story Hamline-Midway Library that will benefit families and residents for generations to come.”

In a separate matter, a trial was held in Ramsey County District Court last month over a lawsuit filed by the coalition, Renovate 1558, against the city and St. Paul Public Library to stop demolition of the library, which was shuttered in May 2023. Judge Stephen Smith’s decision is expected before the end of the year.

Two years ago, when the city announced plans to demolish the library at building at 1558 W. Minnehaha Ave and build a new one on the site, the coalition objected. They successfully petitioned for the library, which was built in 1930, to be added to the National Register of Historic Places, and asked the state to require an environmental review of the project known as an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, or EAW.

The city was designated the responsible government unit to conduct the EAW review of its own plans, from stormwater and zoning to historic resources in and around the site. In September, following a 30-day public comment period, the city found that an EIS, which gives a more intense level of scrutiny, is not necessary.

“The record demonstrates that implementation of this Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects, and that any adverse effects associated with this Project can be mitigated through ongoing public regulatory authority and permitting,” the city wrote in a notice of its decision.

The coalition then petitioned the court of appeals to review the city’s decision, arguing it failed to consider greenhouse-gas emissions associated with demolition, among other issues.

They challenged the city’s use of mitigation measures recommended by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) — specifically, anticipated environmental impact on “historic resources” stemming from the project.

In its ruling, the appellate court wrote that for properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places, “there appears to be no more closely related state agency” than SHPO. “However, even assuming without deciding that SHPO itself is not an ‘ongoing public regulatory authority,’ the city is,” the ruling said.

The appeals court panel concluded that although the city did not include specific information in the EAW regarding greenhouse-gas emissions stemming from a demolition, the document outlined that the project as a whole would “work to implement any applicable state or local GHG goals as required.”

The appeals court panel said they are not convinced that the city took “the path of least resistance to demolish the library.”

“Instead, the record reflects that, as required by (the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act), the city appropriately considered the factors outlined under (state statute) to determine that the decided-upon project would not have the potential for significant environmental effects,” the ruling said.

Tom Goldstein, a spokesman for the preservation group and one of its co-founders, said he’s not surprised by appellate court’s decision, “as the standard of review is generally deferential to a city’s conclusion on the necessity of an EIS for a project like the proposed Hamline Library rebuild/renovation.”

However, he said had they not pursued an appeal, it might have “negatively impacted our ability to bring forward” their lawsuit that claims the city of St. Paul and the St. Paul Public Library would violate the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act with a demolition of the library.

Related Articles

Woman sentenced to 15 years for role in St. Paul New Year’s Eve shooting that critically injured boy, 10

How to get a free gun lock in Ramsey County: Leaders highlight program amid concerns about suicide, domestic violence, kids and guns

No arrests as police name Roseville man fatally shot last week in Payne-Phalen

Schlossman: Why the NCHC expedited St. Thomas’ application

St. Paul city planners weigh ban on new restaurant drive-thrus

Robbie Sequeira | (TNS) Stateline.org

Nebraskan Crista Eggers is running up against a July 3 deadline. If she can get at least 87,000 names onto each of two petitions before then, she can put an initiative on the state’s November ballot that would legalize pot for medicinal purposes.

The petition effort is personal. Her 9-year-old son, Colton, has epilepsy and severe seizures, and medicinal cannabis can be prescribed to treat such conditions.

“I’m a caregiver to a child that needs medical cannabis access. Ninety-five percent of our people collecting [signatures] are Nebraskans who know someone who needs access and needs this issue on the ballot,” said Eggers, an Omaha resident and the campaign manager for Nebraskans for Medical Marijuana.

If the group is successful, Nebraska will join Florida and South Dakota in asking voters this fall whether to legalize some marijuana use. In Florida and South Dakota, where medical marijuana is already allowed, voters will be asked to legalize adult recreational use.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia allow the medical use of cannabis products, and 24 plus the District of Columbia allow adults to use it recreationally, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Cannabis is still illegal under federal law, but 74% of Americans now live in a state where marijuana is legal for either recreational or medical use according to the Pew Research Center, and 54% live in a place where it is legal for recreational use.

Many states, especially left-leaning ones, have legalized marijuana through legislation, but “there are some states where the state legislators still don’t want to touch this issue of cannabis legislation, particularly in more conservative parts of the country,” said Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center.

“That’s why it’s not a surprise when cannabis issues go through the ballot initiative process,” Kilmer said.

In Kansas, where legislative efforts to legalize marijuana have repeatedly foundered since 2021, conservative legislators again this session blocked a measure to legalize medicinal use, with one Republican lawmaker, state Sen. Mike Thompson, saying the substance could “cause more suicides and human misery,” according to the Kansas City Star.

Kansas is one of the 24 states that don’t allow citizen-initiated ballot measures.

But the destigmatizing of marijuana use has advanced so far that even some conservative states have legalized it through legislative action: Since 2020, four of the five states to legalize cannabis for medicinal purposes — Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Virginia— have done so through the legislature.

Making it to the ballot

Nebraska is one of only three states — Idaho and Kansas are the others — where marijuana and all cannabis products, including CBD products, are illegal.

Nebraska legislators have shown little interest in changing course, Eggers said.

To circumvent that legislative opposition, she needs signatures from 7% of the state’s 1.2 million voters to put the question on the ballot. She also needs signatures from 5% of registered voters from at least 38 of Nebraska’s 93 counties. Along with Eggers, some 25 paid staff and 200 volunteers are helping with the effort.

Eggers and her group came close to getting a cannabis measure on the ballot in 2020, after collecting 200,000 signatures. However, the state’s Supreme Court invalidated the measure, saying that the petition violated the state’s single-subject rule for ballot initiatives.

The Supreme Court ruled that the petition would have required changes in several state laws, including those regarding possession, public use and insurance coverage.

A second attempt in 2022 was gathering steam when a major donor died in a plane crash that year.

“A lot of money goes into collecting signatures, from filling up people’s gas so they can go county to county, printing petitions and the amount of manpower that goes into gathering signatures,” Eggers said. “The issue isn’t support. We have the support. It has truly come down to not having funding to hire people to help towards signature collection.”

Recreational cannabis

Last year, three states legalized pot recreationally. Voters in Ohio, a red state, approved a ballot measure, while lawmakers in the blue states of Delaware and Minnesota passed legislation.

In all, 13 states plus the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana legislatively.

The ballot initiative in Florida, which requires a supermajority of 60% to pass, is being backed by John Morgan, a lawyer and Democratic fundraiser who supported the successful 2016 effort to legalize medical marijuana with more than $8 million of his own money.

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis opposes the measure. So do some in the state’s medical marijuana industry. Nick Garulay, CEO of My Florida Green, said he worries that legalizing recreational marijuana could bring more competition, and could make it “hard to separate those who want to use it recreationally from those who are sick and rely on cannabis for medication.”

Rob Mikos, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and an expert on drug law, agreed that in some cases, the passage of recreational cannabis can lead to a decline in medical cannabis patients.

But there isn’t enough data to definitively say how adult-use recreational cannabis has affected the medical market in the places that have legalized both medical and recreational cannabis, he said.

For Eggers, the month of June is crucial. As of June 10, she had about 65,000 signatures on each petition, about 30,000 short of the total she expects to need for each.

“We know this can get done, but there’s definitely an urgency over the next few weeks,” she said.

“I call our campaign horrifically beautiful,” Eggers said. “It’s horrific we’ve been at this for such a long time for suffering Nebraskans. But beautiful because we’ve found support in almost all corners of the state.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a national nonprofit news organization focused on state policy.