Skip to content
Hemp Law Watch
Back to Michigan
No active alertUpdateMichigan

1,812 to 1,212: Menominee voters raise the city's marijuana store cap from 9 to 13 to help end licensing lawsuits

The mayor backed the expansion as a way to settle suits over the city's last license; the city still must set a competitive process. In southwest Michigan, Niles capped stores and Niles Township kept its ban.

Hemp Law Watch desk5 min readState jurisdictionLog in to save

Authorship warning

One or more sources supporting this report could not be confirmed as the work of a credited author or an identifiable official body. The signals behind that assessment are listed with each source citation below.

Voters in Menominee, Mich., on Tuesday approved raising the number of marijuana retailer licenses in the city from nine to 13, a move city leaders backed as a way to settle a string of lawsuits over the city's last available license. The vote was 1,812 yes to 1,212 no, according to Radio Results Network.

MLive reported that nearly 60% of voters in the Upper Peninsula border town of about 8,000 residents supported the initiative. The result reverses the direction voters took a year earlier: in 2025, 78% of Menominee voters backed a different initiative to cap the number of marijuana shops at nine, MLive reported.

Why the city backed more licenses

Menominee Mayor Casey Hoffman presented the expansion as a way to end lawsuits filed against the city over marijuana licensing since last year, according to MLive. Hoffman said passage would allow the city to grant licenses to companies suing Menominee in exchange for those companies dropping their lawsuits.

"A 'No' vote would leave the city facing continued litigation and its associated costs," Hoffman wrote in an Oct. 27 Facebook post quoted by MLive. "Since 2019, Menominee has incurred approximately $750,000 in marijuana-related legal bills ... In 2026, the city's yearly legal insurance premium rose from $30,000 to $130,000."

Hoffman also cautioned that the city's insurer may not cover a large settlement if the city lost in court, potentially leaving taxpayers liable, MLive reported. But he said the goal is not to permanently increase the number of marijuana retailers. According to MLive, Hoffman is pushing an ordinance that would eventually reduce the number to seven through attrition as stores close.

The lawsuits behind the vote

When voters approved the nine-store cap in 2025, eight marijuana shops were operating in the city, MLive reported. After that vote, five marijuana businesses initiated or joined lawsuits against Menominee in an effort to secure the one remaining license.

Attorneys for Puff Cannabis, which MLive described as the most publicly vocal litigant, contend the city should have issued the company a license in summer 2025 and have said they could seek more than $20 million in damages if the case went to trial. Campaign finance records obtained by MLive show that, as of Oct. 18, Troy-based Puff Cannabis had provided more than $100,000 in in-kind contributions toward advertising, legal services and other expenses supporting this year's initiative to expand the number of licenses.

Not every city official saw the lawsuits as a serious threat. "I'm really not that worried about a multimillion-dollar lawsuit," Councilman Michael DeDamos told MLive a day before the election. "I think it's just a tactic to get their licenses," he said.

MLive reported that the last two ballot initiatives in the city are believed to have been spearheaded by marijuana companies themselves. In 2025, existing dispensaries sought to limit new competition by proposing a cap on the city's then-unlimited licenses, an effort that aligned with residents frustrated by the city's rapid marijuana expansion and ongoing lawsuits, according to MLive. Multiple Menominee elected officials and Puff Cannabis have alleged that Lume Cannabis, which has a location in Menominee, largely funded the 2025 initiative; Lume has neither confirmed nor denied its involvement, despite multiple requests for comment from MLive.

Menominee's licensing fights go back further. MLive reported that the city's original selection process for two retailers was challenged by several lawsuits that were later dismissed in 2023, after which city officials signed a settlement agreement that made license commitments to six new marijuana businesses. In exchange, the suing businesses agreed to indemnify or pay the city's legal bills for future lawsuits and forgo any appeals, according to MLive. Puff claims that arrangement gave Lume and other companies improper leverage, MLive reported.

What happens next in Menominee

The vote does not award any licenses by itself. The city must approve a competitive process for selecting the businesses that will receive the additional licenses, MLive reported.

"We haven't agreed on a competitive process, yet," DeDamos told MLive. "I think the sense was, let this election take place before we put that in place."

Menominee City Manager Brett Botbyl did not respond to MLive's questions about the city's litigation costs, the outlet reported.

The stakes are tied to geography. Menominee sits on the Wisconsin border, where recreational marijuana remains illegal and where many marijuana customers come from, making it one of Michigan's most sought-after cannabis markets, MLive reported. The city received nearly $425,000 in marijuana excise tax revenue last year through the state's revenue-sharing program, according to MLive.

Niles votes go the other way

In southwest Michigan, voters took a more restrictive approach. In the city of Niles, 61% of voters approved the "City of Niles Limitation on Marihuana Establishments Ordinance," while 39% voted against it, according to unofficial results reported by WNDU.

The approved ordinance caps retail marijuana stores at five and microbusinesses at four, and blocks microbusinesses from converting into full-scale retail dispensaries, WNDU and WSBT reported. Before the vote, the city had operated under an overall limit of eight businesses selling marijuana directly to the public since 2018, WNDU reported, citing its reporting partner The Herald-Palladium. The measure reached the ballot after a group of Niles residents gathered enough signatures, WNDU reported in October.

Next door, Niles Township voters narrowly kept their ban on recreational marijuana stores. Unofficial results show 52% of township voters rejected a measure that would have overturned the ban and allowed up to four retail shops, while 48% voted in favor, WNDU reported. Under the proposal, those businesses would have had to be at least 1,000 feet from schools, churches and parks, according to WSBT.

The township has gone back and forth on the issue. Township voters rejected retail marijuana in 2022, approved a proposal to allow it in 2024 and then voted to reinstate a ban last year before reaffirming that prohibition on Tuesday, WNDU reported.

Why it matters

Tuesday's results show Michigan communities moving in both directions on local marijuana retail. Menominee voted to add stores to end costly litigation, while Niles tightened its retail limits and Niles Township kept its ban.

Vote totals cited here are unofficial until certified by local canvassers and may change. This article is news coverage, not legal advice.

Related legal context

Source citation cards

Authorship is reported as a signal for editorial review. Automated checks cannot prove who wrote a document, so every card records what was found and what remains uncertain.

Source 1Source not retrievable

MENOMINEE COUNTY: Marijuana Referendum, District Judge Race

Publisher
Radio Results Network
Author
Radio Results Network
Published
Nov 4, 2026
Jurisdiction
MI
Severity
No active alert
Retrieval
Not retrieved
Authorship unclearOpen source

Authorship signal — No individual author is credited in the provided source data.

Warning: The domain www.radioresults could not be resolved.

Source 2Source not retrievable

Menominee voters approve more marijuana shops to end lawsuits

Publisher
MLive Media Group
Author
Gus Burns
Published
Nov 4, 2026
Jurisdiction
MI
Severity
No active alert
Retrieval
HTTP 403
Credited authorOpen source

Authorship signal — The source credits Gus Burns as the reporter.

Warning: Source returned HTTP 403.

Source 3Authorship warning

Niles voters cap marijuana shops in city; Niles Township rejects retail proposal

Publisher
Gray Media
Author
WNDU
Published
Nov 4, 2026
Jurisdiction
MI
Severity
No active alert
Retrieval
HTTP 200
Authorship unclearOpen source

Authorship signal — No specific individual reporter is credited in the provided data.

Warning: Authorship is unclear. If this source is relied on, the published report must carry a visible authorship warning.

Source 4Source verified

Election 2026: Niles City, Niles Township decide on marijuana business limitations

Publisher
Sinclair
Author
Shelby Whitaker
Published
Nov 4, 2026
Jurisdiction
MI
Severity
No active alert
Retrieval
HTTP 200
Credited authorOpen source

Authorship signal — The source credits Shelby Whitaker as the reporter.

Source 5Authorship warning

Niles ballot measure proposes limit to big marijuana dispensaries

Publisher
Gray Media
Author
WNDU
Published
Oct 21, 2026
Jurisdiction
MI
Severity
No active alert
Retrieval
HTTP 200
Authorship unclearOpen source

Authorship signal — No specific individual reporter is credited in the provided data.

Warning: Authorship is unclear. If this source is relied on, the published report must carry a visible authorship warning.

Discussion

0 comments

Log in to join the discussion. Comments are public and appear with your name.

No comments yet. Be the first to add context.

Hemp Law Watch

A nationwide publication tracking hemp and cannabis law as it changes. Every published report carries its sources, authorship signals and an alert classification.

Sections

Editorial

Alert classifications

  • Federal alert
  • Misdemeanor / ticketable

Hemp Law Watch reports on legal developments and does not provide legal advice. State summaries are editorial reference points reviewed by the desk; always confirm against the cited primary sources.

© 2026 Hemp Law Watch