The Michigan Supreme Court won't hear arguments in a lawsuit regarding Michigan's vote on recreational marijuana use, according to a ruling today.

"The application for leave to appeal is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court," an order bearing the names of the the seven Supreme Court justices issued on the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 7, reads.

Jeffrey Hank, attorney for MI Legalize, sent a message and said "justice denied" in light of the Michigan Supreme Court ruling that it would not hear the case.

Marijuana.

MI Legalize wants Michigan voters to decide on the November general election ballot if marijuana should be legal for people 21 and older. The group circulated a petition, which required 252,523 valid signatures.

MI Legalize turned in 354,000 signatures, but the Board of State Canvassers determined that not enough of those signatures were valid because some were collected outside of a 180-day signature window.

Wanting to avoid the difficult process in place of validating signatures through county clerks, organizers unsuccessfully attempted to get the Board of State Canvassers to establish an easier method of validating old signatures.

After MI Legalize turned in its signatures, the legislature changed Michigan law to limit the signature collection period to a strict 180 days.

MI Legalize filed a lawsuit against the state shortly after, claiming their signatures were valid.

Michigan's Court of Claims ruled the state had no obligation to accept the signatures.

MI Legalize filed for appeal in the state appeals court, and soon after filed for an appeal in the state Supreme Court.

The Michigan Court of Appeals also said on Sept. 7 that it would not rule on the appeal, granting MI Legalize's motion for immediate consideration, and denying its application for leave to appeal "for lack of merit in the grounds presented."

Attorney General Bill Schuette, in a response to the Court of Appeals filing, said MI Legalize's arguments are "moot," since, even if they could use all their signatures, there is not enough time before the Nov. 8 general election to challenge the validity of the signatures.

Hank said the appeals court ruling "just avoids any analysis, facts, or law, so now it is in the hands of the Michigan Supreme Court only."

"We are happy the court of appeals acted quickly," Hank said by email Wednesday, before learning of the Supreme Court ruling. "But I must say, that if we don't get relief, and if we never actually get an in-person hearing in court, then this is a grave injustice."

MI Legalize is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Hank said following Wednesday's state Supreme Court announcement. He said the group would make a formal statement later.