120’s particular language says and if there are any inferences that can be drawn from its broader structure. See Smith, 588 U.S. at 92, 123 S.Ct. 1140 (instructing that we should first “consider the statute’s text and its structure to determine the legislative objective”). “[Considerable deference must be accorded to the intent as the legislature has stated it.” Id. In this case, looking at the text of Article 120, there is no indication on the face of the provision of the legislative intent behind its enactment. Article 120, which was passed pursuant to a ballot question placed before Commonwealth voters, lacks any kind of express “statement of purpose” which legislation often includes, and none of its language reveals a particular government interest i . at 364-65, 104 S.Ct. 1099 (<HOLDING>). It follows that the Commonwealth’s authority
holding a forfeiture provision to be a civil action despite its codification in the states criminal code holding discovery rules apply to civil forfeiture proceedings holding civil action cannot be joined to a criminal appeal holding that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a criminal forfeiture action where a state court in a related state court forfeiture proceeding had in personam jurisdiction over the same currency subject to forfeiture recognizing that although the statute ocga  161349 governing forfeitures is in the criminal code such forfeiture action is a civil proceeding