List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
From Ballotpedia
| 2016 U.S. State Ballot Measures | |
|---|---|
2017 »
« 2015
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Election results | |
| Scorecard | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| Lawsuits | |
| Deadlines | |
| Voter guides | |
| Initiatives filed | |
| Year-end analysis | |
| Part 2: Campaigns | |
| Polls | |
| Media editorials | |
| Part 3: Finances | |
| Contributions | |
| Signature costs | |
| Ballot Measure Monthly | |
| Signature requirements | |
Have you subscribed yet?
Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
| |
This page lists summaries of lawsuits about statewide ballot measures filed or ruled on in 2016. Lawsuits can be filed before an election specifically to keep a measure from being put on the ballot or after an election in order to invalidate the measure or certain provisions of the measure.
Pre-election lawsuits often allege one or more of the following:
- invalid signatures,
- unqualified signature gatherers,
- the unconstitutionality of the measure,
- biased or misleading petition language, or
- other criticisms that—if agreed to by a judge—could cause the measure to be removed or blocked from the ballot.
Pre-election lawsuits are most often filed against citizen initiatives and veto referendums; very infrequently are they filed against measures referred to the ballot by the legislature.
Lawsuits alleging the invalidity or unconstitutionality of a measure can also be filed after the election. Sometimes these court cases extend for years after a measure has been approved.
Click on the tabs below to see summaries of lawsuits:
- The By state tab organizes lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016 by state.
- The By subject tab organizes lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016 according to the subject of the lawsuits.
- The Historical measures tab lists lawsuits filed or ruled on in 2016 about historical statewide ballot measures.
- The Local tab will bring you to information about lawsuits over local ballot measures.
By state
This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2016—by state—for measures proximate to 2016. It also lists 2016 lawsuits about any measures targeting a ballot in 2017 or a later year.
Lawsuits about at least 34 different statewide ballot measures[1] were filed or ruled on in 2016. Sixteen states featured ballot measure-related lawsuits in 2016.
Alabama
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Deadline for legislative referral | |
| Court: Alabama 15th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The deadline is not a constitutional requirement nor a state statute, rather a procedural guideline; the measure must be placed on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chilton County Health Care Authority | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Merrill |
| Plaintiff argument: Secretary of state was misapplying the law; deadline was 74 days prior to the election | Defendant argument: There was no misapplication of the law and the deadline was 76 days prior to the election |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Overturning of judge's previous ruling | |
| Court: Montgomery Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Official ruling not found; Amendment 14 remained on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Bob Friedman | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Merrill, six state legislators |
| Plaintiff arguments: The measure could unnecessarily overturn a judge's previous ruling that stopped a Jefferson County sales tax plan | Defendant arguments: No comment yet |
Sources: Al.com
Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure creates new costs without providing new revenue sources (which is banned by the state's initiative law) and whether the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 206 is constitutional. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jane Ann Riddle, William L. Riddle, III, Valle Luna, Charlottee Chester, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, Yuma County Chamber of Commerce, Marc Community Resources, Inc., Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and Abrio Family Services and Supports, Inc. | Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Industrial Commission of Arizona, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Thomas J. Betlach, Arizona Department of Administration, Craig C. Brown, and Arizonans for Fair Wages and Health Families |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative unconstitutionally created new costs to the general fund without providing a new revenue source, and the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule since it was about the minimum wage and paid sick leave. | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional. |
Source: The Arizona Republic
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; petition circulators were not legally qualified | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The litigation was filed too late. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Restaurant Association | Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families |
| Plaintiff argument: Some petition circulators were not legally qualified. | Defendant argument: The litigation was filed too late. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Violation of contract; signature gathering company was allegedly not paid in full for services. | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sign Here Petitions | Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families |
| Plaintiff arguments: Sign Here Petitions is owed $65,000, as per the contract with supporting campaign. | Defendant arguments: Contract required payment for valid signatures. Around 25 percent of signatures were discarded, but the campaign still paid for 90 percent of them. |
Sources: Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; Whether Proposition 123 violated the federal government's law on Arizona's land trust fund | |
| Court: Filed in United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Appealed to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Pierce | Defendant(s): Gov. Doug Ducey |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 123 violated the federal law on the state's land trust fund because the proposition removed principal from the fund | Defendant argument: Proposition 123 did not violate federal law because Congress no longer has oversight of the state's land trust fund |
Source: United States District Court for the District of Arizona
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Petition summary; allegedly too unclear for voters to make an informed decision whether to sign or not | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Seth Leibsohn, Sheila Polk, Bill Montgomery, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary is vague and the initiative's funding mechanism is unconstitutional. | Defendant argument: The ballot summary is as clear as it can be in 100 words. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Ballot language; alleged inaccuracies in the text of the measure | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff on the issue of how age was presented, but not other issues | |
| Plaintiff(s): J.P. Holyoak | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan |
| Plaintiff arguments: Proposition 205's ballot text is inaccurate and downplays significant aspects of the initiative. | Defendant arguments: Changes are not needed |
Arkansas
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot title misinformation | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Toni Rose and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title omitted pertinent information, including ability for dispensaries to sell food and drinks that contain marijuana and legalization's potential effects on local social institutions | Defendant argument: Ballot title was succinctly and accurately worded |
Source: Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Ballot language; ballot title was allegedly misleading | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fairness for Arkansans | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title did not inform voters of various components of the measure | Defendant argument: Ballot title adequately explained the measure |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signatures; allegation that not all signatures validated were collected lawfully | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed due to ruling in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin | |
| Plaintiff(s): Committee to Protect AR Families | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff arguments: Health Care Access for Arkansans did not comply with mandatory canvasser certification laws and mandatory filing requirements | Defendant arguments: The secretary of state already found that Health Care Access for Arkansans complied with the circulation process |
Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Alleged biased ballot title language | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping measure on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Melanie Conway and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title contains biased and misleading language and omits facts about the measure | Defendant argument: Ballot title is unbiased and objective |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Deficient petitions | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff, removing the measure on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kara Benca | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff arguments: Missing information about canvassers and irregularities with signers of the petitions | Defendant arguments: Petitions were certified as valid |
Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court (Conway v. Martin) and Arkansas Supreme Court (Benca v. Martin)
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language and signature validity | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title misled voters to believe that gambling on sports events would be permitted, while federal law prohibited it | Defendant argument: Language was clear and succinct, and the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case |
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Accuracy of opponents' arguments in the official voter guide | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The section's claims about the fiscal impact of the measure and worker safety are misleading. Other claims are justifiable for inclusion in the guide. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Derrick Burts | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and No on 60 |
| Plaintiff argument: The "Arguments Against" section of the voter guide contains false and misleading statements | Defendant argument: The statements in the section are correct |
Source: Courthouse News Service
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Plaintiff alleges that legislative analyst's statement on VA drug prices was misleading | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The judge ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff's issue was not concerning because elsewhere the legislative analyst states that "[t]he federal government has established discount programs that place upper limits on the prices paid for prescription drugs by selected federal payers, including the VA." | |
| Plaintiff(s): Aref Aziz | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla |
| Plaintiff argument: The statement "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices" is misleading; federal law limits drug companies from raising VA drug prices above 76 percent of average manufacture price. The statement should read "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices, subject to federal price caps on brand-name drugs." | Defendant argument: The legislative analyst's statement is not misleading. |
Source: Sacramento Superior Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: The official opposition arguments found in the voter guide are misleading. | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Yes on 64 | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and No on 64 |
| Plaintiff argument: There were at least four false statements about the initiative in the "arguments against" section of the voter guide. | Defendant argument: The arguments are not misleading. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: The official support arguments found in the voter guide are misleading. | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed. | |
| Plaintiff(s): No on 64 | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and Yes on 64 |
| Plaintiff arguments: There were at least two false statements about the initiative in the "arguments in favor" section of the voter guide. | Defendant arguments: The arguments are not misleading. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether Prop. 66 violates provisions in the state constitution concerning the death penalty. | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposition 66 to go into effect. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor | Defendant(s): Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Judicial Council of California, and Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty (Intervenor) |
| Plaintiff argument: Prop. 66 unconstitutionally restricts the role of the Supreme Court and appellate court, and the time limits on death penalty cases violates the constitutional rights of death row inmates. | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be respected, and the initiative is constitutional. |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Removal of initiative from the ballot due to allegedly illegal unrelated amendments to initiative text | |
| Court: Filed in Sacramento County Superior Court; appealed to California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the initiative to stay on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): California District Attorneys Association | Defendant(s): Initiative petitioners |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners made amendments to their initiative that were substantive and unrelated to the original initiative text after filing it with the attorney general, which is prohibited by law. | Defendant argument: The amendments were "reasonably germane" to the subject and purpose of the original initiative text filed with the attorney general, as required by law. |
Florida
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2 | |
| Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2. | |
| Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana | Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden |
| Plaintiff argument: Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2 | Defendant argument: Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional. |
Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots | |
| Court: Broward County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied. | |
| Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida | Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted. | Defendant argument: There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots. |
Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald
Georgia
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Alleged biased ballot title and summary language | |
| Court: Fulton County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The case was dismissed. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kimberly Brooks, Rev. Timothy McDonald, and Melissa Ladd | Defendant(s): Governor Nathan Deal (R), Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle (R), and Secretary of State Brian Kemp (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title and summary wording is misleading | Defendant argument: Not filed yet |
Source: Fulton County Superior Court Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Illinois
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: The initiative violated the state's subject restriction. | |
| Court: Filed in Cook County Court, appealed to Illinois Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot based on subject restriction violations. | |
| Plaintiff(s): John Hooker, Frank Clark, Leon Finney, Elzie Higgenbottom, Raymond Chin, Fernando Grillo, Jorge Perez, and Craig Chico | Defendant(s): Illinois State Board of Elections, State Comptroller Leslie Munger, State Treasurer Michael Frerichs, Secretary of State Jesse White, Cook County Clerk David Orr, and the Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs argued that the measure was an unconstitutional use of the initiative power because it dealt with more than one subject and added new responsibilities to various officials, thereby violating the state's subject restriction. | Defendant argument: Defendants argued that redistricting was one of the few areas that the initiative power in Illinois could be used and that other details in the initiative were related to redistricting, and, therefore, did not violate the single-subject rule or the state's subject restriction. |
Source: Case No. 16 CH 6539
Maine
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2016 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity | |
| Court: Kennebec County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, upholding the secretary of state's signature count. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Horseracing Jobs Fairness | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matt Dunlap |
| Plaintiff argument: The secretary of state's office applied inconsistent standards to reviewing signatures. | Defendant argument: The office was correct to deem petitions invalid that contained a circulator’s signature or notary's signature that did not match signatures on file. |
Source: Bangor Daily News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Invalid signatures | |
| Court: Kennebec County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Overturned secretary of state's decision to disqualify the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Roger Birks, John Black, David Boyer, Eric Brakey, Erin Canavin, Christina Jones, Olga LaPlante, Matthew Maloney, Paul McCarrier, Tom Obear, Bethany Profaizer, Samantha Rocray, Diane Russell, and Luke Sirois | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs claimed that Dunlap only reviewed a portion of the notaries' signatures and then disqualified all petitions signed by that notary, rather than reviewing all notary signatures. | Defendant argument: The defendant claimed that 17,000 signatures were invalid because the signature of the notary for those signatures did not match the signature on file with the secretary of state's office. |
Michigan
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the state's given time frame of 180 days for collecting initiative signatures | |
| Court: Michigan Court of Claims and Michigan Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Dismissed by lower courts | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michigan Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Committee aka MILegalize | Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, Bureau of Elections Director Chris Thomas, and the Michigan Board of Canvassers |
| Plaintiff argument: The 180-day time frame is unconstitutional because it places undue burden on petitioners and is impossible to comply with. | Defendant argument: The time frame is constitutional. |
Source: MILegalize Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Missouri
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure can stop plaintiffs from donating to campaigns and PACs | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Ruling: Some sections ruled unconstitutional: capping contributions to $2,600, banning corporations and unions from making certain contributions, banning political action committees from receiving or making certain contributions, and banning committees from accepting contributions from foreign corporations. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Association of Missouri Electrical Cooperatives, Association of Missouri Electrical Cooperatives PAC, Legends Bank, David Klindt, Free and Fair Election Fund, Missourians for Worker Freedom, American Democracy Alliance, John Elliot, Herzog Services Inc., and Farmers State Bank | Defendant(s): State of Missouri and Missouri Ethics Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure unconstitutionally blocks them from making desired contributions to campaigns and PACs. | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional. |
Source: The Missouri Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of campaign contribution limits on specific kinds of corporations | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant in circuit court and dismissed by the supreme court; the possibility remained for a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Amendment 2 after the election. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Missouri Electric Cooperatives and Legends Bank | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jason Kander |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause by placing different contributions limits for banks and corporations | Defendant argument: The opponents' arguments are meritless, and restrictions on banks and corporations limit corruption. |
Source: St. Louis Public Radio
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged the petition summary was inaccurate, invalidating signatures | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary used during signature gathering was incomplete and misleading. | Defendant argument: Removing the measure from the ballot would disenfranchise the voters who signed the petition, and state law does not require the removal of an initiative from the ballot due to ballot summary changes ordered after signature gathering is complete. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; argued the measure was unclear | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot because the election was to close and consideration of the constitutionality of the amendment would have to wait until after the election | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids |
| Plaintiff arguments: Amendment 3 violates the state constitution because of a lack of clarity about the raising and expenditure of revenue and because it was designed to implement a fee on certain tobacco businesses. | Defendant arguments: Amendment 3 complies with the constitution and it was too close to the election to decide on the constitutionality of the measure. |
Sources: Education Week and St. Louis Public Radio
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature invalidation | |
| Court: St. Louis City Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Signatures were properly invalidated, measure to remain off the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): New Approach Missouri | Defendant(s): Sec. of State Jason Kander and over a dozen Missouri prosecutors |
| Plaintiff argument: Rejected signatures are valid | Defendant argument: Legalizing medical marijuana contradicts federal law and signatures were legitemately invalidated |
Montana
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether public money can be spent on private organizations | |
| Court: Montana Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Montana Taxpayers Association | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Linda McCulloch |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure is unconstitutional because the state cannot spend public revenue on private organizations | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional. |
Source: Billings Gazette
Nebraska
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Omission of a petition sponsor | |
| Court: Filed in Nebraska Third District Court; appealed to Nebraska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Rejected; ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the referendum to appear on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christy and Richard Hargesheimer, on behalf of Nebraskans for Public Safety | Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale, Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, Judy Glasburner, Aimee Melton, and Bob Evnen |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs argued that the referendum was invalid because the petition failed to list Governor Ricketts, who they believed was an initiating force behind the petition, as a sponsor. | Defendant argument: The defendant argued that support of a petition does not necessarily make a person a sponsor of a petition. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Misleading ballot language | |
| Court: Nebraska Third District Court | |
| Ruling: Rejected; ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the referendum to appear on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Lyle Koenig, on behalf of Nebraskans for Public Safety | Defendant(s): Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson and Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale |
| Plaintiff arguments: Plaintiffs argued that the ballot measure language was misleading because it said the maximum sentence for first-degree murder was life in prison, while the group noted that life imprisonment would be the only penalty permitted for first-degree murder. | Defendant arguments: The defendant argued the ballot text was taken directly from language drafted by the legislature’s Judiciary Committee. |
Nevada
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2016 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether voters can command legislative actions. | |
| Court: Nevada First Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: This case was dismissed on December 29, 2016.[2] | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jacqueline Sue Bird and Gail Tuzzolo | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske and Nevadans for Affordable Clean Energy Choices |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiatives cannot command the Nevada Legislature to take specific legislative actions. | Defendant argument: The plaintiff's argument is without merit. |
Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the use of a veto referendum; veto referendums are only allowed to be used to reject whole pieces of legislation | |
| Court: Filed in Carson City District Court, appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness | Defendant(s): No Solar Tax PAC |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs argued that the referendum sought only to reject portions of a bill and that the Nevada Constitution requires veto referendums to only be used to reject entire pieces of legislation. They also argued that the language used to describe the measure during signature collection was misleading. | Defendant argument: Defendants contested the court's interpretation of the initiative and referendum provisions of the Nevada Constitution. |
Source: Nevada Supreme Court
Ohio
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2016 ballot measures
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged violation of petition circulation laws by defendant. | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, disqualifying 10,303 signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Keith A. Lake, and Ryan R. Augsburger | Defendant(s): Ohioans for Drug Price Relief |
| Plaintiff argument: Proponents broke petition circulations laws to the point of signatures falling below the legal threshold of consideration. | Defendant argument: Signatures were valid. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged miscount of signatures by defendant. | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, recovering 20,840 signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): Tracy L. Jones, William S. Booth, Daniel L. Darland, and Latonya D. Thurman (Ohioans for Drug Price Relief) | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jon Husted |
| Plaintiff arguments: Husted's office should have counted signatures on petitions containing other signatures crossed out. | Defendant arguments: The issue had been adjudicated by a court already, and there was an unreasonable delay in filing the case. |
Sources: Ohio Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court
Oklahoma
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: State Question 777 should not be placed on the statewide ballot because it is unconstitutional | |
| Court: Filed in Oklahoma County Court; appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' request and allowing SQ 777 to remain on the ballot. The court did not determine the constitutionality of SQ 777 in this decision. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Save The Illinois River Inc, The Hon. Representative Jason Dunnington, Edward Brocksmith, John Leonard | Defendant(s): The Oklahoma State ex rel the Oklahoma State Election Board, Election Board Chairman Steve Curry, Election Board Vice Chairman Tom Montgomery, Election Board Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer Paul Ziriax, Election Board Member Dr. Tim Mauldin, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt |
| Plaintiff argument: State Question 777 was unconstitutional because it violated single subject rule, its language was vague, it violated separation of powers, and it would keep the legislature from being able to repeal/change the law in the future. | Defendant argument: The plaintiffs did not file the lawsuit in a timely manner, and therefore their case should be dismissed. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; alleged that the provided ballot title was inaccurate and biased. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the ballot title proposed by the attorney general was biased and that the ballot title proposed by petitioners was insufficiently clear and information. The court provided a rewritten ballot title. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and petitioners | Defendant(s): Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The attorney general's ballot title was biased against the initiative and did not accurately represent the proposal. | Defendant argument: The petitioners' proposed ballot title did not explain the full effects of the measure and the attorney general's ballot title accurately and neutrally explained the state question. |
Source: Justia US Law
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; alleged that the provided ballot title was inaccurate and biased. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the ballot title proposed by the attorney general was biased and that the ballot title proposed by petitioners was insufficiently clear and information. The court provided a rewritten ballot title. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and petitioners | Defendant(s): Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The attorney general's ballot title was biased against the initiative and did not accurately represent the proposal. | Defendant argument: The petitioners' proposed ballot title did not explain the full effects of the measure and the attorney general's ballot title was accurately and neutrally explained the state question. |
Source: Justia US Law
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Violation of single-subject rule. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative did not violate the single-subject rule. | |
| Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact | Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative addressed two subjects, teacher salaries and taxes, not one subject. | Defendant argument: The different parts of the measure relate to a single scheme, which was how previous rulings defined "single-subject." |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Petition summary; The lawsuit claimed that the petition summary was misleading. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative remained on the ballot, but the ballot title was rewritten. | |
| Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact | Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future |
| Plaintiff arguments: The ballot summary lacked pertinent information. | Defendant arguments: The plaintiffs were using criticisms about the ballot language to attempt to stop the measure from going to the ballot. |
Sources: The Oklahoman and The Oklahoman
South Dakota
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether the measure violates free speech and the single-subject rule | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit | |
| Ruling: This court ruling was precluded by legislation to repeal Measure 22 | |
| Plaintiff(s): R. Blake Curd, Jim Stalzer, Mark Willadsen, Jim Bolin, Gary Cammack, Justin Cronin, Bob Ewing, Brock Greenfield, Terri Haverly, Phil Jensen, Ryan Maher, Al Novstrup, Ernie Otten, Larry Tidemann, Jim White, John Wilk, David Anderson, Kent Peterson, Lana Greenfield, G. Mark Mickelson, Timothy Johns, Lee Qualm, Deb Peters, Deb Soholt, Carol Stalzer, Betty Otten, Cindy Elifrits Peterson, and South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance Action, Inc. | Defendant(s): South Dakota and Attorney General Marty Jackley |
Source: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit Court
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2016—by subject—for measures proximate to 2016. It also lists 2016 lawsuits about any measures targeting a ballot in 2017 or a later year.
Subjects listed include the following:
- Ballot language - Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on petition forms or on the ballot
- Campaign finance - Lawsuits alleging campaign finance law violations
- Circulators - Lawsuits concerning the qualifications or actions of petition circulators
- Post-certification removal - Lawsuits seeking the removal of a measure from the ballot after it was certified
- Post-election - Lawsuits filed concerning a measure after the election has already occurred
- Preemption - Lawsuits alleging that a measure is preempted by a higher authority (i.e. a state measure preempted by Federal authority/law or a local measure preempted by state authority/law)
- Signature validity - Lawsuits challenging the validity of signatures
- Signature deadlines - Lawsuits that argue proponents of a measure did not meet the procedural deadlines required to put a measure on the ballot
- Single subject - Lawsuits challenging an initiative according to a state's single-subject rule
- Subject restriction - Lawsuits based on legal restrictions on the subject matter of ballot measures
- Substantive constitutionality - Lawsuits alleging that the content of a measure violates a constitutional provision such as a right to free speech or equal protection.
- Voter guide - Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on state-produced voter guides
Methodological note: Since multiple lawsuits are often filed surrounding one measure, and these lawsuits provide important context for each other, information about all lawsuits surrounding a specific measure will be listed whether or not each separate lawsuit concerns the subject under which the lawsuits are listed on this tab.
Ballot language
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Plaintiff alleges that legislative analyst's statement on VA drug prices was misleading | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The judge ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff's issue was not concerning because elsewhere the legislative analyst states that "[t]he federal government has established discount programs that place upper limits on the prices paid for prescription drugs by selected federal payers, including the VA." | |
| Plaintiff(s): Aref Aziz | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla |
| Plaintiff argument: The statement "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices" is misleading; federal law limits drug companies from raising VA drug prices above 76 percent of average manufacture price. The statement should read "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices, subject to federal price caps on brand-name drugs." | Defendant argument: The legislative analyst's statement is not misleading. |
Source: Sacramento Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: State Question 777 should not be placed on the statewide ballot because it is unconstitutional | |
| Court: Filed in Oklahoma County Court; appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' request and allowing SQ 777 to remain on the ballot. The court did not determine the constitutionality of SQ 777 in this decision. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Save The Illinois River Inc, The Hon. Representative Jason Dunnington, Edward Brocksmith, John Leonard | Defendant(s): The Oklahoma State ex rel the Oklahoma State Election Board, Election Board Chairman Steve Curry, Election Board Vice Chairman Tom Montgomery, Election Board Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer Paul Ziriax, Election Board Member Dr. Tim Mauldin, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt |
| Plaintiff argument: State Question 777 was unconstitutional because it violated single subject rule, its language was vague, it violated separation of powers, and it would keep the legislature from being able to repeal/change the law in the future. | Defendant argument: The plaintiffs did not file the lawsuit in a timely manner, and therefore their case should be dismissed. |
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Omission of a petition sponsor | |
| Court: Filed in Nebraska Third District Court; appealed to Nebraska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Rejected; ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the referendum to appear on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christy and Richard Hargesheimer, on behalf of Nebraskans for Public Safety | Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale, Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, Judy Glasburner, Aimee Melton, and Bob Evnen |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs argued that the referendum was invalid because the petition failed to list Governor Ricketts, who they believed was an initiating force behind the petition, as a sponsor. | Defendant argument: The defendant argued that support of a petition does not necessarily make a person a sponsor of a petition. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Misleading ballot language | |
| Court: Nebraska Third District Court | |
| Ruling: Rejected; ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the referendum to appear on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Lyle Koenig, on behalf of Nebraskans for Public Safety | Defendant(s): Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson and Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale |
| Plaintiff arguments: Plaintiffs argued that the ballot measure language was misleading because it said the maximum sentence for first-degree murder was life in prison, while the group noted that life imprisonment would be the only penalty permitted for first-degree murder. | Defendant arguments: The defendant argued the ballot text was taken directly from language drafted by the legislature’s Judiciary Committee. |
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: The official opposition arguments found in the voter guide are misleading. | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Yes on 64 | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and No on 64 |
| Plaintiff argument: There were at least four false statements about the initiative in the "arguments against" section of the voter guide. | Defendant argument: The arguments are not misleading. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: The official support arguments found in the voter guide are misleading. | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed. | |
| Plaintiff(s): No on 64 | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and Yes on 64 |
| Plaintiff arguments: There were at least two false statements about the initiative in the "arguments in favor" section of the voter guide. | Defendant arguments: The arguments are not misleading. |
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged the petition summary was inaccurate, invalidating signatures | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary used during signature gathering was incomplete and misleading. | Defendant argument: Removing the measure from the ballot would disenfranchise the voters who signed the petition, and state law does not require the removal of an initiative from the ballot due to ballot summary changes ordered after signature gathering is complete. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; argued the measure was unclear | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot because the election was to close and consideration of the constitutionality of the amendment would have to wait until after the election | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids |
| Plaintiff arguments: Amendment 3 violates the state constitution because of a lack of clarity about the raising and expenditure of revenue and because it was designed to implement a fee on certain tobacco businesses. | Defendant arguments: Amendment 3 complies with the constitution and it was too close to the election to decide on the constitutionality of the measure. |
Sources: Education Week and St. Louis Public Radio
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the use of a veto referendum; veto referendums are only allowed to be used to reject whole pieces of legislation | |
| Court: Filed in Carson City District Court, appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness | Defendant(s): No Solar Tax PAC |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs argued that the referendum sought only to reject portions of a bill and that the Nevada Constitution requires veto referendums to only be used to reject entire pieces of legislation. They also argued that the language used to describe the measure during signature collection was misleading. | Defendant argument: Defendants contested the court's interpretation of the initiative and referendum provisions of the Nevada Constitution. |
Source: Nevada Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; alleged that the provided ballot title was inaccurate and biased. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the ballot title proposed by the attorney general was biased and that the ballot title proposed by petitioners was insufficiently clear and information. The court provided a rewritten ballot title. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and petitioners | Defendant(s): Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The attorney general's ballot title was biased against the initiative and did not accurately represent the proposal. | Defendant argument: The petitioners' proposed ballot title did not explain the full effects of the measure and the attorney general's ballot title accurately and neutrally explained the state question. |
Source: Justia US Law
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2 | |
| Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2. | |
| Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana | Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden |
| Plaintiff argument: Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2 | Defendant argument: Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional. |
Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots | |
| Court: Broward County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied. | |
| Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida | Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted. | Defendant argument: There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots. |
Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot title misinformation | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Toni Rose and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title omitted pertinent information, including ability for dispensaries to sell food and drinks that contain marijuana and legalization's potential effects on local social institutions | Defendant argument: Ballot title was succinctly and accurately worded |
Source: Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Petition summary; allegedly too unclear for voters to make an informed decision whether to sign or not | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Seth Leibsohn, Sheila Polk, Bill Montgomery, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary is vague and the initiative's funding mechanism is unconstitutional. | Defendant argument: The ballot summary is as clear as it can be in 100 words. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Ballot language; alleged inaccuracies in the text of the measure | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff on the issue of how age was presented, but not other issues | |
| Plaintiff(s): J.P. Holyoak | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan |
| Plaintiff arguments: Proposition 205's ballot text is inaccurate and downplays significant aspects of the initiative. | Defendant arguments: Changes are not needed |
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Ballot language; ballot title was allegedly misleading | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fairness for Arkansans | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title did not inform voters of various components of the measure | Defendant argument: Ballot title adequately explained the measure |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signatures; allegation that not all signatures validated were collected lawfully | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed due to ruling in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin | |
| Plaintiff(s): Committee to Protect AR Families | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff arguments: Health Care Access for Arkansans did not comply with mandatory canvasser certification laws and mandatory filing requirements | Defendant arguments: The secretary of state already found that Health Care Access for Arkansans complied with the circulation process |
Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Alleged biased ballot title language | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping measure on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Melanie Conway and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title contains biased and misleading language and omits facts about the measure | Defendant argument: Ballot title is unbiased and objective |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Deficient petitions | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff, removing the measure on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kara Benca | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff arguments: Missing information about canvassers and irregularities with signers of the petitions | Defendant arguments: Petitions were certified as valid |
Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court (Conway v. Martin) and Arkansas Supreme Court (Benca v. Martin)
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language and signature validity | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title misled voters to believe that gambling on sports events would be permitted, while federal law prohibited it | Defendant argument: Language was clear and succinct, and the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; alleged that the provided ballot title was inaccurate and biased. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the ballot title proposed by the attorney general was biased and that the ballot title proposed by petitioners was insufficiently clear and information. The court provided a rewritten ballot title. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and petitioners | Defendant(s): Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The attorney general's ballot title was biased against the initiative and did not accurately represent the proposal. | Defendant argument: The petitioners' proposed ballot title did not explain the full effects of the measure and the attorney general's ballot title was accurately and neutrally explained the state question. |
Source: Justia US Law
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Alleged biased ballot title and summary language | |
| Court: Fulton County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The case was dismissed. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kimberly Brooks, Rev. Timothy McDonald, and Melissa Ladd | Defendant(s): Governor Nathan Deal (R), Lieutenant Governor Casey Cagle (R), and Secretary of State Brian Kemp (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title and summary wording is misleading | Defendant argument: Not filed yet |
Source: Fulton County Superior Court Atlanta Journal-Constitution
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Removal of initiative from the ballot due to allegedly illegal unrelated amendments to initiative text | |
| Court: Filed in Sacramento County Superior Court; appealed to California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the initiative to stay on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): California District Attorneys Association | Defendant(s): Initiative petitioners |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners made amendments to their initiative that were substantive and unrelated to the original initiative text after filing it with the attorney general, which is prohibited by law. | Defendant argument: The amendments were "reasonably germane" to the subject and purpose of the original initiative text filed with the attorney general, as required by law. |
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Violation of single-subject rule. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative did not violate the single-subject rule. | |
| Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact | Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative addressed two subjects, teacher salaries and taxes, not one subject. | Defendant argument: The different parts of the measure relate to a single scheme, which was how previous rulings defined "single-subject." |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Petition summary; The lawsuit claimed that the petition summary was misleading. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative remained on the ballot, but the ballot title was rewritten. | |
| Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact | Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future |
| Plaintiff arguments: The ballot summary lacked pertinent information. | Defendant arguments: The plaintiffs were using criticisms about the ballot language to attempt to stop the measure from going to the ballot. |
Sources: The Oklahoman and The Oklahoman
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016 regarding campaign finance.
Circulators
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged violation of petition circulation laws by defendant. | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, disqualifying 10,303 signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Keith A. Lake, and Ryan R. Augsburger | Defendant(s): Ohioans for Drug Price Relief |
| Plaintiff argument: Proponents broke petition circulations laws to the point of signatures falling below the legal threshold of consideration. | Defendant argument: Signatures were valid. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged miscount of signatures by defendant. | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, recovering 20,840 signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): Tracy L. Jones, William S. Booth, Daniel L. Darland, and Latonya D. Thurman (Ohioans for Drug Price Relief) | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jon Husted |
| Plaintiff arguments: Husted's office should have counted signatures on petitions containing other signatures crossed out. | Defendant arguments: The issue had been adjudicated by a court already, and there was an unreasonable delay in filing the case. |
Sources: Ohio Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Alleged biased ballot title language | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping measure on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Melanie Conway and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title contains biased and misleading language and omits facts about the measure | Defendant argument: Ballot title is unbiased and objective |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Deficient petitions | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff, removing the measure on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kara Benca | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff arguments: Missing information about canvassers and irregularities with signers of the petitions | Defendant arguments: Petitions were certified as valid |
Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court (Conway v. Martin) and Arkansas Supreme Court (Benca v. Martin)
Post-certification removal
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged the petition summary was inaccurate, invalidating signatures | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary used during signature gathering was incomplete and misleading. | Defendant argument: Removing the measure from the ballot would disenfranchise the voters who signed the petition, and state law does not require the removal of an initiative from the ballot due to ballot summary changes ordered after signature gathering is complete. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; argued the measure was unclear | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot because the election was to close and consideration of the constitutionality of the amendment would have to wait until after the election | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids |
| Plaintiff arguments: Amendment 3 violates the state constitution because of a lack of clarity about the raising and expenditure of revenue and because it was designed to implement a fee on certain tobacco businesses. | Defendant arguments: Amendment 3 complies with the constitution and it was too close to the election to decide on the constitutionality of the measure. |
Sources: Education Week and St. Louis Public Radio
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the use of a veto referendum; veto referendums are only allowed to be used to reject whole pieces of legislation | |
| Court: Filed in Carson City District Court, appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness | Defendant(s): No Solar Tax PAC |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs argued that the referendum sought only to reject portions of a bill and that the Nevada Constitution requires veto referendums to only be used to reject entire pieces of legislation. They also argued that the language used to describe the measure during signature collection was misleading. | Defendant argument: Defendants contested the court's interpretation of the initiative and referendum provisions of the Nevada Constitution. |
Source: Nevada Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether public money can be spent on private organizations | |
| Court: Montana Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Montana Taxpayers Association | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Linda McCulloch |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure is unconstitutional because the state cannot spend public revenue on private organizations | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional. |
Source: Billings Gazette
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: The initiative violated the state's subject restriction. | |
| Court: Filed in Cook County Court, appealed to Illinois Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot based on subject restriction violations. | |
| Plaintiff(s): John Hooker, Frank Clark, Leon Finney, Elzie Higgenbottom, Raymond Chin, Fernando Grillo, Jorge Perez, and Craig Chico | Defendant(s): Illinois State Board of Elections, State Comptroller Leslie Munger, State Treasurer Michael Frerichs, Secretary of State Jesse White, Cook County Clerk David Orr, and the Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs argued that the measure was an unconstitutional use of the initiative power because it dealt with more than one subject and added new responsibilities to various officials, thereby violating the state's subject restriction. | Defendant argument: Defendants argued that redistricting was one of the few areas that the initiative power in Illinois could be used and that other details in the initiative were related to redistricting, and, therefore, did not violate the single-subject rule or the state's subject restriction. |
Source: Case No. 16 CH 6539
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot title misinformation | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Toni Rose and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title omitted pertinent information, including ability for dispensaries to sell food and drinks that contain marijuana and legalization's potential effects on local social institutions | Defendant argument: Ballot title was succinctly and accurately worded |
Source: Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Deadline for legislative referral | |
| Court: Alabama 15th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The deadline is not a constitutional requirement nor a state statute, rather a procedural guideline; the measure must be placed on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chilton County Health Care Authority | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Merrill |
| Plaintiff argument: Secretary of state was misapplying the law; deadline was 74 days prior to the election | Defendant argument: There was no misapplication of the law and the deadline was 76 days prior to the election |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Overturning of judge's previous ruling | |
| Court: Montgomery Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Official ruling not found; Amendment 14 remained on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Bob Friedman | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Merrill, six state legislators |
| Plaintiff arguments: The measure could unnecessarily overturn a judge's previous ruling that stopped a Jefferson County sales tax plan | Defendant arguments: No comment yet |
Sources: Al.com
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Ballot language; ballot title was allegedly misleading | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fairness for Arkansans | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title did not inform voters of various components of the measure | Defendant argument: Ballot title adequately explained the measure |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signatures; allegation that not all signatures validated were collected lawfully | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed due to ruling in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin | |
| Plaintiff(s): Committee to Protect AR Families | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff arguments: Health Care Access for Arkansans did not comply with mandatory canvasser certification laws and mandatory filing requirements | Defendant arguments: The secretary of state already found that Health Care Access for Arkansans complied with the circulation process |
Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Alleged biased ballot title language | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping measure on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Melanie Conway and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title contains biased and misleading language and omits facts about the measure | Defendant argument: Ballot title is unbiased and objective |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Deficient petitions | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff, removing the measure on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kara Benca | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff arguments: Missing information about canvassers and irregularities with signers of the petitions | Defendant arguments: Petitions were certified as valid |
Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court (Conway v. Martin) and Arkansas Supreme Court (Benca v. Martin)
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language and signature validity | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title misled voters to believe that gambling on sports events would be permitted, while federal law prohibited it | Defendant argument: Language was clear and succinct, and the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Removal of initiative from the ballot due to allegedly illegal unrelated amendments to initiative text | |
| Court: Filed in Sacramento County Superior Court; appealed to California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the initiative to stay on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): California District Attorneys Association | Defendant(s): Initiative petitioners |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners made amendments to their initiative that were substantive and unrelated to the original initiative text after filing it with the attorney general, which is prohibited by law. | Defendant argument: The amendments were "reasonably germane" to the subject and purpose of the original initiative text filed with the attorney general, as required by law. |
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Violation of single-subject rule. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative did not violate the single-subject rule. | |
| Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact | Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative addressed two subjects, teacher salaries and taxes, not one subject. | Defendant argument: The different parts of the measure relate to a single scheme, which was how previous rulings defined "single-subject." |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Petition summary; The lawsuit claimed that the petition summary was misleading. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative remained on the ballot, but the ballot title was rewritten. | |
| Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact | Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future |
| Plaintiff arguments: The ballot summary lacked pertinent information. | Defendant arguments: The plaintiffs were using criticisms about the ballot language to attempt to stop the measure from going to the ballot. |
Sources: The Oklahoman and The Oklahoman
Post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure can stop plaintiffs from donating to campaigns and PACs | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Ruling: Some sections ruled unconstitutional: capping contributions to $2,600, banning corporations and unions from making certain contributions, banning political action committees from receiving or making certain contributions, and banning committees from accepting contributions from foreign corporations. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Association of Missouri Electrical Cooperatives, Association of Missouri Electrical Cooperatives PAC, Legends Bank, David Klindt, Free and Fair Election Fund, Missourians for Worker Freedom, American Democracy Alliance, John Elliot, Herzog Services Inc., and Farmers State Bank | Defendant(s): State of Missouri and Missouri Ethics Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure unconstitutionally blocks them from making desired contributions to campaigns and PACs. | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional. |
Source: The Missouri Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of campaign contribution limits on specific kinds of corporations | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant in circuit court and dismissed by the supreme court; the possibility remained for a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Amendment 2 after the election. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Missouri Electric Cooperatives and Legends Bank | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jason Kander |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause by placing different contributions limits for banks and corporations | Defendant argument: The opponents' arguments are meritless, and restrictions on banks and corporations limit corruption. |
Source: St. Louis Public Radio
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure creates new costs without providing new revenue sources (which is banned by the state's initiative law) and whether the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 206 is constitutional. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jane Ann Riddle, William L. Riddle, III, Valle Luna, Charlottee Chester, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, Yuma County Chamber of Commerce, Marc Community Resources, Inc., Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and Abrio Family Services and Supports, Inc. | Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Industrial Commission of Arizona, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Thomas J. Betlach, Arizona Department of Administration, Craig C. Brown, and Arizonans for Fair Wages and Health Families |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative unconstitutionally created new costs to the general fund without providing a new revenue source, and the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule since it was about the minimum wage and paid sick leave. | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional. |
Source: The Arizona Republic
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; petition circulators were not legally qualified | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The litigation was filed too late. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Restaurant Association | Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families |
| Plaintiff argument: Some petition circulators were not legally qualified. | Defendant argument: The litigation was filed too late. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Violation of contract; signature gathering company was allegedly not paid in full for services. | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sign Here Petitions | Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families |
| Plaintiff arguments: Sign Here Petitions is owed $65,000, as per the contract with supporting campaign. | Defendant arguments: Contract required payment for valid signatures. Around 25 percent of signatures were discarded, but the campaign still paid for 90 percent of them. |
Sources: Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2 | |
| Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2. | |
| Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana | Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden |
| Plaintiff argument: Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2 | Defendant argument: Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional. |
Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots | |
| Court: Broward County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied. | |
| Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida | Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted. | Defendant argument: There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots. |
Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; Whether Proposition 123 violated the federal government's law on Arizona's land trust fund | |
| Court: Filed in United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Appealed to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Pierce | Defendant(s): Gov. Doug Ducey |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 123 violated the federal law on the state's land trust fund because the proposition removed principal from the fund | Defendant argument: Proposition 123 did not violate federal law because Congress no longer has oversight of the state's land trust fund |
Source: United States District Court for the District of Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether Prop. 66 violates provisions in the state constitution concerning the death penalty. | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposition 66 to go into effect. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor | Defendant(s): Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Judicial Council of California, and Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty (Intervenor) |
| Plaintiff argument: Prop. 66 unconstitutionally restricts the role of the Supreme Court and appellate court, and the time limits on death penalty cases violates the constitutional rights of death row inmates. | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be respected, and the initiative is constitutional. |
Source: California Supreme Court
Preemption
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016 regarding preemption.
Signature validity
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged violation of petition circulation laws by defendant. | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, disqualifying 10,303 signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Keith A. Lake, and Ryan R. Augsburger | Defendant(s): Ohioans for Drug Price Relief |
| Plaintiff argument: Proponents broke petition circulations laws to the point of signatures falling below the legal threshold of consideration. | Defendant argument: Signatures were valid. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged miscount of signatures by defendant. | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, recovering 20,840 signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): Tracy L. Jones, William S. Booth, Daniel L. Darland, and Latonya D. Thurman (Ohioans for Drug Price Relief) | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jon Husted |
| Plaintiff arguments: Husted's office should have counted signatures on petitions containing other signatures crossed out. | Defendant arguments: The issue had been adjudicated by a court already, and there was an unreasonable delay in filing the case. |
Sources: Ohio Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the state's given time frame of 180 days for collecting initiative signatures | |
| Court: Michigan Court of Claims and Michigan Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Dismissed by lower courts | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michigan Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Committee aka MILegalize | Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, Bureau of Elections Director Chris Thomas, and the Michigan Board of Canvassers |
| Plaintiff argument: The 180-day time frame is unconstitutional because it places undue burden on petitioners and is impossible to comply with. | Defendant argument: The time frame is constitutional. |
Source: MILegalize Petition for Writ of Certiorari
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity | |
| Court: Kennebec County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, upholding the secretary of state's signature count. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Horseracing Jobs Fairness | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matt Dunlap |
| Plaintiff argument: The secretary of state's office applied inconsistent standards to reviewing signatures. | Defendant argument: The office was correct to deem petitions invalid that contained a circulator’s signature or notary's signature that did not match signatures on file. |
Source: Bangor Daily News
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged the petition summary was inaccurate, invalidating signatures | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary used during signature gathering was incomplete and misleading. | Defendant argument: Removing the measure from the ballot would disenfranchise the voters who signed the petition, and state law does not require the removal of an initiative from the ballot due to ballot summary changes ordered after signature gathering is complete. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; argued the measure was unclear | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot because the election was to close and consideration of the constitutionality of the amendment would have to wait until after the election | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids |
| Plaintiff arguments: Amendment 3 violates the state constitution because of a lack of clarity about the raising and expenditure of revenue and because it was designed to implement a fee on certain tobacco businesses. | Defendant arguments: Amendment 3 complies with the constitution and it was too close to the election to decide on the constitutionality of the measure. |
Sources: Education Week and St. Louis Public Radio
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature invalidation | |
| Court: St. Louis City Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Signatures were properly invalidated, measure to remain off the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): New Approach Missouri | Defendant(s): Sec. of State Jason Kander and over a dozen Missouri prosecutors |
| Plaintiff argument: Rejected signatures are valid | Defendant argument: Legalizing medical marijuana contradicts federal law and signatures were legitemately invalidated |
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Alleged biased ballot title language | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping measure on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Melanie Conway and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Ballot title contains biased and misleading language and omits facts about the measure | Defendant argument: Ballot title is unbiased and objective |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Deficient petitions | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff, removing the measure on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kara Benca | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff arguments: Missing information about canvassers and irregularities with signers of the petitions | Defendant arguments: Petitions were certified as valid |
Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court (Conway v. Martin) and Arkansas Supreme Court (Benca v. Martin)
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Invalid signatures | |
| Court: Kennebec County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Overturned secretary of state's decision to disqualify the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Roger Birks, John Black, David Boyer, Eric Brakey, Erin Canavin, Christina Jones, Olga LaPlante, Matthew Maloney, Paul McCarrier, Tom Obear, Bethany Profaizer, Samantha Rocray, Diane Russell, and Luke Sirois | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs claimed that Dunlap only reviewed a portion of the notaries' signatures and then disqualified all petitions signed by that notary, rather than reviewing all notary signatures. | Defendant argument: The defendant claimed that 17,000 signatures were invalid because the signature of the notary for those signatures did not match the signature on file with the secretary of state's office. |
Signature deadlines
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016 regarding signature deadlines.
Single subject
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure creates new costs without providing new revenue sources (which is banned by the state's initiative law) and whether the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 206 is constitutional. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jane Ann Riddle, William L. Riddle, III, Valle Luna, Charlottee Chester, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, Yuma County Chamber of Commerce, Marc Community Resources, Inc., Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and Abrio Family Services and Supports, Inc. | Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Industrial Commission of Arizona, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Thomas J. Betlach, Arizona Department of Administration, Craig C. Brown, and Arizonans for Fair Wages and Health Families |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative unconstitutionally created new costs to the general fund without providing a new revenue source, and the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule since it was about the minimum wage and paid sick leave. | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional. |
Source: The Arizona Republic
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; petition circulators were not legally qualified | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The litigation was filed too late. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Restaurant Association | Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families |
| Plaintiff argument: Some petition circulators were not legally qualified. | Defendant argument: The litigation was filed too late. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Violation of contract; signature gathering company was allegedly not paid in full for services. | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sign Here Petitions | Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families |
| Plaintiff arguments: Sign Here Petitions is owed $65,000, as per the contract with supporting campaign. | Defendant arguments: Contract required payment for valid signatures. Around 25 percent of signatures were discarded, but the campaign still paid for 90 percent of them. |
Sources: Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: State Question 777 should not be placed on the statewide ballot because it is unconstitutional | |
| Court: Filed in Oklahoma County Court; appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiffs' request and allowing SQ 777 to remain on the ballot. The court did not determine the constitutionality of SQ 777 in this decision. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Save The Illinois River Inc, The Hon. Representative Jason Dunnington, Edward Brocksmith, John Leonard | Defendant(s): The Oklahoma State ex rel the Oklahoma State Election Board, Election Board Chairman Steve Curry, Election Board Vice Chairman Tom Montgomery, Election Board Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer Paul Ziriax, Election Board Member Dr. Tim Mauldin, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt |
| Plaintiff argument: State Question 777 was unconstitutional because it violated single subject rule, its language was vague, it violated separation of powers, and it would keep the legislature from being able to repeal/change the law in the future. | Defendant argument: The plaintiffs did not file the lawsuit in a timely manner, and therefore their case should be dismissed. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether Prop. 66 violates provisions in the state constitution concerning the death penalty. | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposition 66 to go into effect. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor | Defendant(s): Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Judicial Council of California, and Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty (Intervenor) |
| Plaintiff argument: Prop. 66 unconstitutionally restricts the role of the Supreme Court and appellate court, and the time limits on death penalty cases violates the constitutional rights of death row inmates. | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be respected, and the initiative is constitutional. |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether the measure violates free speech and the single-subject rule | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit | |
| Ruling: This court ruling was precluded by legislation to repeal Measure 22 | |
| Plaintiff(s): R. Blake Curd, Jim Stalzer, Mark Willadsen, Jim Bolin, Gary Cammack, Justin Cronin, Bob Ewing, Brock Greenfield, Terri Haverly, Phil Jensen, Ryan Maher, Al Novstrup, Ernie Otten, Larry Tidemann, Jim White, John Wilk, David Anderson, Kent Peterson, Lana Greenfield, G. Mark Mickelson, Timothy Johns, Lee Qualm, Deb Peters, Deb Soholt, Carol Stalzer, Betty Otten, Cindy Elifrits Peterson, and South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance Action, Inc. | Defendant(s): South Dakota and Attorney General Marty Jackley |
Source: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Violation of single-subject rule. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative did not violate the single-subject rule. | |
| Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact | Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative addressed two subjects, teacher salaries and taxes, not one subject. | Defendant argument: The different parts of the measure relate to a single scheme, which was how previous rulings defined "single-subject." |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Petition summary; The lawsuit claimed that the petition summary was misleading. | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative remained on the ballot, but the ballot title was rewritten. | |
| Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact | Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future |
| Plaintiff arguments: The ballot summary lacked pertinent information. | Defendant arguments: The plaintiffs were using criticisms about the ballot language to attempt to stop the measure from going to the ballot. |
Sources: The Oklahoman and The Oklahoman
Subject restriction
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure creates new costs without providing new revenue sources (which is banned by the state's initiative law) and whether the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 206 is constitutional. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jane Ann Riddle, William L. Riddle, III, Valle Luna, Charlottee Chester, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, Yuma County Chamber of Commerce, Marc Community Resources, Inc., Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and Abrio Family Services and Supports, Inc. | Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Industrial Commission of Arizona, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Thomas J. Betlach, Arizona Department of Administration, Craig C. Brown, and Arizonans for Fair Wages and Health Families |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative unconstitutionally created new costs to the general fund without providing a new revenue source, and the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule since it was about the minimum wage and paid sick leave. | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional. |
Source: The Arizona Republic
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; petition circulators were not legally qualified | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The litigation was filed too late. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Restaurant Association | Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families |
| Plaintiff argument: Some petition circulators were not legally qualified. | Defendant argument: The litigation was filed too late. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Violation of contract; signature gathering company was allegedly not paid in full for services. | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sign Here Petitions | Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families |
| Plaintiff arguments: Sign Here Petitions is owed $65,000, as per the contract with supporting campaign. | Defendant arguments: Contract required payment for valid signatures. Around 25 percent of signatures were discarded, but the campaign still paid for 90 percent of them. |
Sources: Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the use of a veto referendum; veto referendums are only allowed to be used to reject whole pieces of legislation | |
| Court: Filed in Carson City District Court, appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness | Defendant(s): No Solar Tax PAC |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs argued that the referendum sought only to reject portions of a bill and that the Nevada Constitution requires veto referendums to only be used to reject entire pieces of legislation. They also argued that the language used to describe the measure during signature collection was misleading. | Defendant argument: Defendants contested the court's interpretation of the initiative and referendum provisions of the Nevada Constitution. |
Source: Nevada Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: The initiative violated the state's subject restriction. | |
| Court: Filed in Cook County Court, appealed to Illinois Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot based on subject restriction violations. | |
| Plaintiff(s): John Hooker, Frank Clark, Leon Finney, Elzie Higgenbottom, Raymond Chin, Fernando Grillo, Jorge Perez, and Craig Chico | Defendant(s): Illinois State Board of Elections, State Comptroller Leslie Munger, State Treasurer Michael Frerichs, Secretary of State Jesse White, Cook County Clerk David Orr, and the Board of Election Commissioners for the City of Chicago |
| Plaintiff argument: Plaintiffs argued that the measure was an unconstitutional use of the initiative power because it dealt with more than one subject and added new responsibilities to various officials, thereby violating the state's subject restriction. | Defendant argument: Defendants argued that redistricting was one of the few areas that the initiative power in Illinois could be used and that other details in the initiative were related to redistricting, and, therefore, did not violate the single-subject rule or the state's subject restriction. |
Source: Case No. 16 CH 6539
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure can stop plaintiffs from donating to campaigns and PACs | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Ruling: Some sections ruled unconstitutional: capping contributions to $2,600, banning corporations and unions from making certain contributions, banning political action committees from receiving or making certain contributions, and banning committees from accepting contributions from foreign corporations. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Association of Missouri Electrical Cooperatives, Association of Missouri Electrical Cooperatives PAC, Legends Bank, David Klindt, Free and Fair Election Fund, Missourians for Worker Freedom, American Democracy Alliance, John Elliot, Herzog Services Inc., and Farmers State Bank | Defendant(s): State of Missouri and Missouri Ethics Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure unconstitutionally blocks them from making desired contributions to campaigns and PACs. | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional. |
Source: The Missouri Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of campaign contribution limits on specific kinds of corporations | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant in circuit court and dismissed by the supreme court; the possibility remained for a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Amendment 2 after the election. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Missouri Electric Cooperatives and Legends Bank | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jason Kander |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause by placing different contributions limits for banks and corporations | Defendant argument: The opponents' arguments are meritless, and restrictions on banks and corporations limit corruption. |
Source: St. Louis Public Radio
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; alleged the petition summary was inaccurate, invalidating signatures | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary used during signature gathering was incomplete and misleading. | Defendant argument: Removing the measure from the ballot would disenfranchise the voters who signed the petition, and state law does not require the removal of an initiative from the ballot due to ballot summary changes ordered after signature gathering is complete. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; argued the measure was unclear | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot because the election was to close and consideration of the constitutionality of the amendment would have to wait until after the election | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids |
| Plaintiff arguments: Amendment 3 violates the state constitution because of a lack of clarity about the raising and expenditure of revenue and because it was designed to implement a fee on certain tobacco businesses. | Defendant arguments: Amendment 3 complies with the constitution and it was too close to the election to decide on the constitutionality of the measure. |
Sources: Education Week and St. Louis Public Radio
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether voters can command legislative actions. | |
| Court: Nevada First Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: This case was dismissed on December 29, 2016.[4] | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jacqueline Sue Bird and Gail Tuzzolo | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske and Nevadans for Affordable Clean Energy Choices |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiatives cannot command the Nevada Legislature to take specific legislative actions. | Defendant argument: The plaintiff's argument is without merit. |
Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether public money can be spent on private organizations | |
| Court: Montana Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Montana Taxpayers Association | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Linda McCulloch |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure is unconstitutional because the state cannot spend public revenue on private organizations | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional. |
Source: Billings Gazette
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2 | |
| Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2. | |
| Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana | Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden |
| Plaintiff argument: Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2 | Defendant argument: Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional. |
Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots | |
| Court: Broward County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied. | |
| Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida | Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted. | Defendant argument: There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots. |
Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether Prop. 66 violates provisions in the state constitution concerning the death penalty. | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposition 66 to go into effect. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor | Defendant(s): Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Judicial Council of California, and Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty (Intervenor) |
| Plaintiff argument: Prop. 66 unconstitutionally restricts the role of the Supreme Court and appellate court, and the time limits on death penalty cases violates the constitutional rights of death row inmates. | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be respected, and the initiative is constitutional. |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether the measure violates free speech and the single-subject rule | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit | |
| Ruling: This court ruling was precluded by legislation to repeal Measure 22 | |
| Plaintiff(s): R. Blake Curd, Jim Stalzer, Mark Willadsen, Jim Bolin, Gary Cammack, Justin Cronin, Bob Ewing, Brock Greenfield, Terri Haverly, Phil Jensen, Ryan Maher, Al Novstrup, Ernie Otten, Larry Tidemann, Jim White, John Wilk, David Anderson, Kent Peterson, Lana Greenfield, G. Mark Mickelson, Timothy Johns, Lee Qualm, Deb Peters, Deb Soholt, Carol Stalzer, Betty Otten, Cindy Elifrits Peterson, and South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance Action, Inc. | Defendant(s): South Dakota and Attorney General Marty Jackley |
Source: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit Court
Voter guide
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Accuracy of opponents' arguments in the official voter guide | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The section's claims about the fiscal impact of the measure and worker safety are misleading. Other claims are justifiable for inclusion in the guide. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Derrick Burts | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and No on 60 |
| Plaintiff argument: The "Arguments Against" section of the voter guide contains false and misleading statements | Defendant argument: The statements in the section are correct |
Source: Courthouse News Service
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Plaintiff alleges that legislative analyst's statement on VA drug prices was misleading | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The judge ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff's issue was not concerning because elsewhere the legislative analyst states that "[t]he federal government has established discount programs that place upper limits on the prices paid for prescription drugs by selected federal payers, including the VA." | |
| Plaintiff(s): Aref Aziz | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla |
| Plaintiff argument: The statement "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices" is misleading; federal law limits drug companies from raising VA drug prices above 76 percent of average manufacture price. The statement should read "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices, subject to federal price caps on brand-name drugs." | Defendant argument: The legislative analyst's statement is not misleading. |
Source: Sacramento Superior Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: The official opposition arguments found in the voter guide are misleading. | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Yes on 64 | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and No on 64 |
| Plaintiff argument: There were at least four false statements about the initiative in the "arguments against" section of the voter guide. | Defendant argument: The arguments are not misleading. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: The official support arguments found in the voter guide are misleading. | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed. | |
| Plaintiff(s): No on 64 | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and Yes on 64 |
| Plaintiff arguments: There were at least two false statements about the initiative in the "arguments in favor" section of the voter guide. | Defendant arguments: The arguments are not misleading. |
Historical measures
This tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2016 against historical statewide ballot measures. For lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016, see the By state and "By subject tabs.
Ballotpedia did not cover any state ballot measure lawsuits about historical measures in 2016.
Local
Ballotpedia covers all local measures in California and select measures that are notable because of their topic or because of the jurisdiction in which they are on the ballot.
A compiled list of 2016 lawsuits about local measures can be found here.
See also
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2013
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2011
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2009
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
- 2008 ballot measure lawsuits
- 2009 ballot measure litigation
- 2010 ballot measure litigation
- 2011 ballot measure litigation
- 2008 single-subject rule challenges
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 1999
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2024
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2024
- ↑ In many cases, multiple lawsuits were filed about each measure, which means Ballotpedia tracked more than 34 ballot measure-related lawsuits in 2016.
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff writer, "Telephone correspondance with First Judicial District Court Clerk," September 6, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 KOSU, "Two Groups Sue Oklahoma Over Last-Minute Marijuana Regulations," accessed July 16, 2017
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff writer, "Telephone correspondance with First Judicial District Court Clerk," September 6, 2017
| |||||||||||