2008 ballot title challenges

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Ballot law
State laws
Ballot initiative law
Laws governing recall
Statutory changes in 2008
Court cases
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges

Ballot title challenges and litigation occur when the supporters or opponents of a proposed ballot measure believe that the way the measure will be described to voters on ballots when they're in the voting booth is an unfair or inaccurate representation of what will happen if the initiative passes.

Ballot title and language challenges in 2008

Arkansas

  • The title for the Severance Tax Increase (an initiative which ultimately did not turn in signatures) proposed by its sponsors was rejected by the Attorney General, which had the effect of halting the initiative.
  • Opponents announced in late August they would file a lawsuit against the Unmarried Couple Adoption Ban because the ballot title, they say, is misleading. In late September, opponents said they would not file the suit.[1]
  • The Arkansas Family Council filed a lawsuit against the Arkansas State Lottery Initiative (2008) on September 19, asking that the initiative be removed from the ballot because of its ballot title. The legal challenge will be heard by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The claim in the suit is that the initiative's title and name are "inaccurate, incomplete and misleading" because they don't define lotteries and don't include warnings about the potential consequences of approving a state-run lottery.[2]

Arizona

  • Proposition 102 (Proposed ban on same-sex marriage.) Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard disagreed over how to describe on the ballot what the effect of a "no" vote would be. A lawsuit was filed by the "Yes on 102" campaign to block Brewer's way of describing it in the ballot title. However, the dispute was resolved short of the courtroom shortly before the ballot booklets went to press in late August. [3]
  • Arizona Proposition 200. Opponents of Proposition 200 filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Jan Brewer asking her to clarify the descriptive language of the measure. A judge ruled that the group had filed their objection too late which means the ballot language can include the phrase, "This measure will bring dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and preserve consumer choice."[4]
  • Arizona Proposition 201. The Homebuilders Association filed a lawsuit seeking to keep Proposition 201 off the ballot on the grounds that the ballot title for the proposition is "rife with errors and intentionally misleading."[5]
  • Arizona Proposition 203. Supporters of the TIME initiative filed a lawsuit against the ballot title written by the Arizona Legislative Council saying that the ALC's description of the effect of the proposition might confuse voters into thinking that the measure would increase taxes 17.8 cents rather than 17.8%. Judge Edward Burke agreed with the plaintiffs on August 1, saying the ALC's wording is "intended to exaggerate the tax increase" and constitutes an "editorial comment." The ALC planned to appeal Judge Burke's decision, but this was rendered unnecessary when it turned out that the initiative had insufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot.[6]

California

  • Opponents of Proposition 4 sued, but unsuccessfully, to have references to "Sarah" or "Sarah's Law" deleted from the official voter's guide.[7]
  • Supporters and opponents of Proposition 7 both sued over various arguments in the official California voter's guide. Both lawsuits failed.
  • Supporters of Proposition 8 sued, unsuccessfully, to have the ballot title of the proposition read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" versus "Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry".

Colorado


Florida

  • A court in Leon County pulled Florida Amendment 5 (2008) from the ballot, stating "the ballot title and summary provided in the proposition for Amendment 5 fail to fairly inform the voter, in a clear and unambiguous language, of the chief purposes of the amendment and the language of the title and summary, as written, is misleading in the foregoing respects." The ruling was appealed by the state to the Florida Supreme Court, which struck the amendment from the ballot.[14] The ruling "doesn't mean anything," says Gov. Crist, a key backer of the amendment. "I was disappointed but not dismayed. It will be appealed — I think everybody knows that," Crist said. "I hope it stays on the ballot because I like the will of the people. I want them to weigh in. I want them to have that power, because they're the boss."[15] The 1st District Court of Appeal agreed to pass the case directly to the Supreme Court without a ruling to expediate the process.[16],[17],[18]

Illinois

The Chicago Bar Association, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and a group of voters sued the state elections board over the ballot title for the Illinois Constitutional Convention (2008); a lawsuit they won on October 2. They particularly objected to a paragraph that included the results of a failed 1988 constitutional convention vote and a separate sentence declaring that not voting on the question is the equivalent of a "no" vote.

Cook County Circuit Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr. in his ruling said, "I believe the language is not accurate [and] interferes with the rights of voters." He ordered lawyers to develop a new version of the ballot summary by October 3 which they may be ordered to print on separate paper that carries an official government seal for distribution at polling places on election day, since the state's official ballots had already been printed by the time of his decision.[19]

Maryland

The ballot title of the Maryland Casino Measure was challenged in court by opponents of the measure, who said the title was overstated the extent to which slots revenue would go to education. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with the opponents. The word "primary" was then added to the title, so that its final version says in the relevant part, that slots revenue would be used "for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education."[20]

Missouri

Nebraska

Opponents of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative filed a lawsuit in Lancaster County objecting to the measure's ballot title.[25]

Nevada

North Dakota

North Dakota Secretary of State Al Jaeger approved a ballot title for the Income Tax Cut Initiative before circulation in July 2007. After signatures were turned in, Jaeger changed the title that will appear on the ballot. His change says that under the provisions of the initiative, income in two income tax brackets may not be taxed at all. The state's tax department says that this may be true of up to 325 taxpayers in the state out of 320,000 whil file tax returns. The initiave's sponsors objected, unsuccessfully, to the change in wording.[26],[27]

Ohio

Washington

  • Duane French, an opponent of Washington I-1000 who is associated with the organization Not Dead Yet filed a lawsuit challenging the measure's ballot title. French wanted the title to have the phrase "assisted suicide" in it. The judge ruled against French, saying that neither "suicide" nor "death with dignity" (the term preferred by I-1000 supporters) are neutral, so the final ballot title describes the measure as "aid in dying" and says that terminally ill adults would be allowed to "request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician."[28],[29],[30]
  • Tim Eyman filed a lawsuit in late August against the ballot title for the King County Charter Amendments (2008), saying that the language on the ballot doesn't tell voters the charter would double the number of signatures required to qualify future citizen-initiated amendments. On September 11, a judge agreed with Eyman.[31],[32],[33]

See also

References

  1. ↑ GayWired, "Arkansas Moves to Ban GLBTs from Fostering and Adopting", August 31, 2008
  2. ↑ Forbes, "Lawsuit filed to pull lottery off Arkansas ballot", September 19, 2008
  3. ↑ Arizona Republic, "Dispute over ballot description settled", August 27, 2008
  4. ↑ Inside Tucson Business, "2 propositions bounced, 2 parse words", September 1, 2008
  5. ↑ Arizona Capitol Times, "Homebuilders group files suit to block initiative", July 23, 2008
  6. ↑ TIME’s almost up: Ballot initiative description hinges on court battle
  7. ↑ Activists File Lawsuit to Strike "Sarah's Law" Language from CA Ballot Initiative, August 5, 2008
  8. ↑ No on 98 Files Lawsuit to Ensure Ballot Title Summary Accurately Reflects Prop 98 Provisions
  9. ↑ State Superior Court rules in favor of California property owners, March 7, 2008
  10. ↑ State panel approves abortion curb's language
  11. ↑ Pro-affirmative action ballot question rejected by Title Setting Board March 5, 2008
  12. ↑ Florida Court Rejects Challenges to November Ballot Initiatives, Aug 5, 2008
  13. ↑ New York Times: "Court Blocks Florida Ballot Measures Intended to Help School Vouchers," Sep 4, 2008
  14. ↑ Orlando Business Journal: "Judge pulls Amendment 5 off the ballot," Aug 14, 2008
  15. ↑ pnj.com: "Amendment 5 is down, but it's far from out," Aug 19, 2008
  16. ↑ Tampa Bay Business Journal: "Amendment 5 goes to Florida Supreme Court," Aug 19, 2008
  17. ↑ http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/stories/2008/09/01/daily27.html Biz Journals, "High Court strikes down Amendment 5", September 3, 2008]
  18. ↑ Florida Supreme Court order affirming decision to remove Amendment 5 from ballot
  19. ↑ Chicago Sun Times, "Judge: Ballot question 'misleading and false'", October 2, 2008
  20. ↑ Washington Post, "The Shortfall and Slots", September 20, 2008
  21. ↑ Controversy over ballot title
  22. ↑ Statement by cloning ban supporters on their legal challenge
  23. ↑ Judge rewrites contentious ballot summary for stem cell measure
  24. ↑ Southeast Missourian, "Two lawsuits challenging casino ballot measure", August 15, 2008
  25. ↑ Opponents of ban on affirmative action object to wording on ballot
  26. ↑ The Jamestown Sun, "ND income tax cut backers plead for ballot changes", September 10, 2008
  27. ↑ Dickinson Press, "Jaeger still won’t change tax measure wording", Sept. 10, 2008
  28. ↑ End of life ballot measure faces fight from coalition
  29. ↑ Seattle Times, "Initiative 1000 would let patients get help ending their lives", September 22, 2008
  30. ↑ Duane French, "No on I-1000"
  31. ↑ Seattle Times, "Eyman plans to sue to change ballot title", August 28, 2008
  32. ↑ Ballot wording challenged
  33. ↑ Eyman wins court battle, September 11, 2008
Additional information about ballot litigation in 2008
Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/2008_ballot_title_challenges"
Personal tools