PGI logo cropped.png
Congressional Millionaire’s Club
The Personal Gain Index shines a light on how members of Congress benefit during their tenure.





Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 08:03, 9 June 2011 by BaileyL (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Ballot law
BallotLaw final.png
State laws
Initiative law
Recall law
Statutory changes
Court cases
Lawsuit news
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges
Laws governing
local ballot measures
Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrusa is the name of a lawsuit filed by the Idaho Coalition for Bears, term limits proponent Don Morgan, and the I&R Institute against then-Idaho Secretary of State Pete Cenarrusa challenging Idaho's distribution requirement.

Under the law that was challenged, petitioners had to gather 6% of the state's registered voters at the most recent general election from 22 of the 44 counties in the state.[1]

On November 30, 2001, a U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill granted relief to the plaintiffs, and declared Idaho's geographic distribution requirement for signatures on initiative petitions unconstitutional on the grounds that the restrictions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Winmill's ruling is the first time that a court threw out a county-based distribution requirement.[2]

Because more than 60% of Idaho's registered voters are located in 9 counties, the judge ruled the requirement to be unfair. He wrote, "...it easy to envision a situation where three-fourths of Idaho's voters sign a petition but fail to get it on the ballot because they could not collect 6 percent of the vote in rural counties." Since Idaho passed the geographic distribution requirement in 1997, no initiatives have qualified for the ballot.

The 2001 decision was appealed by the state of Idaho to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2003. The higher court affirmed the lower court's ruling.[3]

See also

External links

Notes