Difference between revisions of "List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2013"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 71: Line 71:
  
 
The Colorado State Board of Education this week passed a resolution urging the Colorado Education Association not to file a lawsuit to repeal the bill [SB 191]."<ref name=DCEndorsement>[http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_24292243/yes-amendment-66 ''Daily Camera'', "Yes on Amendment 66," October 13, 2013]</ref>
 
The Colorado State Board of Education this week passed a resolution urging the Colorado Education Association not to file a lawsuit to repeal the bill [SB 191]."<ref name=DCEndorsement>[http://www.dailycamera.com/editorials/ci_24292243/yes-amendment-66 ''Daily Camera'', "Yes on Amendment 66," October 13, 2013]</ref>
 +
 +
The Denver Post editorial board had this to say about the DEA:
 +
{{Quote|
 +
And then there is the treacherous attitude of the Colorado Education Association to consider. Although the teachers union and National Education Association, its national counterpart, are huge donors to the Amendment 66 campaign, the CEA has admitted that it might sue to overturn a key reform aimed at teacher accountability that is already law and is being implemented this year.
 +
 +
In a disgusting display of narrow self-interest, the union is pursuing the amendment's money to add to its membership but rejects the responsibility that goes with it.
 +
 +
It's another example of why teachers unions continue to get in the way of educating our children.}}<ref>[http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24234980/colorados-schools-need-amendment-66#ixzz2jQWfEXD4 ''The Denver Post'', "Colorado's schools need Amendment 66," October 3, 2013]</ref>
  
 
}}<br/>
 
}}<br/>
Line 84: Line 92:
  
 
Judge Platkin dismissed the case on October 16, 2013 based on untimeliness and legal merit.<ref name=decision>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/176578069/Snyder-v-Walsh ''Supreme Court of the State of New York'', "Decision, Order & Judgement", accessed October 16, 2013]</ref>
 
Judge Platkin dismissed the case on October 16, 2013 based on untimeliness and legal merit.<ref name=decision>[http://www.scribd.com/doc/176578069/Snyder-v-Walsh ''Supreme Court of the State of New York'', "Decision, Order & Judgement", accessed October 16, 2013]</ref>
 +
 +
Snyder stated that he would file an immediate challenge to an appellate court on October 16, 2013.<ref>[http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/judge-dismisses-challenge-to-casino-referendum-20131016 ''The Buffalo News'', "Judge dismisses challenge to casino referendum", October 16, 2013]</ref> On October 17, Snyder issued a statement saying he decided not to challenge the ruling after all.<ref>[http://wnyt.com/article/stories/S3194220.shtml?cat=300 ''WNYT News'', "No appeal in NY casino lawsuit dismissal", October 17, 2013]</ref>
 +
 
}}<br/>
 
}}<br/>
  
Line 92: Line 103:
  
 
In May 2013, the State of New York and the Oneida Indian Nation reached an agreement on the tribe’s casinos and related tax issues. Part of the agreement was that no casinos would be built in the 10-county Central New York region. The state agreed to cap the tribe’s tax exempt land trust at 25,000 acres, thus invalidating the towns abilities to levy property taxes on exempted land.<ref>[http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/oneida_nation_state_agree_on_h.html ''The Post Standard'', "Oneida Nation, state agree on wide-ranging deal on gaming, taxing, land", May 16, 2013]</ref> The tribe agreed to “support any referendum authorized by the state Legislature... to permit or authorize casino gaming” and that the tribe would not “directly or indirectly” pose any challenge to the referendum. This, according to towns, was an attempt by Gov. Cuomo (D) to “vote-buy” or quell major opposition to the measure from the tribe, who has fought non-tribal casino construction in the past.<ref>[http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/gov_andrew_cuomo_legislature_sued_over_oneida_indian_casino_and_land_deal.html ''The Post-Standard'', “Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Legislature sued over Oneida Indian casino and land deal", August 19, 2013]</ref><ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=9258164 ''Associated Press'', "Lawsuit challenges underpinning of New York casino deal", September 23, 2013]</ref>
 
In May 2013, the State of New York and the Oneida Indian Nation reached an agreement on the tribe’s casinos and related tax issues. Part of the agreement was that no casinos would be built in the 10-county Central New York region. The state agreed to cap the tribe’s tax exempt land trust at 25,000 acres, thus invalidating the towns abilities to levy property taxes on exempted land.<ref>[http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/oneida_nation_state_agree_on_h.html ''The Post Standard'', "Oneida Nation, state agree on wide-ranging deal on gaming, taxing, land", May 16, 2013]</ref> The tribe agreed to “support any referendum authorized by the state Legislature... to permit or authorize casino gaming” and that the tribe would not “directly or indirectly” pose any challenge to the referendum. This, according to towns, was an attempt by Gov. Cuomo (D) to “vote-buy” or quell major opposition to the measure from the tribe, who has fought non-tribal casino construction in the past.<ref>[http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/gov_andrew_cuomo_legislature_sued_over_oneida_indian_casino_and_land_deal.html ''The Post-Standard'', “Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Legislature sued over Oneida Indian casino and land deal", August 19, 2013]</ref><ref>[http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=9258164 ''Associated Press'', "Lawsuit challenges underpinning of New York casino deal", September 23, 2013]</ref>
 +
 +
On October 30, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Kahn said that his court lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case to a state court in Albany.<ref>[http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/10/federal_judge_sends_suit_challenging_ny_casino_deal_to_state_court.html ''The Post-Standard'', "Federal judge sends suit challenging NY casino deal to state court", October 30, 2013]</ref>
 +
 
}}<br/>
 
}}<br/>
  
Line 99: Line 113:
 
   |framestyle = border:none; padding:0; text-align:left;
 
   |framestyle = border:none; padding:0; text-align:left;
 
   |title=''<big>Grocery Manufacturers Association</big>''
 
   |title=''<big>Grocery Manufacturers Association</big>''
   |On October 16, 2013, [[Bob Ferguson|Attorney General Bob Ferguson]] (D) initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the Washington Public Disclosure Commission against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), an opponent of Initiative 522. GMA, according to Ferguson, must reveal whether or not the organization did a special assessment - asking members to donate for the specific cause - in raising $7.2 million for the No on 522 campaign. If so, they must register as a political committee and disclose donor names. The GMA has refused to say if it did such a special assessment. Ferguson believes that the association is attempting to shield members from scrutiny for opposing the initiative. He said, "This is precisely the conduct our campaign disclosure laws are designed to prevent." He noted that the case could lead to a significant fine.<ref name=lawsuit>[http://www.theolympian.com/2013/10/16/2778892/gmo-fight-attorney-general-sues.html ''The Olympian'', "GMO fight: Attorney General sues to force No on 522 donor to reveal sources of its $7.2 million contribution", October 16, 2013]</ref>
+
   |On October 16, 2013, [[Bob Ferguson|Attorney General Bob Ferguson]] (D) initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the Washington Public Disclosure Commission against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), an opponent of Initiative 522. GMA, according to Ferguson, must reveal whether or not the organization did a special assessment - asking members to donate for the specific cause - in raising $7.2 million for the No on 522 campaign. If so, they must register as a political committee and disclose donor names. The GMA has refused to say if it did such a special assessment. Ferguson believes that the association is attempting to shield members from scrutiny for opposing the initiative. He said, "This is precisely the conduct our campaign disclosure laws are designed to prevent." He noted that the case could lead to a significant fine.<ref name=lawsuit>[http://www.theolympian.com/2013/10/16/2778892/gmo-fight-attorney-general-sues.html ''The Olympian'', "GMO fight: Attorney General sues to force No on 522 donor to reveal sources of its $7.2 million contribution", October 16, 2013]</ref><ref>[http://www.atg.wa.gov/uploadedFiles/Complaint-20131016-Conformed.pdf ''Office of the Attorney General'', "State of Washington v. Grocery Manufacturers Association", accessed October 28, 2013]</ref>
  
GMA responded, "“We are looking into the complaint and the specific allegations it contains.  GMA takes great care to understand and comply with all state election and campaign finance laws and is surprised to learn that the Washington State authorities viewed the association’s actions as improper."<ref>[http://www.kgw.com/news/local/WA-AG-sues-food-industry-group-over-GMO-initiative-228183991.html ''KGW'', "WA AG sues food industry group over GMO initiative", October 17, 2013]</ref>
 
  
The lawsuit has been filed with the {{JP|Thurston County Superior Court, Washington|Thurston County Superior Court}}.<ref name=lawsuit/>
+
"We are looking into the complaint and the specific allegations it contains.  GMA takes great care to understand and comply with all state election and campaign finance laws and is surprised to learn that the Washington State authorities viewed the association’s actions as improper."<ref>[http://www.kgw.com/news/local/WA-AG-sues-food-industry-group-over-GMO-initiative-228183991.html ''KGW'', "WA AG sues food industry group over GMO initiative", October 17, 2013]</ref>
}}<br/>
+
  
 +
The lawsuit was filed with the {{JP|Thurston County Superior Court, Washington|Thurston County Superior Court}}.<ref name=lawsuit/> However, on Friday, October 18, 2013, GMA agreed to create a separate PAC and disclose the donors and the amounts given by each. GMA issued the following statement:<ref name=gmalaw>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/18/after-threatened-with-suit-grocery-manufacturers-association-agrees-to-disclose-campaign-finances/ ''Seattle PI'', "Faced with lawsuit, Grocery Manufacturers Association agrees to disclose campaign finances," October 18, 2013]</ref>
  
 +
{{quote|
 +
In the spirit of continuing cooperation and in an effort to provide Washington voters with full transparency about GMA’s funding for the “No on 522” campaign, the association has voluntarily decided to establish a Washington state political committee and to file reports with the PDC disclosing the source of all funds used in connection with Washington State elections.
 +
 +
GMA is taking this action to allow the campaign to focus on the important issues related to the I-522 ballot proposal itself, and to put an end to unnecessary distraction and speculation about sources and amounts of funding.
 +
 +
GMA has cooperated fully with the Public Disclosure Commission and the attorney general throughout their investigation, and will continue to engage state authorities in a constructive dialogue in the weeks and months ahead.<ref name=gmalaw/>
 +
}}
 +
 +
After GMA's disclosure of donors, Ferguson said, "We believe this is the largest amount of money that’s been concealed of any case we ever brought."<ref>[http://www.kirotv.com/videos/news/video-dc-group-accused-of-illegally-influencing/vCF3ZJ/ ''kirotv.com'', “VIDEO: DC group accused of illegally influencing 522 vote”, October 21, 2013]</ref> He said he will seek penalties against the GMA.<ref>[http://mynorthwest.com/174/2375859/Wash-AG-to-still-seek-penalty-against-food-group ''MyNorthwest.com'', "Wash. AG to still seek penalty against food group", October 22, 2013]</ref>
 +
 +
On October 30, the Office of the Attorney General stated, “Since the Attorney General’s lawsuit was filed, GMA against I-522 has reported additional contributions totaling more than $3.8 million to No on 522. Under RCW 42.17A.442, a state law, a “political committee may make a contribution to another political committee only when the contributing political committee has received contributions of $10 or more each from at least 10 persons registered to vote in Washington state.” Only two days prior did the GMA report 10 donations from 10 registered voters. Nonetheless, “The $3.8 million in contributions from the [GMA] to No on 522 appear to have been collected by the GMA from its members prior to registering the political committee... These subsequent contributions were not reported by the GMA when it submitted its disclosure of contributor members and the value of their contributions on Oct. 18.”<ref>[http://atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=31474#.UnJY7haSPy9 Office of the Attorney General, “Status report on AG Lawsuit against Grocery Manufacturers Association,” October 30, 2013]</ref><ref name=moreviolations>[http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/10/30/more-violations-in-no-on-522-money-no-action-until-2014-ag/ Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “AG: More violations in No on 522 money”, October 30, 2013]</ref>
 +
 +
{{JP|Thurston County Superior Court, Washington|Thurston County Superior Court}} will not be setting a trial date until after February 2014.<ref name=moreviolations/>
 +
 +
}}<br/>
  
 
=By topic=
 
=By topic=

Revision as of 15:32, 1 November 2013

[edit]

Portal:Ballot Measure Law
NOTE: The following tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed against statewide ballot measures aiming for the 2013 ballot. Click the "show" link to read about specifics of a particular lawsuit.

Colorado

Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)




New York

New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1 (2013)



Washington

Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)


NOTE: Each lawsuit against proposed 2013 ballot measures includes a basis, or reason, as to why plaintiffs filed the lawsuit. For example, a reason for a filed lawsuit, or "topic", could include arguments that a measure's ballot text is insufficient.

Ballot text

New York

New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1 (2013)


Campaign contributions

Washington

Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)


Labor Practices

Colorado

Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)


Motivation of sponsors

New York

New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1 (2013)


Signature challenges

Colorado

Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)


Other

Colorado

Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)


NOTE: The following tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed in 2013 against past ballot measures.

California

Measure B (condoms)

Kayden Kross, a co-plaintiff in the federal lawsuit to overturn Measure B

A federal lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court for the Central District of California on January 11, 2013 that seeks to have the federal court overturn Measure B, the Los Angeles Porn Actors Required to Wear Condoms Act. The lawsuit was filed by porn production company Vivid Entertainment. Porn stars Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.[26]

Paul Cambria is the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. He said, "You don’t have to win an Oscar to be protected by the First Amendment."

The lawsuit says that Measure B should be overturned for several reasons. Those reasons include:

  • It violates the First Amendment by imposing an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression.
  • It attempts to regulate an area (public health) which should exclusively be regulated by state law.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which sponsored Measure B, expressed confidence that the lawsuit would fail. Tom Myers, an attorney for the group, said, "Despite what the adult industry’s lawyers are claiming in this lawsuit, Measure B is not directed at speech and as such their First Amendment claims will likely ring hollow with the court."[26]

Measure L (parcel tax)

A lawsuit was filed against Measure L, the San Leandro Unified School District parcel tax enacted in November 2012 in January 2013 on grounds similar to those in Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District.[45]

Lawsuits were also filed in January 2013 against:

All the lawsuits were filed by David Brillant, the Walnut Creek attorney who successfully argued Borikas.[46]

NOTE: This tab includes lawsuits filed against proposed 2013 local ballot measures. Ballotpedia tracks local ballot measures, and includes local lawsuits that are found across news reports. To inform Ballotpedia of a local lawsuit near you, contact ballotmeasures@ballotpedia.org.
No ballot measure lawsuits have been filed in 2013. Any information on ballot measure lawsuits can be sent to Al Ortiz, Assistant Project Director of Ballot Measures.

References

  1. Huffington Post (blog), "Colorado Education Underfunded By 'Unconscionable' Billions, Judge Rules," December 12, 2011
  2. The Denver Post, "Amendment 66 backers fail to make case for higher taxes," September 20, 2013
  3. Huffington Post (blog), "Lobato Case Decision: Colorado Supreme Court Finds Education Funding System Constitutional," May 29, 2013
  4. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Court
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  6. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named SignatureLawsuit
  7. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Ruling
  8. 8.0 8.1 the Denver Post, "Carroll: The threat hanging over Colorado's Amendment 66," September 24, 2013
  9. Colorado Department of Education, Overview of Senate Bill 10-191
  10. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ArticleCEA
  11. Daily Camera, "Yes on Amendment 66," October 13, 2013
  12. The Denver Post, "Colorado's schools need Amendment 66," October 3, 2013
  13. The Post-Standard, "NY Board of Elections sued over casino gambling language on November ballot", October 1, 2013
  14. New York Times, "Lawyer Contests Casino Referendum’s Wording", October 1, 2013
  15. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named lawsuit3
  16. CBS New York, “Lawyer: New York Casino Referendum Was Passed in Secret”, October 8, 2013
  17. 17.0 17.1 New York Post, “Casino question is skewed up: group”, October 11, 2013
  18. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named loaded
  19. Supreme Court of the State of New York, "Decision, Order & Judgement", accessed October 16, 2013
  20. The Buffalo News, "Judge dismisses challenge to casino referendum", October 16, 2013
  21. WNYT News, "No appeal in NY casino lawsuit dismissal", October 17, 2013
  22. The Post Standard, "Oneida Nation, state agree on wide-ranging deal on gaming, taxing, land", May 16, 2013
  23. The Post-Standard, “Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Legislature sued over Oneida Indian casino and land deal", August 19, 2013
  24. Associated Press, "Lawsuit challenges underpinning of New York casino deal", September 23, 2013
  25. The Post-Standard, "Federal judge sends suit challenging NY casino deal to state court", October 30, 2013
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 The Olympian, "GMO fight: Attorney General sues to force No on 522 donor to reveal sources of its $7.2 million contribution", October 16, 2013
  27. Office of the Attorney General, "State of Washington v. Grocery Manufacturers Association", accessed October 28, 2013
  28. KGW, "WA AG sues food industry group over GMO initiative", October 17, 2013
  29. 29.0 29.1 Seattle PI, "Faced with lawsuit, Grocery Manufacturers Association agrees to disclose campaign finances," October 18, 2013
  30. kirotv.com, “VIDEO: DC group accused of illegally influencing 522 vote”, October 21, 2013
  31. MyNorthwest.com, "Wash. AG to still seek penalty against food group", October 22, 2013
  32. Office of the Attorney General, “Status report on AG Lawsuit against Grocery Manufacturers Association,” October 30, 2013
  33. 33.0 33.1 Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “AG: More violations in No on 522 money”, October 30, 2013
  34. The Post-Standard, "NY Board of Elections sued over casino gambling language on November ballot", October 1, 2013
  35. New York Times, "Lawyer Contests Casino Referendum’s Wording", October 1, 2013
  36. CBS New York, “Lawyer: New York Casino Referendum Was Passed in Secret”, October 8, 2013
  37. KGW, "WA AG sues food industry group over GMO initiative", October 17, 2013
  38. Colorado Department of Education, Overview of Senate Bill 10-191
  39. The Post Standard, "Oneida Nation, state agree on wide-ranging deal on gaming, taxing, land", May 16, 2013
  40. The Post-Standard, “Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Legislature sued over Oneida Indian casino and land deal", August 19, 2013
  41. Associated Press, "Lawsuit challenges underpinning of New York casino deal", September 23, 2013
  42. Huffington Post (blog), "Colorado Education Underfunded By 'Unconscionable' Billions, Judge Rules," December 12, 2011
  43. The Denver Post, "Amendment 66 backers fail to make case for higher taxes," September 20, 2013
  44. Huffington Post (blog), "Lobato Case Decision: Colorado Supreme Court Finds Education Funding System Constitutional," May 29, 2013
  45. San Leandro Patch, "Lawsuit Challenges Measure L, San Leandro's 'Split Roll' School Parcel Tax", January 28, 2013
  46. 46.0 46.1 Contra Costa Tiimes, "San Leandro, West Contra Costa schools and others sued over parcel taxes", February 1, 2013

See also