Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2015

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

By state

Ballot Measure Law
NOTE: The following tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that have been filed against statewide ballot measures aiming for the 2015 ballot.

Mississippi

Mississippi Initiatives 42 and Alternative 42

Legislature v. Shipam

On March 24, 2015, Adrian Shipman, a mother of two children in the Oxford School District, filed a lawsuit against Alternative 42 in the Hinds County Court. Shipman alleged that the measure's language does not accurately reflect legislative intent and "creates significant risks of confusing the electorate. ... If the ballot language doesn’t help voters better understand the deception behind this alternative, then the language must change so voters will know it’s a sham." James Keith, an attorney representing Shipman, elaborated, "This legislative alternative is meant to confuse voters into killing the real school-funding initiative, Number 42. Mrs. Shipman appealed its official wording because she believes voters must be able to tell the difference between the real initiative and the decoy initiative."[1]

In Mississippi, any citizen can challenge the language of a ballot measure and a judge must decide whether the language should be rewritten within 10 days of the filing.

Judge Winston Kidd heard the case on April 2, 2015.[2] He ruled in favor of Shipman, saying, "The ballot title will be changed and altered by this court." Kidd found Alternative 42's language to be not in accordance with state law.[3]

Gov. Phil Bryant (R) disagreed with Kidd's ruling and alluded to Initiative 42's empowerment of courts to enforce "an adequate and efficient system of free public schools." He said, "It [the ruling] only proves what we we're [sic] saying is [that] the authority of the legislature, now the authority of the Attorney General, is being turned over to a local Hinds County Judge, and we just think that's a wrong decision."[4]

Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves (R) and House Speaker Philip Gunn (R-56) appealed the ruling to the Mississippi Supreme Court.[5] Gov. Bryant asked to intervene in the case, arguing Judge Kidd had no right to change the alternative measure's language.[6] The appeal is legally significant because statute appears to forbid appealing a court ruling on ballot initiatives. Shipman's attorney, James A. Keith, responded, "Not only has the Legislature not was a right to appeal the circuit court's order, it has forbidden such an appeal; ironically, the Legislature seeks to appeal a ruling that it specifically made unappealable." The defendants, however, argued that the supreme court should determine its own jurisdiction. They also contended that the statute "does not, and was never meant to, provide for appeal of ballot titles for legislative alternatives." Attorney General Jim Hood (D) filed his own statement, noting that Judge Kidd's ruling could not be appealed.

The Mississippi Supreme Court heard arguments on June 9, 2015.[7] On August 13, 2015, the court, in a split decision, ruled that state statute empowers circuit judges to rewrite ballot questions for citizen initiatives, but not alternative initiatives referred by the Mississippi Legislature.[8] Therefore, "the Circuit Court of Hinds County heard the appeal without any jurisdiction to do so" and the court reinstated the original language of Alternative 42.[9]

Washington

Washington Initiative 1366

Huff v. Wyman

Litigation was filed against Initiative 1366 on July 30, 2015.[10] Plaintiffs, including Sen. David Frockt (D-46), Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36a) and Thurston County Auditor Mary Hall (D), contend, “The people acting through the initiative have no power directly or by force of threat to invoke the constitutional amendment process.”[11] According to Mary Hall, "This [initiative] is a misuse of our democratic process. Initiatives were never intended to play a role in amending the state constitution. I-1366 is manipulating the intent of the initiative process. Allowing this to get on the ballot could set a dangerous precedent."[10]

Tim Eyman, a key sponsor of Initiative 1366, deemed opponents' litigation as an "end democracy" strategy. He continued, "ultimately, opponents’ lawsuit has less to do with I-1366 than it does the right of the people to discuss, debate, and vote on the issues contained in it. Opponents want to prevent that conversation."[12]

A hearing for the case was heard by the King County Superior Court on August 14, 2015. King County Court Judge William Downing struck the measure down on January 21, 2016. The court found that it was a disguised effort to propose a constitutional amendment, which cannot be put on the ballot via citizen initiative.[13]

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Question 1

Abrahamson v. Department of Administration

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, along with five registered state voters, filed a lawsuit against the immediate implementation of Question 1 in the U.S. District Court for Western Wisconsin on April 8, 2015. Abrahamson et al. argued that she should keep her position until her term expired in 2019, absent her resignation, death, disability or recall. The filed complaint stated:

“ Should the new method of selecting a chief justice be put into immediate effect before the expiration of Chief Justice Abrahamson’s current term and a new chief justice selected, the term of the current, elected chief justice will be disrupted, her constitutionally protected interest in the office of chief justice will be impaired, the votes of her supporters will be diluted and the results of the 2009 election undone long after-the-fact, while the Wisconsin court system’s leadership will become unsettled. The retroactive application of the new amendment raises profound issues of Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.[14] ”
—Shirley Abrahamson et al. v. Department of Administration[15]

The five registered state voter plaintiffs all listed the following as their complaint:

“ The challenged amendment if construed as applicable to Chief Justice Abrahamson and given retroactive effect dilutes the value of his vote and upsets his settled expectations by limiting the term of the candidate he successfully supported in the 2009 election.[14] ”
—Shirley Abrahamson et al. v. Department of Administration[15]

Sen. Tom Tiffany (R-12), an amendment sponsor, criticized Abrahamson's approach. He argued, "She should accept the will of the people. She’s an elected justice of the Supreme Court. She was not elected as the chief justice of the Supreme Court."[16]

By topic

NOTE: Each lawsuit against proposed 2015 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

Mississippi

Mississippi Public School Support Amendments, Initiative 42 and Alternative 42 (2015)

Legislature v. Shipam

On March 24, 2015, Adrian Shipman, a mother of two children in the Oxford School District, filed a lawsuit against Alternative 42 in the Hinds County Court. Shipman alleged that the measure's language does not accurately reflect legislative intent and "creates significant risks of confusing the electorate. ... If the ballot language doesn’t help voters better understand the deception behind this alternative, then the language must change so voters will know it’s a sham." James Keith, an attorney representing Shipman, elaborated, "This legislative alternative is meant to confuse voters into killing the real school-funding initiative, Number 42. Mrs. Shipman appealed its official wording because she believes voters must be able to tell the difference between the real initiative and the decoy initiative."[17]

In Mississippi, any citizen can challenge the language of a ballot measure and a judge must decide whether the language should be rewritten within 10 days of the filing.

Judge Winston Kidd heard the case on April 2, 2015.[18] He ruled in favor of Shipman, saying, "The ballot title will be changed and altered by this court." Kidd found Alternative 42's language to be not in accordance with state law.[19]

Gov. Phil Bryant (R) disagreed with Kidd's ruling and alluded to Initiative 42's empowerment of courts to enforce "an adequate and efficient system of free public schools." He said, "It [the ruling] only proves what we we're [sic] saying is [that] the authority of the legislature, now the authority of the Attorney General, is being turned over to a local Hinds County Judge, and we just think that's a wrong decision."[20]

Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves (R) and House Speaker Philip Gunn (R-56) appealed the ruling to the Mississippi Supreme Court.[21] Gov. Bryant asked to intervene in the case, arguing Judge Kidd had no right to change the alternative measure's language.[22] The appeal is legally significant because statute appears to forbid appealing a court ruling on ballot initiatives. Shipman's attorney, James A. Keith, responded, "Not only has the Legislature not was a right to appeal the circuit court's order, it has forbidden such an appeal; ironically, the Legislature seeks to appeal a ruling that it specifically made unappealable." The defendants, however, argued that the supreme court should determine its own jurisdiction. They also contended that the statute "does not, and was never meant to, provide for appeal of ballot titles for legislative alternatives." Attorney General Jim Hood (D) filed his own statement, noting that Judge Kidd's ruling could not be appealed.

The Mississippi Supreme Court heard arguments on June 9, 2015.[23] On August 13, 2015, the court, in a split decision, ruled that state statute empowers circuit judges to rewrite ballot questions for citizen initiatives, but not alternative initiatives referred by the Mississippi Legislature.[24] Therefore, "the Circuit Court of Hinds County heard the appeal without any jurisdiction to do so" and the court reinstated the original language of Alternative 42.[25]

Constitutionality

Washington

Washington Initiative 1366

Huff v. Wyman

Litigation was filed against Initiative 1366 on July 30, 2015.[10] Plaintiffs, including Sen. David Frockt (D-46), Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36a) and Thurston County Auditor Mary Hall (D), contend, “The people acting through the initiative have no power directly or by force of threat to invoke the constitutional amendment process.”[26] According to Mary Hall, "This [initiative] is a misuse of our democratic process. Initiatives were never intended to play a role in amending the state constitution. I-1366 is manipulating the intent of the initiative process. Allowing this to get on the ballot could set a dangerous precedent."[10]

Tim Eyman, a key sponsor of Initiative 1366, deemed opponents' litigation as an "end democracy" strategy. He continued, "ultimately, opponents’ lawsuit has less to do with I-1366 than it does the right of the people to discuss, debate, and vote on the issues contained in it. Opponents want to prevent that conversation."[27]

A hearing for the case is scheduled to be heard by the King County Superior Court on August 14, 2015.[28]

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Question 1

Abrahamson v. Department of Administration

Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, along with five registered state voters, filed a lawsuit against the immediate implementation of Question 1 in the U.S. District Court for Western Wisconsin on April 8, 2015. Abrahamson et al. argued she should keep her position until her term expired in 2019, absent her resignation, death, disability or recall. The filed complaint stated:

“ Should the new method of selecting a chief justice be put into immediate effect before the expiration of Chief Justice Abrahamson’s current term and a new chief justice selected, the term of the current, elected chief justice will be disrupted, her constitutionally protected interest in the office of chief justice will be impaired, the votes of her supporters will be diluted and the results of the 2009 election undone long after-the-fact, while the Wisconsin court system’s leadership will become unsettled. The retroactive application of the new amendment raises profound issues of Due Process and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.[14] ”
—Shirley Abrahamson et al. v. Department of Administration[15]

The five registered state voter plaintiffs all listed the following as their complaint:

“ The challenged amendment if construed as applicable to Chief Justice Abrahamson and given retroactive effect dilutes the value of his vote and upsets his settled expectations by limiting the term of the candidate he successfully supported in the 2009 election.[14] ”
—Shirley Abrahamson et al. v. Department of Administration[15]

Sen. Tom Tiffany (R-12), an amendment sponsor, criticized Abrahamson's approach. He argued, "She should accept the will of the people. She’s an elected justice of the Supreme Court. She was not elected as the chief justice of the Supreme Court."[16]

Past measures

NOTE: The following tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed in 2015 against past statewide ballot measures.

Ballotpedia is not covering any lawsuits filed in 2015 against past measures.

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, "Legislators’ education alternative challenged," March 25, 2015
  2. ↑ The Tribune, "Judge to hear arguments over wording of 2 education funding measures on Mississippi ballot," April 2, 2015
  3. ↑ Jackson Clarion-Ledger, "Judge rules in favor of Oxford mom's ed initiative lawsuit," April 2, 2015
  4. ↑ Mississippi Public Broadcasting, "Mississippi Republicans Critical of Judge's Decision," April 6, 2015
  5. ↑ Sun Herald, "Attorneys bicker over appeal in school funding ballot title," April 24, 2015
  6. ↑ The Tribune, "Gov. Bryant asks court to reject judge's rewording of lawmakers' school funding ballot title," May 6, 2015
  7. ↑ Daily Journal, "Mississippi Supreme Court hears debate over 2 school funding proposals on November ballot," June 9, 2015
  8. ↑ Daily Journal, "Mississippi court restores ballot title for legislators' proposal on school funding measure," August 13, 2015
  9. ↑ The Clarion-Ledger, "Mississippi Supreme Court upholds AG's language on education alternative," August 13, 2015
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named pion
  11. ↑ Washington Superior Court, "Huff v. Wyman," July 30, 2015
  12. ↑ Yakima Herald, "Initiative 1366's opponents don't trust voters," August 8, 2015
  13. ↑ The Seattle Times, "Suit filed over Eyman tax measure, just a day after it makes the ballot," July 30, 2015
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "Shirley Abrahamson et al. v. Department of Administration," April 8, 2015
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named lawintro
  17. ↑ Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, "Legislators’ education alternative challenged," March 25, 2015
  18. ↑ The Tribune, "Judge to hear arguments over wording of 2 education funding measures on Mississippi ballot," April 2, 2015
  19. ↑ Jackson Clarion-Ledger, "Judge rules in favor of Oxford mom's ed initiative lawsuit," April 2, 2015
  20. ↑ Mississippi Public Broadcasting, "Mississippi Republicans Critical of Judge's Decision," April 6, 2015
  21. ↑ Sun Herald, "Attorneys bicker over appeal in school funding ballot title," April 24, 2015
  22. ↑ The Tribune, "Gov. Bryant asks court to reject judge's rewording of lawmakers' school funding ballot title," May 6, 2015
  23. ↑ Daily Journal, "Mississippi Supreme Court hears debate over 2 school funding proposals on November ballot," June 9, 2015
  24. ↑ Daily Journal, "Mississippi court restores ballot title for legislators' proposal on school funding measure," August 13, 2015
  25. ↑ The Clarion-Ledger, "Mississippi Supreme Court upholds AG's language on education alternative," August 13, 2015
  26. ↑ Washington Superior Court, "Huff v. Wyman," July 30, 2015
  27. ↑ Yakima Herald, "Initiative 1366's opponents don't trust voters," August 8, 2015
  28. ↑ The Seattle Times, "Suit filed over Eyman tax measure, just a day after it makes the ballot," July 30, 2015
v • e
2015 ballot measures
I&R States
BallotMeasureFinal badge.png
Non I&R States
Political topics
Other
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=List_of_ballot_measure_lawsuits_in_2015&oldid=7967566"