List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
From Ballotpedia
| 2017 U.S. State Ballot Measures | |
|---|---|
2018 »
« 2016
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Election results | |
| Scorecard | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| Deadlines | |
| Lawsuits | |
| Readability | |
| Initiatives filed | |
| Voter guides | |
| Year-end analysis | |
| Campaigns | |
| Polls | |
| Media editorials | |
| 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 2017. 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 2017 by state.
- The By subject tab organizes lawsuits about measures proximate to 2017 according to the subject of the lawsuits.
- The Historical measures tab lists lawsuits filed or ruled on in 2017 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 2017—by state—for measures proximate to 2017. It also lists 2017 lawsuits about any measures targeting a ballot in 2018 or a later year.
Alaska
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alaska and 2017 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative makes an appropriation of a state asset as prohibited by Section 7 of Article XI of the Alaska Constitution | |
| Court: Filed in Alaska Third District Court; appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; appealed to the supreme court. The Supreme Court ruled that some language in the measure needed to be removed, but the remainder of the measure could appear on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Stand for Salmon | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott and the State of Alaska |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative updates permit regulations and does not eliminate the possibility of development or make an appropriation; rather it simply ensures that development is done in a way that doesn't damage fish habitats. Moreover, the initiative was written to apply equally to all projects and permit applicants. | Defendant argument: The initiative violates the state constitution's prohibition against initiatives that "dedicate revenues, [or] make or repeal appropriations" by preventing the state from allowing development of any waterways and, thereby, appropriating the state assets of fish and fish habitats. |
Source: Alaska Department of Law Press Release
Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the law targeted by the veto referendum—HB 2244—is constitutional | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing HB 2244 to go into effect | |
| Plaintiff(s): Voters of Arizona | Defendant(s): State of Arizona |
| Plaintiff argument: HB 2244 requiring strict compliance with initiative processes would cause a significant increase in the difficulty and cost of a successful initiative or referendum petition such that it violates the state constitution's guarantee of the initiative and referendum power. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs have no standing to challenge the law since no signatures have been thrown out because of it, and the increase in difficulty and cost is not enough to violate the state constitution, rather the requirement would guarantee the integrity of the initiative process. |
Source: Arizona Capitol Times
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether some signature gatherers were not legally qualified to circulate petitions | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, dismissing the case | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christopher Perea and Thomas Jenney | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan and Save Our Schools Arizona |
| Plaintiff argument: 23 signature gatherers were not qualified to circulate petions. | Defendant argument: N/A |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether petitioners made false statements, notary's signatures were valid, and petitions included correct legislative session information | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, dismissing the case | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christopher Perea and Thomas Jenney | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan and Save Our Schools Arizona |
| Plaintiff arguments: There were irregularities with the submitted petitions, including where the notary's signature did not match the notary’s official application and seal and where petitions labeled the legislative session as the “53rd session of the Legislature,” rather than the accurate “first legislative session of the 53rd Legislature.” Furthermore, signature gatherers made false statements about Senate Bill 1431’s fiscal impact on public schools. | Defendant arguments: The case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs do not have standing before the court. The law, at the time the campaign submitted signatures, did not allow individuals to challenge petitions. |
Sources: Maricopa Superior Court, Arizona Capitol Times, and Arizona Daily Star
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot title and summary written by the state attorney general are misleading. | |
| Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County and California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed to California Supreme Court but declined) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant; the language provides a neutral presentation of the initiative's effects on taxes and revenue (Appealed and declined) | |
| Plaintiff(s): Asm. Travis Allen | Defendant(s): Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language would mislead voters. According to Asm. Allen, the language does not mention the words tax or fee, makes presumptions for which there are no legal requirements, and mentions the elimination of an office that does not preexist SB 1. | Defendant argument: The ballot language clearly explains the initiative and its effects. |
Source: Los Angeles Times
| 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: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra) |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms | Defendant argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional |
Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause; upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc., | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
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
Massachusetts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether the initiative violates Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution on three counts: (1) whether the initiative's subjects are related; (2) whether the initiative makes specific appropriations; and (3) whether the initiative takes control of the legislature's power to generate revenue. | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure removed and blocked from November 2018 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christopher Anderson, Christopher Carlozzi, Richard Lord, Eileen Mcanneny, and Daniel O’Connell | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of State Bill Galvin |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative should not appear on the ballot in 2018. The initiative contains unrelated subjects, makes specific appropriations, and takes control of the legislature's ability to generate revenue. | Defendant argument: The initiative was correctly certified for the ballot because provisions are mutually dependent and related. |
Source: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Missouri
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Petition summary; whether the summary fails to explain the measure and its effects | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Court of Appeals reversed in part the Circuit Court's decision to rule in favor of the plaintiffs; Court of Appeals ruled 8 of 10 ballot titles as sufficient and fair | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mary Hill, Michael J. Briggs, and Roger Bruce Stickler | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft and Mike Louis |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summaries are insufficient, misleading, and unfair and should be rewritten | Defendant argument: The ballot summaries meet the required criteria |
Source: Cole County Circuit Court and Fox 2
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether grammatical errors make the measure insufficient and unfair | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court; Missouri Court of Appeals; Appealed to Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Court of Appeals ruled in favor of defendants, keeping the original ballot title, after the lower court ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Roger Stickler, Michael Briggs, Mary Hill, and John Paul Evans, Jr. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft and Mike Louis |
| Plaintiff argument: The language has grammatical errors and is therefore unfair; the summary should be replaced to reflect the ballot language. | Defendant argument: The language is clear and concise. |
Source: Missouri Cole County Circuit Court
Montana
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the attorney general's ballot statement was misleading and masked the initiative's intent and whether the fiscal statement was misleading | |
| Court: Montana Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, requiring Attorney General Tim Fox to rewrite the ballot statement | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU of Montana | Defendant(s): State of Montana (represented by Attorney General Tim Fox) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot statement was misleading and prejudicial and the fiscal statement was insufficient. | Defendant argument: The ballot statement was legally sufficient, true and impartial, and fairly stated and the fiscal statement was sufficient. |
Source: Montana Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the initiative violates fundamental rights of transgender people to privacy, dignity, due process, as well as the right to pursue basic necessities, acquire property, and seek safety, health, and happiness | |
| Court: Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, County of Cascade | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU of Montana | Defendant(s): State of Montana (represented by Attorney General Tim Fox) |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 183 is unconstitutional because it denies transgender people equal protection under the law and violates their rights to privacy, dignity, the pursuit of life's basic necessities, and due process under the Montana Constitution. | Defendant argument: Court review of a proposed ballot measure before it is officially certified is unprecedented and infringes on the right of Montana residents to participate in direct democracy. |
Source: ACLU of Montana Hobaugh v. Montana Legal Documents
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule and separate vote requirement for initiated amendments | |
| Court: Montana Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Initiative 116 violated the separate-vote requirement and is therefore void; ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Montana Association of Counties (MACo), Leo Gallagher, Adrian M. Miller, Montana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and ACLU of Montana Foundation | Defendant(s): State of Montana, Attorney General Tim Fox, and Secretary of State Corey Stapleton |
Source: Bozeman Daily Chronicle and Montana Supreme Court
Nevada
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2017 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the measure violates the requirements that an initiative contains a single subject and be designed as legislative policy and that a petition describe an initiative's effects | |
| Court: Filed in First Judicial District Court; appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Nevada Supreme Court in favor of defendants that the initiative contains a single subject, but ruled in favor of proponents that the ballot summary was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Haley, Theresa Navarro, Tu Casa Latina | Defendant(s): Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC, Jeremy Hughes, and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske |
| Plaintiff argument: (1) The definition of sanctuary cities violated the single-subject rule. (2) The petitions for the initiative did not describe the initiative's effects on finances and public safety. (3) The initiative was not designed as a legislative law, but rather an executive action. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule and addresses just one subject—immigration law. |
Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court and Las Vegas Journal-Review
New York
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether Proposal 1 needs to be placed on the front of the election ballot | |
| Court: New York Supreme Court 3rd Judicial District | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposal 1 to appear anywhere on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Evan Davis | Defendant(s): New York Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The state Board of Elections needs to present Proposal 1 to voters in an effective manner, which would require placing the measure on the front of the ballot. | Defendant argument: The state constitution requires the state Board of Elections to submit the question to voters, but does not dictate where on the ballot the question must appear. |
Source: New York Law Journal
Oklahoma
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether the initiative concerns two distinct subjects—as prohibited by the constitution—because it was designed to affect both optometrists and opticians | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of initiative proponents, allowing the initiative to be circulated | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahoma Association for Optometric Physicians | Defendant(s): Initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state constitution's requirement that an initiative concern only a single subject because it was designed to affect two professions: the professions of optometrists and opticians. | Defendant argument: While the initiative does affect two professions, both professions relate to eye care and both professions depend on each other. |
Source: News OK
| 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]."[1] 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]."[1] 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
South Dakota
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the language complies with South Dakota Code 12-13-25.1 ("... objective, clear, and simple summary to educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed initiative..."). | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit and South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, allowing the attorney general's original ballot title and summary to remain. The plaintiffs appealed to state Supreme Court. In May 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld Jackley's ballot title and summary. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) | Defendant(s): Attorney General Marty Jackley |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary needs to include information about a provision giving petitioners legal standing to defend the measure in court and about potential effects. | Defendant argument: The ballot summary is fair, clear, and simple. |
Source: Capital Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether petition circulators falsely swore their residence address or were not South Dakota residents, and whether circulators made errors in obtaining signatures rendering them in violation of South Dakota law | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the initiative was removed from the ballot on July 16, 2018 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson and South Dakotans Against the Deceptive Ballot RX Issue | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shantel Krebs |
| Plaintiff argument: The circulators of the petition submitted 13,871 invalid signatures, petition circulators were not residents of South Dakota, which is in violation of state law | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Dakota War College
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2017—by subject—for measures proximate to 2017. It also lists 2017 lawsuits about any measures targeting a ballot in 2018 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 or that constitutional language added by a ballot measure is being violated by a statute, ordinance, or administrative action
- 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: Petition summary; whether the summary fails to explain the measure and its effects | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Court of Appeals reversed in part the Circuit Court's decision to rule in favor of the plaintiffs; Court of Appeals ruled 8 of 10 ballot titles as sufficient and fair | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mary Hill, Michael J. Briggs, and Roger Bruce Stickler | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft and Mike Louis |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summaries are insufficient, misleading, and unfair and should be rewritten | Defendant argument: The ballot summaries meet the required criteria |
Source: Cole County Circuit Court and Fox 2
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether grammatical errors make the measure insufficient and unfair | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court; Missouri Court of Appeals; Appealed to Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Court of Appeals ruled in favor of defendants, keeping the original ballot title, after the lower court ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Roger Stickler, Michael Briggs, Mary Hill, and John Paul Evans, Jr. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft and Mike Louis |
| Plaintiff argument: The language has grammatical errors and is therefore unfair; the summary should be replaced to reflect the ballot language. | Defendant argument: The language is clear and concise. |
Source: Missouri Cole County Circuit Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot title and summary written by the state attorney general are misleading. | |
| Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County and California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed to California Supreme Court but declined) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant; the language provides a neutral presentation of the initiative's effects on taxes and revenue (Appealed and declined) | |
| Plaintiff(s): Asm. Travis Allen | Defendant(s): Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language would mislead voters. According to Asm. Allen, the language does not mention the words tax or fee, makes presumptions for which there are no legal requirements, and mentions the elimination of an office that does not preexist SB 1. | Defendant argument: The ballot language clearly explains the initiative and its effects. |
Source: Los Angeles Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether Proposal 1 needs to be placed on the front of the election ballot | |
| Court: New York Supreme Court 3rd Judicial District | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposal 1 to appear anywhere on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Evan Davis | Defendant(s): New York Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The state Board of Elections needs to present Proposal 1 to voters in an effective manner, which would require placing the measure on the front of the ballot. | Defendant argument: The state constitution requires the state Board of Elections to submit the question to voters, but does not dictate where on the ballot the question must appear. |
Source: New York Law Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the language complies with South Dakota Code 12-13-25.1 ("... objective, clear, and simple summary to educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed initiative..."). | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit and South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, allowing the attorney general's original ballot title and summary to remain. The plaintiffs appealed to state Supreme Court. In May 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld Jackley's ballot title and summary. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) | Defendant(s): Attorney General Marty Jackley |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary needs to include information about a provision giving petitioners legal standing to defend the measure in court and about potential effects. | Defendant argument: The ballot summary is fair, clear, and simple. |
Source: Capital Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether petition circulators falsely swore their residence address or were not South Dakota residents, and whether circulators made errors in obtaining signatures rendering them in violation of South Dakota law | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the initiative was removed from the ballot on July 16, 2018 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson and South Dakotans Against the Deceptive Ballot RX Issue | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shantel Krebs |
| Plaintiff argument: The circulators of the petition submitted 13,871 invalid signatures, petition circulators were not residents of South Dakota, which is in violation of state law | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Dakota War College
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the attorney general's ballot statement was misleading and masked the initiative's intent and whether the fiscal statement was misleading | |
| Court: Montana Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, requiring Attorney General Tim Fox to rewrite the ballot statement | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU of Montana | Defendant(s): State of Montana (represented by Attorney General Tim Fox) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot statement was misleading and prejudicial and the fiscal statement was insufficient. | Defendant argument: The ballot statement was legally sufficient, true and impartial, and fairly stated and the fiscal statement was sufficient. |
Source: Montana Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the initiative violates fundamental rights of transgender people to privacy, dignity, due process, as well as the right to pursue basic necessities, acquire property, and seek safety, health, and happiness | |
| Court: Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, County of Cascade | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU of Montana | Defendant(s): State of Montana (represented by Attorney General Tim Fox) |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 183 is unconstitutional because it denies transgender people equal protection under the law and violates their rights to privacy, dignity, the pursuit of life's basic necessities, and due process under the Montana Constitution. | Defendant argument: Court review of a proposed ballot measure before it is officially certified is unprecedented and infringes on the right of Montana residents to participate in direct democracy. |
Source: ACLU of Montana Hobaugh v. Montana Legal Documents
| 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]."[1] 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]."[1] 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 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
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2017 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2017.
Circulators
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2017 regarding circulators that took place in 2017.
Post-certification removal
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2017 regarding post-certification removal that took place in 2017.
Post-election
| 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]."[1] 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]."[1] 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 of the measure; whether the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule and separate vote requirement for initiated amendments | |
| Court: Montana Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Initiative 116 violated the separate-vote requirement and is therefore void; ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Montana Association of Counties (MACo), Leo Gallagher, Adrian M. Miller, Montana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and ACLU of Montana Foundation | Defendant(s): State of Montana, Attorney General Tim Fox, and Secretary of State Corey Stapleton |
Source: Bozeman Daily Chronicle and Montana Supreme Court
| 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: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra) |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms | Defendant argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional |
Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause; upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc., | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| 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
Preemption
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2017 regarding preemption that took place in 2017.
Signature validity
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the language complies with South Dakota Code 12-13-25.1 ("... objective, clear, and simple summary to educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed initiative..."). | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit and South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, allowing the attorney general's original ballot title and summary to remain. The plaintiffs appealed to state Supreme Court. In May 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld Jackley's ballot title and summary. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) | Defendant(s): Attorney General Marty Jackley |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary needs to include information about a provision giving petitioners legal standing to defend the measure in court and about potential effects. | Defendant argument: The ballot summary is fair, clear, and simple. |
Source: Capital Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether petition circulators falsely swore their residence address or were not South Dakota residents, and whether circulators made errors in obtaining signatures rendering them in violation of South Dakota law | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the initiative was removed from the ballot on July 16, 2018 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson and South Dakotans Against the Deceptive Ballot RX Issue | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shantel Krebs |
| Plaintiff argument: The circulators of the petition submitted 13,871 invalid signatures, petition circulators were not residents of South Dakota, which is in violation of state law | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Dakota War College
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether some signature gatherers were not legally qualified to circulate petitions | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, dismissing the case | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christopher Perea and Thomas Jenney | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan and Save Our Schools Arizona |
| Plaintiff argument: 23 signature gatherers were not qualified to circulate petions. | Defendant argument: N/A |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether petitioners made false statements, notary's signatures were valid, and petitions included correct legislative session information | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, dismissing the case | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christopher Perea and Thomas Jenney | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan and Save Our Schools Arizona |
| Plaintiff arguments: There were irregularities with the submitted petitions, including where the notary's signature did not match the notary’s official application and seal and where petitions labeled the legislative session as the “53rd session of the Legislature,” rather than the accurate “first legislative session of the 53rd Legislature.” Furthermore, signature gatherers made false statements about Senate Bill 1431’s fiscal impact on public schools. | Defendant arguments: The case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs do not have standing before the court. The law, at the time the campaign submitted signatures, did not allow individuals to challenge petitions. |
Sources: Maricopa Superior Court, Arizona Capitol Times, and Arizona Daily Star
Signature deadlines
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2017 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2017.
Single subject
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether the initiative violates Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution on three counts: (1) whether the initiative's subjects are related; (2) whether the initiative makes specific appropriations; and (3) whether the initiative takes control of the legislature's power to generate revenue. | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure removed and blocked from November 2018 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christopher Anderson, Christopher Carlozzi, Richard Lord, Eileen Mcanneny, and Daniel O’Connell | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of State Bill Galvin |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative should not appear on the ballot in 2018. The initiative contains unrelated subjects, makes specific appropriations, and takes control of the legislature's ability to generate revenue. | Defendant argument: The initiative was correctly certified for the ballot because provisions are mutually dependent and related. |
Source: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether the initiative concerns two distinct subjects—as prohibited by the constitution—because it was designed to affect both optometrists and opticians | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of initiative proponents, allowing the initiative to be circulated | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahoma Association for Optometric Physicians | Defendant(s): Initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state constitution's requirement that an initiative concern only a single subject because it was designed to affect two professions: the professions of optometrists and opticians. | Defendant argument: While the initiative does affect two professions, both professions relate to eye care and both professions depend on each other. |
Source: News OK
| 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
Subject restriction
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the measure violates the requirements that an initiative contains a single subject and be designed as legislative policy and that a petition describe an initiative's effects | |
| Court: Filed in First Judicial District Court; appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Nevada Supreme Court in favor of defendants that the initiative contains a single subject, but ruled in favor of proponents that the ballot summary was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Haley, Theresa Navarro, Tu Casa Latina | Defendant(s): Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC, Jeremy Hughes, and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske |
| Plaintiff argument: (1) The definition of sanctuary cities violated the single-subject rule. (2) The petitions for the initiative did not describe the initiative's effects on finances and public safety. (3) The initiative was not designed as a legislative law, but rather an executive action. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule and addresses just one subject—immigration law. |
Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court and Las Vegas Journal-Review
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative makes an appropriation of a state asset as prohibited by Section 7 of Article XI of the Alaska Constitution | |
| Court: Filed in Alaska Third District Court; appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; appealed to the supreme court. The Supreme Court ruled that some language in the measure needed to be removed, but the remainder of the measure could appear on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Stand for Salmon | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott and the State of Alaska |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative updates permit regulations and does not eliminate the possibility of development or make an appropriation; rather it simply ensures that development is done in a way that doesn't damage fish habitats. Moreover, the initiative was written to apply equally to all projects and permit applicants. | Defendant argument: The initiative violates the state constitution's prohibition against initiatives that "dedicate revenues, [or] make or repeal appropriations" by preventing the state from allowing development of any waterways and, thereby, appropriating the state assets of fish and fish habitats. |
Source: Alaska Department of Law Press Release
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the measure violates the requirements that an initiative contains a single subject and be designed as legislative policy and that a petition describe an initiative's effects | |
| Court: Filed in First Judicial District Court; appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Nevada Supreme Court in favor of defendants that the initiative contains a single subject, but ruled in favor of proponents that the ballot summary was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Haley, Theresa Navarro, Tu Casa Latina | Defendant(s): Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC, Jeremy Hughes, and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske |
| Plaintiff argument: (1) The definition of sanctuary cities violated the single-subject rule. (2) The petitions for the initiative did not describe the initiative's effects on finances and public safety. (3) The initiative was not designed as a legislative law, but rather an executive action. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule and addresses just one subject—immigration law. |
Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court and Las Vegas Journal-Review
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the attorney general's ballot statement was misleading and masked the initiative's intent and whether the fiscal statement was misleading | |
| Court: Montana Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, requiring Attorney General Tim Fox to rewrite the ballot statement | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU of Montana | Defendant(s): State of Montana (represented by Attorney General Tim Fox) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot statement was misleading and prejudicial and the fiscal statement was insufficient. | Defendant argument: The ballot statement was legally sufficient, true and impartial, and fairly stated and the fiscal statement was sufficient. |
Source: Montana Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the initiative violates fundamental rights of transgender people to privacy, dignity, due process, as well as the right to pursue basic necessities, acquire property, and seek safety, health, and happiness | |
| Court: Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, County of Cascade | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU of Montana | Defendant(s): State of Montana (represented by Attorney General Tim Fox) |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 183 is unconstitutional because it denies transgender people equal protection under the law and violates their rights to privacy, dignity, the pursuit of life's basic necessities, and due process under the Montana Constitution. | Defendant argument: Court review of a proposed ballot measure before it is officially certified is unprecedented and infringes on the right of Montana residents to participate in direct democracy. |
Source: ACLU of Montana Hobaugh v. Montana Legal Documents
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the law targeted by the veto referendum—HB 2244—is constitutional | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing HB 2244 to go into effect | |
| Plaintiff(s): Voters of Arizona | Defendant(s): State of Arizona |
| Plaintiff argument: HB 2244 requiring strict compliance with initiative processes would cause a significant increase in the difficulty and cost of a successful initiative or referendum petition such that it violates the state constitution's guarantee of the initiative and referendum power. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs have no standing to challenge the law since no signatures have been thrown out because of it, and the increase in difficulty and cost is not enough to violate the state constitution, rather the requirement would guarantee the integrity of the initiative process. |
Source: Arizona Capitol Times
| 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: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra) |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms | Defendant argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional |
Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause; upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc., | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| 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
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2017 regarding voter guide language that took place in 2017.
Historical measures
This tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2017 against historical statewide ballot measures. For lawsuits about measures proximate to 2017, see the By state and "By subject tabs.
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: House Bill 2280, enacted in 2013, violated the state's legislative alteration law. | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The plaintiffs and defendants reached an agreement, leading to the judge issuing a stipulated judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Flagstaff Living Wage Coalition, Steven Levin, and Nicole Marie Ruiz | Defendant(s): State of Arizona and Attorney General Mark Brnovich |
| Plaintiff argument: HB 2280 violated the state's legislative alteration law, as the bill neither received a three-fourths vote or furthered Proposition 202's purpose. Therefore, municipalities should be permitted to increase the local minimum wage. | Defendant argument: The defendants concurred with the plaintiffs that HB 2280 violated the legislative alteration law. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: House Bill 2579, enacted in 2016, violated the state's legislative alteration law. | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating HB 2579 | |
| Plaintiff(s): UFCW Local 99, Lauren Kuby, David Schapira, Kolby Granville, Regina Romero, Eva Putzova, Eric Meyer, Lela Alston, Richard Andrade, Reginald Bolding, Mark Cardenas, Ken Clark, Diego Espinoza, Charlene Fernandez, Randall Friese, Rosanna Gabaldon, Sally Ann Gonzales, Albert Hale, Matt Kopec, Jonathan Larkin, Stefanie Mach, Juan Jose Mendez, Lisa Otondo, Celeste Plumlee, Rebecca Rios, Macario Saldate, Ceci Velasquez, Bruce Wheeler, Katie Hobbs, David Bradley, Olivia Cajero Bedford, Lupe Contreras, Andrea Dalessandro, Steve Farley, Barbara McGuire, Robert Meza, Catherine Miranda, and Martin Quezada | Defendant(s): State of Arizona |
| Plaintiff arguments: HB 2579 violated the state's legislative alteration law, as the bill neither received a three-fourths vote or furthered Proposition 202's purpose | Defendant arguments: Proposition 202's use of the term benefits was not defined and could be interpreted in different ways. |
Sources: Maricopa County Superior Court (Case: CV2015-004240), Maricopa County Superior Court (Case: CV2016-092409)
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 2017 lawsuits about local measures can be found here.
See also
- 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 2016
- 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
