List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
From Ballotpedia
| 2019 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2020 »
« 2018
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| Scorecard | |
| Deadlines | |
| Requirements | |
| Lawsuits | |
| Readability | |
| Voter guides | |
| Election results | |
| Year-end analysis | |
| Campaigns | |
| Polls | |
| Media editorials | |
| Filed initiatives | |
| 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 filed about ballot measures in 2019. Lawsuits can be filed before an election specifically to keep a measure from being put on the ballot. Such 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.
Lawsuits alleging the invalidity or unconstitutionality of a measure independently from the presence of the measure on the ballot can also be filed. Such lawsuits are sometimes filed before the election and sometimes after the election. Sometimes these court cases extend for years after a measure has been approved.
By state
This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2019—by state—for measures proximate to 2019. It also lists 2019 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2019 or a later year.
Alaska
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alaska and 2019 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus | Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai |
Source: Alaska Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE." | Defendant argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule. |
Source: Alaska Superior Court
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; appealed to United States Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 12 did not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause because Proposition 12 was not directed at interstate commerce and did not call for uniform practices throughout the U.S.; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court; U.S. Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 12 | |
| Plaintiff(s): National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation | Defendant(s): Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), Sonia Angell (Director of the California Department of Public Health), and Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General) |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution? | |
| Court: U.S. District Court for Central California and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): North American Meat Institute | Defendant(s): Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General), Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), and Susan Fanelli (Acting Director of the California Department of Public Health) |
Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Florida
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment's ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Attorney General | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Ashley Moody | Defendant(s): Sensible Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment's ballot language is misleading | Defendant argument: The ballot language is not misleading |
Source: Florida Supreme Court
Idaho
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Idaho and 2019 ballot measures
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2019 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
Kentucky
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment. |
Source: WFPL
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure | |
| Court: Franklin Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system. | Defendant argument: Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years." |
Source: Courier Journal
Massachusetts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading; whether the measure violates Section 1 of Article LXXIV of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires initiatives to concern only topics "which are related or which are mutually dependent." | |
| Court: Filed in Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Benjamin Locke Weiner, Ronald T. Maloney, Jr., Cynthia Newell, Sean Barry, Tina M. Messina, Maximilian Pano Haivanis, and Steven Schechterle | Defendant(s): Maura Healey (D), the attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; William F. Galvin (D), secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts |
| Plaintiff argument: The language of the ballot initiative concerns four distinct questions. It fails to comply with initiative rules established in the Massachusetts Constitution. | Defendant argument: The ballot language meets all constitutional requirements and was therefore certified to gather signatures to appear on the 2020 ballot. |
Source: Massachusetts Appellate Courts
Michigan
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the petition used to collect signatures for a ballot initiative need to contain the date of the election at which the initiative will be submitted to voters? | |
| Court: Michigan Court of Claims appealed to Michigan Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the initiative petition was "facially compliant with all statutory requirements" and that the secretary of state had to accept signatures from the committee. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan and LuAnne Kozma | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Director of Elections Sally Williams, and Board of State Canvassers |
| Plaintiff argument: The secretary of state has no authority to reject an initiative due to the election date reference on the petition. | Defendant argument: The election at which the proponent intends the initiative to appear for needs to be specified on the petition. |
Source: Michigan Court of Claims and Michigan Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposal B's term limits on state legislators violate the U.S. Constitution's freedom of association and/or the Michigan Constitution's single-subject rule and ballot language requirements? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: The U.S. District Court for Western Michigan and the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that term limits, under Proposal B, were constitutional. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Roger Kahn, Paul Opsommer, Joseph Haveman, David E. Nathan, Scott Dianda, Clark Harder, Mary Valentine, and Douglas Spade | Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson |
Source: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
Montana
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot language for LR-130 misleading? | |
| Court: Montana Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Attorney General Fox, the defendant, saying the ballot language as written was fair | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Missoula Montana League of Cities and Towns, et al. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Tim Fox (R) |
Source: U.S. News and World Report
North Carolina
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2019 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
Oklahoma
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2019 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
Pennsylvania
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot measure for Marsy's Law violate the state constitution's requirement that separate amendments receive separate votes? | |
| Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: On December 21, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution and that results could not be certified | |
| Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Lorraine Haw | Defendant(s): Acting Secretary of State Veronica Degraffenreid (originally Acting Secretary Kathy Boockvar) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot measure proposed several amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution and therefore violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. | Defendant argument: The ballot measure contained related subparts that pertain to a single subject, which made the proposal constitutional. |
Source: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
South Dakota
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment | |
| Court: United States District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cory Heidelberger (D) and his ballot question committee, SD Voice | Defendant(s): South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R), Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: IM 24 is unconstitutional and should not be implemented | Defendant argument: Unkown |
Source: The Daily Republic
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the commerce clause | |
| Court: United States District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Attorney General Marty Jackley (R), the South Dakota Newspaper Association, Retailers Association, Broadcasters Association and Chamber Ballot Action Committee, as well as Americans for Prosperity and individual Thomas Barnett Jr. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: IM 24 is unconstitutional because it attempts to regulate interstate commerce, violates the plaintiff's rights, and discriminates against their economic activity | Defendant argument: Unkown |
Source: Aberdeen News
Washington
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Initiative 976 violate the single-subject rule, separate subject-in-title requirement, and other provisions of the Washington Constitution? | |
| Court: Filed in King County Superior Court; appealed to Washington State Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: On November 27, 2019, the judge blocked Initiative 976 from taking effect, pending the case's conclusion. On December 4, 2019, the state supreme court affirmed that the measure would remain on hold pending the resolution of the case. On October 15, 2020, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Initiative 976 was invalid because it violated the state's single-subject rule and had an inaccurate ballot title.[1][2] | |
| Plaintiff(s): Garfield County Transportation Authority; King County; City of Seattle; Washington State Transit Association; Association of Washington Cities; Port of Seattle; Intercity Transit; Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council of Washington; and Michael Rogers | Defendant(s): State of Washington |
| Plaintiff argument: I-976 violated the single-subject rule, the separate subject-in-title requirement, the requirement to disclose the repeal of statutes, and other constitutional provisions | Defendant argument: Ballot titles can be general; I-976 followed constitutional provisions[3] |
Source: KingCounty.gov
Wisconsin
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment informed the electorate what the amendment would do | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that the amendment's ballot language was not sufficient but leaving the amendment in effect during appeal; appealed; Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the amendment | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The ballot language, which was developed over two years through the legislative process, met all statutory requirements and did not deceive voters. |
Source: Urban Milwaukee
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot language accurately and completely summarize the constitutional amendment? | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI), Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson, and Fred A. Risser | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), WEC Chair Dean Knudson, Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and Attorney General Josh Kaul |
Source: Dane County Circuit Court
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2019—by subject—for measures proximate to 2019. It also lists 2019 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2019 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
- Legislative alteration - Lawsuits concerning actions by legislatures to repeal or amend citizen initiatives.
- 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: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment. |
Source: WFPL
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure | |
| Court: Franklin Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system. | Defendant argument: Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years." |
Source: Courier Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading; whether the measure violates Section 1 of Article LXXIV of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires initiatives to concern only topics "which are related or which are mutually dependent." | |
| Court: Filed in Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Benjamin Locke Weiner, Ronald T. Maloney, Jr., Cynthia Newell, Sean Barry, Tina M. Messina, Maximilian Pano Haivanis, and Steven Schechterle | Defendant(s): Maura Healey (D), the attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; William F. Galvin (D), secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts |
| Plaintiff argument: The language of the ballot initiative concerns four distinct questions. It fails to comply with initiative rules established in the Massachusetts Constitution. | Defendant argument: The ballot language meets all constitutional requirements and was therefore certified to gather signatures to appear on the 2020 ballot. |
Source: Massachusetts Appellate Courts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment informed the electorate what the amendment would do | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that the amendment's ballot language was not sufficient but leaving the amendment in effect during appeal; appealed; Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the amendment | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The ballot language, which was developed over two years through the legislative process, met all statutory requirements and did not deceive voters. |
Source: Urban Milwaukee
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot language accurately and completely summarize the constitutional amendment? | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI), Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson, and Fred A. Risser | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), WEC Chair Dean Knudson, Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and Attorney General Josh Kaul |
Source: Dane County Circuit Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment's ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Attorney General | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Ashley Moody | Defendant(s): Sensible Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment's ballot language is misleading | Defendant argument: The ballot language is not misleading |
Source: Florida Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot language for LR-130 misleading? | |
| Court: Montana Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Attorney General Fox, the defendant, saying the ballot language as written was fair | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Missoula Montana League of Cities and Towns, et al. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Tim Fox (R) |
Source: U.S. News and World Report
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2019.
Circulators
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding circulators that took place in 2019.
Legislative alteration
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding legislative alteration that took place in 2019.
Post-certification removal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment. |
Source: WFPL
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure | |
| Court: Franklin Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system. | Defendant argument: Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years." |
Source: Courier Journal
Post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment | |
| Court: United States District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cory Heidelberger (D) and his ballot question committee, SD Voice | Defendant(s): South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R), Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: IM 24 is unconstitutional and should not be implemented | Defendant argument: Unkown |
Source: The Daily Republic
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the commerce clause | |
| Court: United States District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Attorney General Marty Jackley (R), the South Dakota Newspaper Association, Retailers Association, Broadcasters Association and Chamber Ballot Action Committee, as well as Americans for Prosperity and individual Thomas Barnett Jr. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: IM 24 is unconstitutional because it attempts to regulate interstate commerce, violates the plaintiff's rights, and discriminates against their economic activity | Defendant argument: Unkown |
Source: Aberdeen News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Initiative 976 violate the single-subject rule, separate subject-in-title requirement, and other provisions of the Washington Constitution? | |
| Court: Filed in King County Superior Court; appealed to Washington State Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: On November 27, 2019, the judge blocked Initiative 976 from taking effect, pending the case's conclusion. On December 4, 2019, the state supreme court affirmed that the measure would remain on hold pending the resolution of the case. On October 15, 2020, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Initiative 976 was invalid because it violated the state's single-subject rule and had an inaccurate ballot title.[4][2] | |
| Plaintiff(s): Garfield County Transportation Authority; King County; City of Seattle; Washington State Transit Association; Association of Washington Cities; Port of Seattle; Intercity Transit; Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council of Washington; and Michael Rogers | Defendant(s): State of Washington |
| Plaintiff argument: I-976 violated the single-subject rule, the separate subject-in-title requirement, the requirement to disclose the repeal of statutes, and other constitutional provisions | Defendant argument: Ballot titles can be general; I-976 followed constitutional provisions[5] |
Source: KingCounty.gov
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposal B's term limits on state legislators violate the U.S. Constitution's freedom of association and/or the Michigan Constitution's single-subject rule and ballot language requirements? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: The U.S. District Court for Western Michigan and the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that term limits, under Proposal B, were constitutional. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Roger Kahn, Paul Opsommer, Joseph Haveman, David E. Nathan, Scott Dianda, Clark Harder, Mary Valentine, and Douglas Spade | Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson |
Source: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment informed the electorate what the amendment would do | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that the amendment's ballot language was not sufficient but leaving the amendment in effect during appeal; appealed; Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the amendment | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The ballot language, which was developed over two years through the legislative process, met all statutory requirements and did not deceive voters. |
Source: Urban Milwaukee
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot language accurately and completely summarize the constitutional amendment? | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI), Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson, and Fred A. Risser | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), WEC Chair Dean Knudson, Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and Attorney General Josh Kaul |
Source: Dane County Circuit Court
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; appealed to United States Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 12 did not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause because Proposition 12 was not directed at interstate commerce and did not call for uniform practices throughout the U.S.; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court; U.S. Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 12 | |
| Plaintiff(s): National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation | Defendant(s): Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), Sonia Angell (Director of the California Department of Public Health), and Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General) |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution? | |
| Court: U.S. District Court for Central California and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): North American Meat Institute | Defendant(s): Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General), Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), and Susan Fanelli (Acting Director of the California Department of Public Health) |
Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Preemption
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding preemption that took place in 2019.
Signature validity
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding signature validity that took place in 2019.
Signature deadlines
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the petition used to collect signatures for a ballot initiative need to contain the date of the election at which the initiative will be submitted to voters? | |
| Court: Michigan Court of Claims appealed to Michigan Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the initiative petition was "facially compliant with all statutory requirements" and that the secretary of state had to accept signatures from the committee. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan and LuAnne Kozma | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Director of Elections Sally Williams, and Board of State Canvassers |
| Plaintiff argument: The secretary of state has no authority to reject an initiative due to the election date reference on the petition. | Defendant argument: The election at which the proponent intends the initiative to appear for needs to be specified on the petition. |
Source: Michigan Court of Claims and Michigan Court of Appeals
Single subject
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot measure for Marsy's Law violate the state constitution's requirement that separate amendments receive separate votes? | |
| Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: On December 21, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution and that results could not be certified | |
| Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Lorraine Haw | Defendant(s): Acting Secretary of State Veronica Degraffenreid (originally Acting Secretary Kathy Boockvar) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot measure proposed several amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution and therefore violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. | Defendant argument: The ballot measure contained related subparts that pertain to a single subject, which made the proposal constitutional. |
Source: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Initiative 976 violate the single-subject rule, separate subject-in-title requirement, and other provisions of the Washington Constitution? | |
| Court: Filed in King County Superior Court; appealed to Washington State Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: On November 27, 2019, the judge blocked Initiative 976 from taking effect, pending the case's conclusion. On December 4, 2019, the state supreme court affirmed that the measure would remain on hold pending the resolution of the case. On October 15, 2020, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Initiative 976 was invalid because it violated the state's single-subject rule and had an inaccurate ballot title.[6][2] | |
| Plaintiff(s): Garfield County Transportation Authority; King County; City of Seattle; Washington State Transit Association; Association of Washington Cities; Port of Seattle; Intercity Transit; Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council of Washington; and Michael Rogers | Defendant(s): State of Washington |
| Plaintiff argument: I-976 violated the single-subject rule, the separate subject-in-title requirement, the requirement to disclose the repeal of statutes, and other constitutional provisions | Defendant argument: Ballot titles can be general; I-976 followed constitutional provisions[7] |
Source: KingCounty.gov
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading; whether the measure violates Section 1 of Article LXXIV of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires initiatives to concern only topics "which are related or which are mutually dependent." | |
| Court: Filed in Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Benjamin Locke Weiner, Ronald T. Maloney, Jr., Cynthia Newell, Sean Barry, Tina M. Messina, Maximilian Pano Haivanis, and Steven Schechterle | Defendant(s): Maura Healey (D), the attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; William F. Galvin (D), secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts |
| Plaintiff argument: The language of the ballot initiative concerns four distinct questions. It fails to comply with initiative rules established in the Massachusetts Constitution. | Defendant argument: The ballot language meets all constitutional requirements and was therefore certified to gather signatures to appear on the 2020 ballot. |
Source: Massachusetts Appellate Courts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus | Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai |
Source: Alaska Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE." | Defendant argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule. |
Source: Alaska Superior Court
Subject restriction
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding subject restrictions that took place in 2019.
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment | |
| Court: United States District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cory Heidelberger (D) and his ballot question committee, SD Voice | Defendant(s): South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R), Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: IM 24 is unconstitutional and should not be implemented | Defendant argument: Unkown |
Source: The Daily Republic
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the commerce clause | |
| Court: United States District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Attorney General Marty Jackley (R), the South Dakota Newspaper Association, Retailers Association, Broadcasters Association and Chamber Ballot Action Committee, as well as Americans for Prosperity and individual Thomas Barnett Jr. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: IM 24 is unconstitutional because it attempts to regulate interstate commerce, violates the plaintiff's rights, and discriminates against their economic activity | Defendant argument: Unkown |
Source: Aberdeen News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment. |
Source: WFPL
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure | |
| Court: Franklin Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system. | Defendant argument: Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years." |
Source: Courier Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposal B's term limits on state legislators violate the U.S. Constitution's freedom of association and/or the Michigan Constitution's single-subject rule and ballot language requirements? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: The U.S. District Court for Western Michigan and the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that term limits, under Proposal B, were constitutional. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Roger Kahn, Paul Opsommer, Joseph Haveman, David E. Nathan, Scott Dianda, Clark Harder, Mary Valentine, and Douglas Spade | Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson |
Source: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus | Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai |
Source: Alaska Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE." | Defendant argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule. |
Source: Alaska Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; appealed to United States Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 12 did not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause because Proposition 12 was not directed at interstate commerce and did not call for uniform practices throughout the U.S.; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court; U.S. Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 12 | |
| Plaintiff(s): National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation | Defendant(s): Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), Sonia Angell (Director of the California Department of Public Health), and Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General) |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution? | |
| Court: U.S. District Court for Central California and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): North American Meat Institute | Defendant(s): Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General), Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), and Susan Fanelli (Acting Director of the California Department of Public Health) |
Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding voter guides that took place in 2019.
Past measures
Note: This section shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2019 against past ballot measures.
Ballotpedia is not covering any state ballot measure lawsuits about measures from past years filed or concluded in 2019.
Local
Ballotpedia covers all local measures in California, measures on the ballot for voters within the top 100 largest cities in the United States, 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 2019 lawsuits about local measures can be found here.
See also
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
- 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 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
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court: Car tab measure to remain on hold," accessed December 5, 2019
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Washington Supreme Court, "Initiative 976 Opinion," October 15, 2020
- ↑ Peninsula Daily News, "AG asks court to allow car-tab cuts," accessed December 4, 2019
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court: Car tab measure to remain on hold," accessed December 5, 2019
- ↑ Peninsula Daily News, "AG asks court to allow car-tab cuts," accessed December 4, 2019
- ↑ Associated Press, "Supreme Court: Car tab measure to remain on hold," accessed December 5, 2019
- ↑ Peninsula Daily News, "AG asks court to allow car-tab cuts," accessed December 4, 2019
