Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
From Ballotpedia
| 2020 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2021 »
« 2019
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Scorecard | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| 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 2020. 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.
Click here to read about ballot measure-related lawsuits and court rulings based on the coronavirus pandemic or on government responses to the coronavirus pandemic.
By state
This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2020—by state—for measures proximate to 2020. It also lists 2020 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2020 or a later year.
Alaska
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alaska and 2020 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
Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; Whether Proposition 123 violated the federal government's law on Arizona's land trust fund | |
| Court: Filed in United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Appealed to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Pierce | Defendant(s): Gov. Doug Ducey |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 123 violated the federal law on the state's land trust fund because the proposition removed principal from the fund | Defendant argument: Proposition 123 did not violate federal law because Congress no longer has oversight of the state's land trust fund |
Source: United States District Court for the District of Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot initiative violate state law requiring the ballot language to not be fraudulent or creating a significant danger of confusion or unfairness? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Originated in the Maricopa County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The ballot language was sufficient for the petition circulation process. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Lisa James, Merilee Flower, Todd Griffith, Dr. Edward Gogek, Paul Smith, Dr. Dale Guthrie, and Sally Schindel | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Katie Hobbs |
Source: Maricopa County Superior Court
Arkansas
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the Initiative Process and Legislative Referral Requirements Amendment and the State Legislative Term Limits Amendment is inaccurate and misleading | |
| Court: Pulaski County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed by Pulaski County circuit court judge Judge Mary McGowan | |
| Plaintiff(s): Tom Steele, chairman of the Arkansas Term Limits committee and his attorney, David Couch | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is inaccurate and misleading | Defendant argument: Unknown/no comment |
Source: Northwest Arkansas Online
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Initiative Process and Legislative Referral Requirements Amendment and the State Legislative Term Limits Amendment should be overturned | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Andrew Kimbrell | Defendant(s): N/A |
| Plaintiff argument: "Newspaper circulation and readership is at an all-time low and declining rapidly, and newspaper readers are showing little interest in the public notice section of the newspaper. That being the case, the Court must revisit whether the newspaper publication requirement under [the Arkansas Constitution] is sufficient to sustain the presumption of informed voters." | Defendant argument: Unknown/no comment |
Source: Northwest Arkansas Online
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certifications that petition circulators passed background checks are in accordance with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) and, consequently, whether or not the signatures collected are valid | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of John Thurston; measures removed from ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansas Voters First, Open Primaries Arkansas | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The background check certifications comply with state law and signatures are valid | Defendant argument: The background check certifications do not comply with state law and signatures are therefore not valid |
Source: Arkansas Times
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union | Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
| Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Davis White | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: California Third District Court of Appeal
| 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
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 15 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
| Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jon Coupal | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: Sacramento County Superior 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
Colorado
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the fixed minimum price for a pack of cigarettes created by Proposition EE is constitutional | |
| Court: United States District Court for the District of Colorado | |
| Plaintiff(s): Liggett Group LLC, Vector Tobacco Inc., and Xcaliber International Ltd., LLC | Defendant(s): Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Philip Weiser, and the Colorado State Legislature |
| Plaintiff argument: The fixed minimum price for a pack of cigarettes created by Proposition EE violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional |
Source: Colorado Sun
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition EE violated the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Denver District Court, appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants in lower court and upheld in the Colorado Court of Appeals | |
| Plaintiff(s): Liggett Group LLC, Vector Tobacco Inc., and Xcaliber International Ltd., LLC | Defendant(s): Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Philip Weiser, and the Colorado State Legislature |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition EE violated the state's single-subject rule | Defendant argument: Proposition EE did not violate the state's single-subject rule |
Source: Colorado Sun
Florida
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment applies retroactively | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County circuit court; appealed to First District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; case dismissed; appeal failed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Volusia County, Florida | Defendant(s): Governor Rick Scott (R) and Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment is misleading because it failed to make clear whether or not it applies retroactively or only prospectively. The amendment should be interpreted to only apply going forward. Volusia County should not have to restructure its government and restore constitutional offices that it had abolished. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Orlando Sentinel
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County Circuit Court, rejected by circuit judge James Shelfer, appealed by plaintiffs and forwarded to Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and ordered the amendment to appear on the 2018 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): The counties of Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Broward | Defendant(s): State officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is misleading, the amendment combines more than a single subject, it would interfere with the counties' rights of self-government and control of local government structure | Defendant argument: The amendment should appear on the ballot |
Source: Miami Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; measure invalidated | |
| Plaintiff(s): Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) | Defendant(s): State elections officials, Make it Legal Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title is misleading and inaccurately says it can legalize something that is illegal under federal law | Defendant argument: The ballot title is not misleading; voters would understand the legalization of marijuana would remain illegal under federal law and would only be legalized in Florida |
Source: Tallahassee Democrat
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Amendment 3 violates the state constitution by reducing minority voting power in certain districts | |
| Court: Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Glenton Gilzean Jr. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Laura M. Lee and the Florida Election Canvassing Commission |
Source: Florida Supreme Court: Clenton Gilzean Jr. vs Laurel M. Lee et al.
Kentucky
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the constitutional amendment violates the constitutional requirement that ballot measures relate to a single subject matter and whether the state legislature followed the proper procedures to place the amendment on the ballot | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The state violated the requirement that constitutional amendments relate to a single subject matter and did not follow the correct procedures to place the amendment on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The amendment does not violate the single subject matter rule because all provisions of the amendment relate to crime victims' rights, and the state legislature followed the proper procedures to place the amendment on the ballot and did so with bipartisan support. |
Source: Messenger-Inquirer
Maine
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2020 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Section 20 of Article IV of the Maine Constitution require circulators to be registered to vote at the time of circulation in order for their collected signatures to be considered valid? | |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court (originated in the Cumberland County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: On September 22, 2020, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Secretary of State Dunlap. | |
| Plaintiff(s): David Jones | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures collected by circulators who are not registered to vote while collecting signatures, but who register before submitting the signatures, are valid. | Defendant argument: Section 20 of Article IV of the Maine Constitution requires that circulators be registered to vote for their collected signatures to be considered valid. |
Source: Cumberland County Superior Court
Massachusetts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the "right to repair" law violate federal law making the law unenforceable? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts | |
| Ruling: Challenge to initiative dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alliance for Automotive Innovation | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The "right to repair" law violates federal law and raises safety and privacy concerns for vehicle owners. | Defendant argument: The "right to repair" law does not violate federal law. |
Source: Reuters
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
Mississippi
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure was placed on the ballot in accordance with the state constitution | |
| Court: Mississippi Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; initiative found invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Madison, Mississippi; Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler | Defendant(s): Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson |
| Plaintiff argument: Votes on the measure should not be counted because the measure was placed on the ballot in violation of the state constitution | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs could and should have filed the lawsuit much earlier before the measure was certified for the ballot. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
Missouri
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: St. Louis Public Raido
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot title; Whether the ballot title accurately explains the amendment and its effects | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Barbara Pippens, John Bohney, Cheryl Hibbeler, Rebecca Shaw, Bob Minor, James Harmon, Gene Davison, and Pat McBride | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft, Senator Dave Schatz (R), Speaker of the House Elijah Haahr (R), and Senator Dan Hegeman (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title drafted by the Missouri General Assembly does not accurately describe the effects of the amendment because it does not mention the nonpartisan demographer and is therefore misleading to voters. | Defendant argument: The ballot title of Missouri Amendment 1 (2018) did not mention the nonpartisan demographer. |
Source: U.S. News
Montana
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the new law violate the Montana Constitution and infringe on the state legislature's power to allocate tax revenue? | |
| Court: Montana 1st Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit was withdrawn | |
| Plaintiff(s): Steve Zabawa, Wrong for Montana | Defendant(s): Attorney General Tim Fox (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The new law violates the Montana Constitution because it requires that a portion of marijuana tax revenue be allocated to specific purposes. | Defendant argument: The new law does not violate the state's Constitution because the legislature can still appropriate the revenue as they see fit. |
Source: KULR 8
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state should permit electronic signature gathering due to social gathering restrictions put in place during the coronavirus pandemic | |
| Court: Montana 1st Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, not permitting New Approach Montana to use electronic signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): New Approach Montana | Defendant(s): Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The state violated the right to amend the Montana Constitution and enact laws by prohibiting electronic signature gathering. | Defendant argument: The court cannot grant permission to use electronic signatures because it would be violating the separation of powers. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
Nebraska
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot initiative violates the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Nebraska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff and removed from the November ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner | Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative's provisions violate the single-subject rule and would mislead voters on its actual effect. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule because the right to medical marijuana necessitates the authorization of private entities to produce and sell it. |
Source: KETV-Omaha
Nevada
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2020 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot summary misleading? | |
| Court: Carson County District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, requiring petitioners to resubmit ballot summary | |
| Plaintiff(s): Nevada Resort Association | Defendant(s): Clark County Education Association |
Source: The Nevada Independent
North Carolina
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot | |
| Court: Wake County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: North Carolina Supreme Court overturned previous rulings, allowing the voter ID amendment to take effect | |
| Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina | Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment affects African American and Indian American voters negatively, places a cost on voting, and impedes one from exercising the right to vote | |
| Court: Wake County Superior Court and North Carolina Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: 2023 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jabari Holmes, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, Shakoya Carrie Brown, and Paul Kearney, Sr. | Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore |
Sources: Wake County Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot? | |
| Court: Wake County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The General Assembly of North Carolina acted with proper authority to refer constitutional amendments to the ballot; the voter ID and tax cap amendments stand and are enforceable. | |
| Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina | Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore |
| Plaintiff argument: Since some lawmakers were elected from districts that a federal court ruled were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the existing state legislature was a usurper legislature and could not place constitutional amendments on the ballot. | Defendant argument: Despite the ruling concerning a gerrymander, the General Assembly of North Carolina still had the authority to enact legislation, including the referral of constitutional amendments to the ballot. |
Source: Wake County Superior Court
North Dakota
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether signatures were collected in accordance with state law and the state constitution; whether the measure should be blocked from appearing on the November ballot | |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; blocked measure from appearing on ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brighter Future Alliance | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Al Jaeger (I) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures should be declared invalid and measure should be blocked from the ballot because the measure sponsors failed to meet requirements of the constitution and state law because it did not include the full text of the measure on petitions and that the ballot title does not accurately describe the measure | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Brighter Future Alliance petition for writ of injunction
Ohio
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2020 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections | Defendant(s): Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Ohio Ballot Board, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure does not violate the state's single-subject rule because each provision of the measure pertains to voting. | Defendant argument: The measure contains four separate matters and therefore should be voted on by the electorate as four separate measures. |
Source: Toledo Blade
South Dakota
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment comprises more than a single subject; whether the amendment is considered to be an amendment or a revision to the state constitution | |
| Court: Hughes County Circuit Court appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning Amendment A; the ruling was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court upon appeal. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller | Defendant(s): State of South Dakota; intervention by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure comprises more than one subject; the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature | Defendant argument: Amendment A contains one subject to which all provisions are essentially related, and the state constitution's definition of amendment and revision is permissive, not obligatory. |
Source: South Dakota Department of Public Safety
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 2020—by subject—for measures proximate to 2020. It also lists 2020 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2020 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: Is the ballot summary misleading? | |
| Court: Carson County District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, requiring petitioners to resubmit ballot summary | |
| Plaintiff(s): Nevada Resort Association | Defendant(s): Clark County Education Association |
Source: The Nevada Independent
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections | Defendant(s): Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Ohio Ballot Board, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure does not violate the state's single-subject rule because each provision of the measure pertains to voting. | Defendant argument: The measure contains four separate matters and therefore should be voted on by the electorate as four separate measures. |
Source: Toledo Blade
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union | Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
| Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Davis White | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: California Third District Court of Appeal
| 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: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the Initiative Process and Legislative Referral Requirements Amendment and the State Legislative Term Limits Amendment is inaccurate and misleading | |
| Court: Pulaski County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed by Pulaski County circuit court judge Judge Mary McGowan | |
| Plaintiff(s): Tom Steele, chairman of the Arkansas Term Limits committee and his attorney, David Couch | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is inaccurate and misleading | Defendant argument: Unknown/no comment |
Source: Northwest Arkansas Online
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Initiative Process and Legislative Referral Requirements Amendment and the State Legislative Term Limits Amendment should be overturned | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Andrew Kimbrell | Defendant(s): N/A |
| Plaintiff argument: "Newspaper circulation and readership is at an all-time low and declining rapidly, and newspaper readers are showing little interest in the public notice section of the newspaper. That being the case, the Court must revisit whether the newspaper publication requirement under [the Arkansas Constitution] is sufficient to sustain the presumption of informed voters." | Defendant argument: Unknown/no comment |
Source: Northwest Arkansas Online
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 15 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
| Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jon Coupal | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: Sacramento County Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; measure invalidated | |
| Plaintiff(s): Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) | Defendant(s): State elections officials, Make it Legal Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title is misleading and inaccurately says it can legalize something that is illegal under federal law | Defendant argument: The ballot title is not misleading; voters would understand the legalization of marijuana would remain illegal under federal law and would only be legalized in Florida |
Source: Tallahassee Democrat
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether signatures were collected in accordance with state law and the state constitution; whether the measure should be blocked from appearing on the November ballot | |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; blocked measure from appearing on ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brighter Future Alliance | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Al Jaeger (I) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures should be declared invalid and measure should be blocked from the ballot because the measure sponsors failed to meet requirements of the constitution and state law because it did not include the full text of the measure on petitions and that the ballot title does not accurately describe the measure | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Brighter Future Alliance petition for writ of injunction
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot title; Whether the ballot title accurately explains the amendment and its effects | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Barbara Pippens, John Bohney, Cheryl Hibbeler, Rebecca Shaw, Bob Minor, James Harmon, Gene Davison, and Pat McBride | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft, Senator Dave Schatz (R), Speaker of the House Elijah Haahr (R), and Senator Dan Hegeman (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title drafted by the Missouri General Assembly does not accurately describe the effects of the amendment because it does not mention the nonpartisan demographer and is therefore misleading to voters. | Defendant argument: The ballot title of Missouri Amendment 1 (2018) did not mention the nonpartisan demographer. |
Source: U.S. News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot initiative violate state law requiring the ballot language to not be fraudulent or creating a significant danger of confusion or unfairness? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Originated in the Maricopa County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The ballot language was sufficient for the petition circulation process. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Lisa James, Merilee Flower, Todd Griffith, Dr. Edward Gogek, Paul Smith, Dr. Dale Guthrie, and Sally Schindel | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Katie Hobbs |
Source: Maricopa County Superior Court
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2020 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2020.
Circulators
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: St. Louis Public Raido
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Section 20 of Article IV of the Maine Constitution require circulators to be registered to vote at the time of circulation in order for their collected signatures to be considered valid? | |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court (originated in the Cumberland County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: On September 22, 2020, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Secretary of State Dunlap. | |
| Plaintiff(s): David Jones | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures collected by circulators who are not registered to vote while collecting signatures, but who register before submitting the signatures, are valid. | Defendant argument: Section 20 of Article IV of the Maine Constitution requires that circulators be registered to vote for their collected signatures to be considered valid. |
Source: Cumberland County Superior Court
Legislative alteration
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2020 regarding legislative alteration that took place in 2020.
Post-certification removal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the constitutional amendment violates the constitutional requirement that ballot measures relate to a single subject matter and whether the state legislature followed the proper procedures to place the amendment on the ballot | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The state violated the requirement that constitutional amendments relate to a single subject matter and did not follow the correct procedures to place the amendment on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The amendment does not violate the single subject matter rule because all provisions of the amendment relate to crime victims' rights, and the state legislature followed the proper procedures to place the amendment on the ballot and did so with bipartisan support. |
Source: Messenger-Inquirer
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certifications that petition circulators passed background checks are in accordance with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) and, consequently, whether or not the signatures collected are valid | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of John Thurston; measures removed from ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansas Voters First, Open Primaries Arkansas | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The background check certifications comply with state law and signatures are valid | Defendant argument: The background check certifications do not comply with state law and signatures are therefore not valid |
Source: Arkansas Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure was placed on the ballot in accordance with the state constitution | |
| Court: Mississippi Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; initiative found invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Madison, Mississippi; Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler | Defendant(s): Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson |
| Plaintiff argument: Votes on the measure should not be counted because the measure was placed on the ballot in violation of the state constitution | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs could and should have filed the lawsuit much earlier before the measure was certified for the ballot. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: St. Louis Public Raido
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot initiative violates the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Nebraska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff and removed from the November ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner | Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative's provisions violate the single-subject rule and would mislead voters on its actual effect. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule because the right to medical marijuana necessitates the authorization of private entities to produce and sell it. |
Source: KETV-Omaha
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether signatures were collected in accordance with state law and the state constitution; whether the measure should be blocked from appearing on the November ballot | |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; blocked measure from appearing on ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brighter Future Alliance | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Al Jaeger (I) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures should be declared invalid and measure should be blocked from the ballot because the measure sponsors failed to meet requirements of the constitution and state law because it did not include the full text of the measure on petitions and that the ballot title does not accurately describe the measure | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Brighter Future Alliance petition for writ of injunction
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certifications that petition circulators passed background checks are in accordance with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) and, consequently, whether or not the signatures collected are valid | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of John Thurston; measures removed from ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansas Voters First, Open Primaries Arkansas | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The background check certifications comply with state law and signatures are valid | Defendant argument: The background check certifications do not comply with state law and signatures are therefore not valid |
Source: Arkansas Times
Post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union | Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
| Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Davis White | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: California Third District Court of Appeal
| 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: 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: Whether the measure was placed on the ballot in accordance with the state constitution | |
| Court: Mississippi Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; initiative found invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Madison, Mississippi; Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler | Defendant(s): Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson |
| Plaintiff argument: Votes on the measure should not be counted because the measure was placed on the ballot in violation of the state constitution | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs could and should have filed the lawsuit much earlier before the measure was certified for the ballot. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment applies retroactively | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County circuit court; appealed to First District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; case dismissed; appeal failed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Volusia County, Florida | Defendant(s): Governor Rick Scott (R) and Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment is misleading because it failed to make clear whether or not it applies retroactively or only prospectively. The amendment should be interpreted to only apply going forward. Volusia County should not have to restructure its government and restore constitutional offices that it had abolished. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Orlando Sentinel
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County Circuit Court, rejected by circuit judge James Shelfer, appealed by plaintiffs and forwarded to Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and ordered the amendment to appear on the 2018 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): The counties of Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Broward | Defendant(s): State officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is misleading, the amendment combines more than a single subject, it would interfere with the counties' rights of self-government and control of local government structure | Defendant argument: The amendment should appear on the ballot |
Source: Miami Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; Whether Proposition 123 violated the federal government's law on Arizona's land trust fund | |
| Court: Filed in United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Appealed to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Pierce | Defendant(s): Gov. Doug Ducey |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 123 violated the federal law on the state's land trust fund because the proposition removed principal from the fund | Defendant argument: Proposition 123 did not violate federal law because Congress no longer has oversight of the state's land trust fund |
Source: United States District Court for the District of Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the Initiative Process and Legislative Referral Requirements Amendment and the State Legislative Term Limits Amendment is inaccurate and misleading | |
| Court: Pulaski County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed by Pulaski County circuit court judge Judge Mary McGowan | |
| Plaintiff(s): Tom Steele, chairman of the Arkansas Term Limits committee and his attorney, David Couch | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is inaccurate and misleading | Defendant argument: Unknown/no comment |
Source: Northwest Arkansas Online
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Initiative Process and Legislative Referral Requirements Amendment and the State Legislative Term Limits Amendment should be overturned | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Andrew Kimbrell | Defendant(s): N/A |
| Plaintiff argument: "Newspaper circulation and readership is at an all-time low and declining rapidly, and newspaper readers are showing little interest in the public notice section of the newspaper. That being the case, the Court must revisit whether the newspaper publication requirement under [the Arkansas Constitution] is sufficient to sustain the presumption of informed voters." | Defendant argument: Unknown/no comment |
Source: Northwest Arkansas Online
| 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
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the "right to repair" law violate federal law making the law unenforceable? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts | |
| Ruling: Challenge to initiative dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alliance for Automotive Innovation | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The "right to repair" law violates federal law and raises safety and privacy concerns for vehicle owners. | Defendant argument: The "right to repair" law does not violate federal law. |
Source: Reuters
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot | |
| Court: Wake County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: North Carolina Supreme Court overturned previous rulings, allowing the voter ID amendment to take effect | |
| Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina | Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment affects African American and Indian American voters negatively, places a cost on voting, and impedes one from exercising the right to vote | |
| Court: Wake County Superior Court and North Carolina Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: 2023 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jabari Holmes, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, Shakoya Carrie Brown, and Paul Kearney, Sr. | Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore |
Sources: Wake County Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment comprises more than a single subject; whether the amendment is considered to be an amendment or a revision to the state constitution | |
| Court: Hughes County Circuit Court appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning Amendment A; the ruling was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court upon appeal. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller | Defendant(s): State of South Dakota; intervention by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure comprises more than one subject; the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature | Defendant argument: Amendment A contains one subject to which all provisions are essentially related, and the state constitution's definition of amendment and revision is permissive, not obligatory. |
Source: South Dakota Department of Public Safety
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the new law violate the Montana Constitution and infringe on the state legislature's power to allocate tax revenue? | |
| Court: Montana 1st Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit was withdrawn | |
| Plaintiff(s): Steve Zabawa, Wrong for Montana | Defendant(s): Attorney General Tim Fox (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The new law violates the Montana Constitution because it requires that a portion of marijuana tax revenue be allocated to specific purposes. | Defendant argument: The new law does not violate the state's Constitution because the legislature can still appropriate the revenue as they see fit. |
Source: KULR 8
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state should permit electronic signature gathering due to social gathering restrictions put in place during the coronavirus pandemic | |
| Court: Montana 1st Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, not permitting New Approach Montana to use electronic signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): New Approach Montana | Defendant(s): Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The state violated the right to amend the Montana Constitution and enact laws by prohibiting electronic signature gathering. | Defendant argument: The court cannot grant permission to use electronic signatures because it would be violating the separation of powers. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| 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: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot? | |
| Court: Wake County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The General Assembly of North Carolina acted with proper authority to refer constitutional amendments to the ballot; the voter ID and tax cap amendments stand and are enforceable. | |
| Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina | Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore |
| Plaintiff argument: Since some lawmakers were elected from districts that a federal court ruled were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the existing state legislature was a usurper legislature and could not place constitutional amendments on the ballot. | Defendant argument: Despite the ruling concerning a gerrymander, the General Assembly of North Carolina still had the authority to enact legislation, including the referral of constitutional amendments to the ballot. |
Source: Wake County Superior Court
Preemption
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2020 regarding preemption that took place in 2020.
Signature validity
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certifications that petition circulators passed background checks are in accordance with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) and, consequently, whether or not the signatures collected are valid | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of John Thurston; measures removed from ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansas Voters First, Open Primaries Arkansas | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The background check certifications comply with state law and signatures are valid | Defendant argument: The background check certifications do not comply with state law and signatures are therefore not valid |
Source: Arkansas Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: St. Louis Public Raido
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Section 20 of Article IV of the Maine Constitution require circulators to be registered to vote at the time of circulation in order for their collected signatures to be considered valid? | |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court (originated in the Cumberland County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: On September 22, 2020, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of Secretary of State Dunlap. | |
| Plaintiff(s): David Jones | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures collected by circulators who are not registered to vote while collecting signatures, but who register before submitting the signatures, are valid. | Defendant argument: Section 20 of Article IV of the Maine Constitution requires that circulators be registered to vote for their collected signatures to be considered valid. |
Source: Cumberland County Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether signatures were collected in accordance with state law and the state constitution; whether the measure should be blocked from appearing on the November ballot | |
| Court: North Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; blocked measure from appearing on ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brighter Future Alliance | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Al Jaeger (I) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures should be declared invalid and measure should be blocked from the ballot because the measure sponsors failed to meet requirements of the constitution and state law because it did not include the full text of the measure on petitions and that the ballot title does not accurately describe the measure | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Brighter Future Alliance petition for writ of injunction
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certifications that petition circulators passed background checks are in accordance with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) and, consequently, whether or not the signatures collected are valid | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of John Thurston; measures removed from ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansas Voters First, Open Primaries Arkansas | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The background check certifications comply with state law and signatures are valid | Defendant argument: The background check certifications do not comply with state law and signatures are therefore not valid |
Source: Arkansas Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the new law violate the Montana Constitution and infringe on the state legislature's power to allocate tax revenue? | |
| Court: Montana 1st Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit was withdrawn | |
| Plaintiff(s): Steve Zabawa, Wrong for Montana | Defendant(s): Attorney General Tim Fox (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The new law violates the Montana Constitution because it requires that a portion of marijuana tax revenue be allocated to specific purposes. | Defendant argument: The new law does not violate the state's Constitution because the legislature can still appropriate the revenue as they see fit. |
Source: KULR 8
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state should permit electronic signature gathering due to social gathering restrictions put in place during the coronavirus pandemic | |
| Court: Montana 1st Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, not permitting New Approach Montana to use electronic signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): New Approach Montana | Defendant(s): Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The state violated the right to amend the Montana Constitution and enact laws by prohibiting electronic signature gathering. | Defendant argument: The court cannot grant permission to use electronic signatures because it would be violating the separation of powers. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
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: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohioans for Secure and Fair Elections | Defendant(s): Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Ohio Ballot Board, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure does not violate the state's single-subject rule because each provision of the measure pertains to voting. | Defendant argument: The measure contains four separate matters and therefore should be voted on by the electorate as four separate measures. |
Source: Toledo Blade
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the constitutional amendment violates the constitutional requirement that ballot measures relate to a single subject matter and whether the state legislature followed the proper procedures to place the amendment on the ballot | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The state violated the requirement that constitutional amendments relate to a single subject matter and did not follow the correct procedures to place the amendment on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The amendment does not violate the single subject matter rule because all provisions of the amendment relate to crime victims' rights, and the state legislature followed the proper procedures to place the amendment on the ballot and did so with bipartisan support. |
Source: Messenger-Inquirer
| 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 amendment applies retroactively | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County circuit court; appealed to First District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; case dismissed; appeal failed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Volusia County, Florida | Defendant(s): Governor Rick Scott (R) and Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment is misleading because it failed to make clear whether or not it applies retroactively or only prospectively. The amendment should be interpreted to only apply going forward. Volusia County should not have to restructure its government and restore constitutional offices that it had abolished. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Orlando Sentinel
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County Circuit Court, rejected by circuit judge James Shelfer, appealed by plaintiffs and forwarded to Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and ordered the amendment to appear on the 2018 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): The counties of Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Broward | Defendant(s): State officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is misleading, the amendment combines more than a single subject, it would interfere with the counties' rights of self-government and control of local government structure | Defendant argument: The amendment should appear on the ballot |
Source: Miami Herald
| 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: Whether the ballot initiative violates the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Nebraska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff and removed from the November ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Lancaster County Sheriff Terry Wagner | Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative's provisions violate the single-subject rule and would mislead voters on its actual effect. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule because the right to medical marijuana necessitates the authorization of private entities to produce and sell it. |
Source: KETV-Omaha
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment comprises more than a single subject; whether the amendment is considered to be an amendment or a revision to the state constitution | |
| Court: Hughes County Circuit Court appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning Amendment A; the ruling was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court upon appeal. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller | Defendant(s): State of South Dakota; intervention by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure comprises more than one subject; the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature | Defendant argument: Amendment A contains one subject to which all provisions are essentially related, and the state constitution's definition of amendment and revision is permissive, not obligatory. |
Source: South Dakota Department of Public Safety
Subject restriction
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2020 regarding subject restrictions that took place in 2020.
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union | Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
| Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Davis White | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: California Third District Court of Appeal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: St. Louis Public Raido
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| 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
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the fixed minimum price for a pack of cigarettes created by Proposition EE is constitutional | |
| Court: United States District Court for the District of Colorado | |
| Plaintiff(s): Liggett Group LLC, Vector Tobacco Inc., and Xcaliber International Ltd., LLC | Defendant(s): Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Philip Weiser, and the Colorado State Legislature |
| Plaintiff argument: The fixed minimum price for a pack of cigarettes created by Proposition EE violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional |
Source: Colorado Sun
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition EE violated the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Denver District Court, appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants in lower court and upheld in the Colorado Court of Appeals | |
| Plaintiff(s): Liggett Group LLC, Vector Tobacco Inc., and Xcaliber International Ltd., LLC | Defendant(s): Colorado Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Philip Weiser, and the Colorado State Legislature |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition EE violated the state's single-subject rule | Defendant argument: Proposition EE did not violate the state's single-subject rule |
Source: Colorado Sun
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the "right to repair" law violate federal law making the law unenforceable? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts | |
| Ruling: Challenge to initiative dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alliance for Automotive Innovation | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The "right to repair" law violates federal law and raises safety and privacy concerns for vehicle owners. | Defendant argument: The "right to repair" law does not violate federal law. |
Source: Reuters
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Amendment 3 violates the state constitution by reducing minority voting power in certain districts | |
| Court: Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Glenton Gilzean Jr. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Laura M. Lee and the Florida Election Canvassing Commission |
Source: Florida Supreme Court: Clenton Gilzean Jr. vs Laurel M. Lee et al.
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the new law violate the Montana Constitution and infringe on the state legislature's power to allocate tax revenue? | |
| Court: Montana 1st Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit was withdrawn | |
| Plaintiff(s): Steve Zabawa, Wrong for Montana | Defendant(s): Attorney General Tim Fox (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The new law violates the Montana Constitution because it requires that a portion of marijuana tax revenue be allocated to specific purposes. | Defendant argument: The new law does not violate the state's Constitution because the legislature can still appropriate the revenue as they see fit. |
Source: KULR 8
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state should permit electronic signature gathering due to social gathering restrictions put in place during the coronavirus pandemic | |
| Court: Montana 1st Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, not permitting New Approach Montana to use electronic signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): New Approach Montana | Defendant(s): Montana Secretary of State Corey Stapleton (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The state violated the right to amend the Montana Constitution and enact laws by prohibiting electronic signature gathering. | Defendant argument: The court cannot grant permission to use electronic signatures because it would be violating the separation of powers. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| 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
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2020 regarding voter guides that took place in 2020.
Past measures
Note: This section shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2020 against past ballot measures.
Ballotpedia is not covering any state ballot measure lawsuits about measures from past years filed or concluded in 2020.
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 2020 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 2019
- 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
