List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
2020 U.S. state
ballot measures
2021 »
« 2019
Vote Poster.jpg
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.
Click here to learn more.

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

Ballot Measure Law

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


  • Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020) - Approved
  • 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. JacobusDefendant(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 ElectionsDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Arizona

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arizona and 2020 ballot measures


  • Arizona Education Finance Amendment, Proposition 123 (May 2016) - Approved
  •   
    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 PierceDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Arizona Proposition 207, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020) - Approved
  • 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 SchindelDefendant(s): Secretary of State Katie Hobbs

      Source: Maricopa County Superior Court

    Click here for details.



    Arkansas

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arkansas and 2020 ballot measures


  • Arkansas Issue 2, Change State Legislative Term Limits Amendment (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 CouchDefendant(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 KimbrellDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Arkansas Issue 5, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 ArkansasDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    California

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California and 2020 ballot measures


  • California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020) - Approved
  • 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 UnionDefendant(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 WhiteDefendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

      Source: California Third District Court of Appeal

    Click here for details.


  • California Proposition 12, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (2018) - Approved
  • 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 FederationDefendant(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 InstituteDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • California Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020) - Defeated
  • 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 CoupalDefendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

      Source: Sacramento County Superior Court

    Click here for details.


  • California Proposition 63, Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban (2016) - Approved
  •   
    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

    Click here for details.



    Colorado

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Colorado and 2020 ballot measures


  • Colorado Proposition EE, Tobacco and E-Cigarette Tax Increase for Health and Education Programs Measure (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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., LLCDefendant(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., LLCDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Florida

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Florida and 2020 ballot measures


  • Florida Amendment 10, State and Local Government Structure Amendment (2018) - Approved
  •   
    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, FloridaDefendant(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 BrowardDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Florida Marijuana Legalization and Medical Marijuana Treatment Center Sales Initiative (2022) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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

    Click here for details.


  • Florida Amendment 3, Top-Two Open Primaries for State Offices Initiative (2020) - Defeated
  • 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.

    Click here for details.



    Kentucky

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Kentucky and 2020 ballot measures


  • Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 LawyersDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Maine

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2020 ballot measures


  • Maine Ranked-Choice Voting for Presidential Elections Referendum (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 JonesDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Massachusetts

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Massachusetts and 2020 ballot measures


  • Massachusetts Question 1, "Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 InnovationDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Michigan

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan and 2020 ballot measures


  • Michigan Fracking Ban Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 KozmaDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Mississippi

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Mississippi and 2020 ballot measures


  • Mississippi Ballot Measure 1, Initiative 65 and Alternative 65A, Medical Marijuana Amendment (2020) - Overturned
  •   
    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 ButlerDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Missouri

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Missouri and 2020 ballot measures


  • Missouri Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative (2018) - Approved
  •   
    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 PennsylvaniaDefendant(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 BradshawDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Missouri Amendment 3, Redistricting Process and Criteria, Lobbying, and Campaign Finance Amendment (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 McBrideDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Montana

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Montana and 2020 ballot measures


  • Montana I-190, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 MontanaDefendant(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 MontanaDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Nebraska

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nebraska and 2020 ballot measures


  • Nebraska Medical Marijuana Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 WagnerDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Nevada

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2020 ballot measures


  • Nevada Gaming Tax Increase on Monthly Revenue above $250,000 Initiative (2022) - Not on the ballot
  • 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 AssociationDefendant(s): Clark County Education Association

      Source: The Nevada Independent

    Click here for details.



    North Carolina

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in North Carolina and 2020 ballot measures


  • North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) - Approved
  • 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 CarolinaDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • North Carolina Income Tax Cap Amendment (2018) - Approved
  •   
    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 CarolinaDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    North Dakota

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in North Dakota and 2020 ballot measures


  • North Dakota Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting, Redistricting, and Election Process Changes Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 AllianceDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Ohio

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2020 ballot measures


  • Ohio Voting Requirements Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 ElectionsDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    South Dakota

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in South Dakota and 2020 ballot measures


  • South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020) - Overturned
  •   
    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 MillerDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Washington

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Washington and 2020 ballot measures


  • Washington Initiative 976, Limits on Motor Vehicle Taxes and Fees Measure (2019) - Overturned
  •   
    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 RogersDefendant(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

    Click here for details.



    Wisconsin

    See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Wisconsin and 2020 ballot measures


  • Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (April 2020) - Approved
  •   
    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. RisserDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


    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:

    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


  • Nevada Gaming Tax Increase on Monthly Revenue above $250,000 Initiative (2022) - Not on the ballot
  • 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 AssociationDefendant(s): Clark County Education Association

      Source: The Nevada Independent

    Click here for details.


  • Ohio Voting Requirements Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 ElectionsDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020) - Approved
  • 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 UnionDefendant(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 WhiteDefendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

      Source: California Third District Court of Appeal

    Click here for details.


  • Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (April 2020) - Approved
  •   
    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. RisserDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Arkansas Issue 2, Change State Legislative Term Limits Amendment (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 CouchDefendant(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 KimbrellDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • California Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020) - Defeated
  • 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 CoupalDefendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

      Source: Sacramento County Superior Court

    Click here for details.


  • Florida Marijuana Legalization and Medical Marijuana Treatment Center Sales Initiative (2022) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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

    Click here for details.


  • North Dakota Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting, Redistricting, and Election Process Changes Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 AllianceDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Missouri Amendment 3, Redistricting Process and Criteria, Lobbying, and Campaign Finance Amendment (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 McBrideDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Arizona Proposition 207, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020) - Approved
  • 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 SchindelDefendant(s): Secretary of State Katie Hobbs

      Source: Maricopa County Superior Court

    Click here for details.


    Campaign finance

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2020 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2020.

    Circulators


  • Missouri Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative (2018) - Approved
  •   
    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 PennsylvaniaDefendant(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 BradshawDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Maine Ranked-Choice Voting for Presidential Elections Referendum (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 JonesDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


    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


  • Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 LawyersDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Template:Arkansas 2020 signature validity issues - 
  •   
    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 ArkansasDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Mississippi Ballot Measure 1, Initiative 65 and Alternative 65A, Medical Marijuana Amendment (2020) - Overturned
  •   
    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 ButlerDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Missouri Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative (2018) - Approved
  •   
    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 PennsylvaniaDefendant(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 BradshawDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Nebraska Medical Marijuana Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 WagnerDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • North Dakota Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting, Redistricting, and Election Process Changes Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 AllianceDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Arkansas Issue 5, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 ArkansasDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


    Post-election


  • California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020) - Approved
  • 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 UnionDefendant(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 WhiteDefendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

      Source: California Third District Court of Appeal

    Click here for details.


  • Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (April 2020) - Approved
  •   
    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. RisserDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Washington Initiative 976, Limits on Motor Vehicle Taxes and Fees Measure (2019) - Overturned
  •   
    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 RogersDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Mississippi Ballot Measure 1, Initiative 65 and Alternative 65A, Medical Marijuana Amendment (2020) - Overturned
  •   
    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 ButlerDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Florida Amendment 10, State and Local Government Structure Amendment (2018) - Approved
  •   
    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, FloridaDefendant(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 BrowardDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Arizona Education Finance Amendment, Proposition 123 (May 2016) - Approved
  •   
    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 PierceDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Arkansas Issue 2, Change State Legislative Term Limits Amendment (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 CouchDefendant(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 KimbrellDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • California Proposition 12, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (2018) - Approved
  • 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 FederationDefendant(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 InstituteDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Massachusetts Question 1, "Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 InnovationDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) - Approved
  • 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 CarolinaDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020) - Overturned
  •   
    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 MillerDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Montana I-190, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 MontanaDefendant(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 MontanaDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • California Proposition 63, Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban (2016) - Approved
  •   
    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

    Click here for details.


  • North Carolina Income Tax Cap Amendment (2018) - Approved
  •   
    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 CarolinaDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


    Preemption

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2020 regarding preemption that took place in 2020.

    Signature validity


  • Template:Arkansas 2020 signature validity issues - 
  •   
    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 ArkansasDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Missouri Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative (2018) - Approved
  •   
    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 PennsylvaniaDefendant(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 BradshawDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Maine Ranked-Choice Voting for Presidential Elections Referendum (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 JonesDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • North Dakota Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting, Redistricting, and Election Process Changes Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 AllianceDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Arkansas Issue 5, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 ArkansasDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Montana I-190, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 MontanaDefendant(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 MontanaDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


    Signature deadlines


  • Michigan Fracking Ban Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 KozmaDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


    Single subject


  • Ohio Voting Requirements Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 ElectionsDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 LawyersDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Washington Initiative 976, Limits on Motor Vehicle Taxes and Fees Measure (2019) - Overturned
  •   
    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 RogersDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Florida Amendment 10, State and Local Government Structure Amendment (2018) - Approved
  •   
    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, FloridaDefendant(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 BrowardDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020) - Approved
  • 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. JacobusDefendant(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 ElectionsDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Nebraska Medical Marijuana Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
  •   
    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 WagnerDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020) - Overturned
  •   
    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 MillerDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


    Subject restriction

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2020 regarding subject restrictions that took place in 2020.

    Substantive constitutionality


  • California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020) - Approved
  • 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 UnionDefendant(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 WhiteDefendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

      Source: California Third District Court of Appeal

    Click here for details.


  • Missouri Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative (2018) - Approved
  •   
    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 PennsylvaniaDefendant(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 BradshawDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020) - Approved
  • 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. JacobusDefendant(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 ElectionsDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • California Proposition 12, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (2018) - Approved
  • 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 FederationDefendant(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 InstituteDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Colorado Proposition EE, Tobacco and E-Cigarette Tax Increase for Health and Education Programs Measure (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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., LLCDefendant(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., LLCDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Massachusetts Question 1, "Right to Repair Law" Vehicle Data Access Requirement Initiative (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 InnovationDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Florida Amendment 3, Top-Two Open Primaries for State Offices Initiative (2020) - Defeated
  • 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.

    Click here for details.


  • Montana I-190, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020) - Approved
  •   
    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 MontanaDefendant(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 MontanaDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • California Proposition 63, Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban (2016) - Approved
  •   
    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

    Click here for details.


    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

    See also: List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2020

    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