Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.
List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2024
From Ballotpedia
2025 →
← 2023
| 2024 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2025 »
« 2023
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Scorecard | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| Deadlines | |
| Requirements | |
| Lawsuits | |
| Readability | |
| Voter guides | |
| Election results | |
| Campaigns | |
| Polls | |
| Media editorials | |
| Filed initiatives | |
| Finances | |
| Contributions | |
| Signature costs | |
| Ballot Measure Monthly | |
| Signature requirements | |
Have you subscribed yet?
Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
| |
This page provides summaries of legal cases related to state ballot measures in 2024. Lawsuits can be initiated before an election to prevent a measure from appearing on the ballot. Lawsuits can also be initiated after an election to void a ballot measure or otherwise declare the measure unconstitutional.
The pre-election lawsuits are often legal complaints regarding petition language and requirements, ballot initiative signature gatherers, and whether signatures are valid or invalid. Courts can issue rulings that enjoin a measure from taking effect or order officials to remove the measure from the ballot. Lawsuits, in particular those filed post-election, can take several years to resolve.
States
This section provides a list of lawsuits about state ballot measures that were filed or resolved in 2024.
Alaska
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alaska and 2024 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature verification; whether the state Elections Division has authority to allow sponsors to fix errors on filed petitions | |
| Court: Alaska Third District Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The signature process was properly carried out and therefore the initiative was properly placed on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Elizabeth Medicine Crow, a former president of the First Alaskans Institute; Amber Lee, a political consultant in Anchorage; and Kevin McGee, a past president of the Anchorage branch of the NAACP | Defendant(s): Alaska Division of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures were collected in an illegal manner and the state Elections Division should not have allowed the sponsors to notarize signature booklets after they were submitted. | Defendant argument: Signatures were legally obtained and submitted. |
Source: AP News
Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot measure violate the single subject requirement? | |
| Court: Arizona Superior Court of Maricopa County | |
| Ruling: The measure complies with the single subject requirement | |
| Plaintiff(s): Living United for Change in Arizona | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Adrian Fontes |
Source: Courthouse News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the phrase "fetus" replace the phrase "unborn human" in the ballot pamphlet? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona for Abortion Access | Defendant(s): Ben Toma, et al. |
Source: Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0167-AP/EL
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot language of the initiative confusing or misleading to voters? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot description was accurate and complied with state law. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Right to Life | Defendant(s): Arizona for Abortion Access |
Source: Arizona Mirror
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Were a number of signatures verified that should have been rejected? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Appealed from Maricopa County Superior Court) | |
| Plaintiff(s): April Smith, Nira Lee, and Joshua Davidian | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Make Elections Fair PAC |
Source: Maricopa Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 140 violate the Arizona Constitution's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Appealed from Maricopa County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 140 does not violate the separate-vote requirement because "provisions of the Act are topically related, sufficiently interrelated, involve matters that have historically been treated as one subject and are qualitatively similar in their effect on the law." | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Susan Garvey, Kathleen Liles, and John Shadegg | Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and Make Elections Fair PAC |
Source: Maricopa Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether signatures collected by the campaign are valid | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against the initiative through a consent decree agreed to by the Arizona Restaurant Association and One Fair Wage | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Restaurant Association | Defendant(s): Raise the Wage AZ |
Source: AZ Mirror
Arkansas
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the campaign provide statements identifying paid canvassers by name and confirming that canvassers were informed about the rules for gathering signatures; whether signatures collected by those canvassers are valid | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; signatures invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for Limited Government | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The campaign provided necessary documentation and signatures should be counted | Defendant argument: The campaign failed to provide statements identifying paid canvassers by name and confirming that canvassers were informed about the rules for gathering signatures, therefore those signatures are not valid |
Source: AP News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Local Voters in Charge violated state law when collecting signatures and the signatures should be invalidated; whether the ballot language is sufficient | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
Source: Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Central Division | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses | Defendant(s): State of Arkansas |
Source: Arkansas Advocate
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative is sufficient to have votes cast; whether the ballot language is inaccurate or misleading | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for Patient Access | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston (R) |
Source: Arkansas Supreme Court
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton | Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment. |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton | Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment. |
Source: Cal Cities
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot label accurately describes what the amendment would do | |
| Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County, California | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, without any changes to the ballot language. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association | Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot label does not state that the amendment would lower the existing vote threshold from 66.67% to 55%. | Defendant argument: The vote threshold information is described in the ballot title and summary. |
Source: Courthouse News Service
Florida
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure is valid or not; whether signatures submitted were valid | |
| Court: Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial District, Orange County | |
| Plaintiff(s): St. Lucie County residents Hope Hoffman and Terri Kellogg, and Taylor County residents Chelsey Davis and Lorien Hershberger | Defendant(s): County Supervisors of Elections, Secretary of State Cord Byrd, the Florida Department of State, the Elections Canvassing Commission, and Floridians Protecting Freedom |
Source: Document Cloud
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the financial impact statement is accurate | |
| Court: 1st District Court of Appeal, Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants | |
| Plaintiff(s): Floridians Protecting Freedom | Defendant(s): State elections officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The financial impact statement is inaccurate and was written in a biased way that is confusing to voters | Defendant argument: The financial impact statement is accurate |
Source: WMNF
Idaho
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Idaho and 2024 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative addresses multiple subjects and whether sponsors collected signatures without explaining the effect of the measure | |
| Court: Idaho Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) | Defendant(s): Idahoans for Open Primaries; Secretary of State Phil McGrane (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative addresses multiple subjects violating the state's single-subject rule, and the sponsors of the initiative did not explain the effect of the measure to signers while collecting signatures. | Defendant argument: The initiative addresses one subject, and sponsors explained the effect of the measure to voters signing the measure. |
Source: Idaho Statesman
Michigan
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the Supreme Court approve the signatures after the Board of State Canvassers previously approved the form of the petition used to collect them? | |
| Court: Michigan Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The appeal was denied. The petition language used to gain approval for the summary was not the same petition language submission to the Board of State Canvassers, so the Board was able to not approve the signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Fair Wage | Defendant(s): Michigan Board of State Canvassers |
Source: Michigan Courts
Missouri
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State. | Defendant argument: The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved. |
Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate? | |
| Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District | |
| Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) | Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor |
Source: Missouri Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: The Kansas City Star
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the fair ballot language of the measure argumentative and confusing for voters? | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: The fair ballot language was misleading to voters. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: Missouri Independent
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the amendment be removed from the ballot because it does not inform voters of laws and regulations that will be overturned? | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: Amendment 3 was certified on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Rep. Hannah Kelly, Peggy Forrest, et. al. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: U.S. News & World Report
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot question is accurate | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ballot language is accurate and fair. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Elizabeth de Laperouse and Eric Bronner | Defendant(s): Rep. Dean Plocher (R), Sen. Caleb Rowden (R), Sen. Ben Brown (R), and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
Source: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court
Montana
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the Secretary of State's office improperly altered the signature verification process and improperly rejected signatures from inactive (but registered) voters | |
| Court: Lewis and Clark County District Court | |
| Ruling: 2024 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The campaigns argued that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions. | Defendant argument: The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted. |
Source: NBC Montana
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the Secretary of State's office improperly altered the signature verification process and improperly rejected signatures from inactive (but registered) voters | |
| Court: Lewis and Clark County District Court | |
| Ruling: 2024 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The campaigns argued that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions. | Defendant argument: The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted. |
Source: NBC Montana
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the Secretary of State's office improperly altered the signature verification process and improperly rejected signatures from inactive (but registered) voters | |
| Court: Lewis and Clark County District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The campaigns argued that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions. | Defendant argument: The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted. |
Source: NBC Montana
Nebraska
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment violates the state's single subject rule | |
| Court: Nebraska Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Carolyn I. LaGreca | Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) |
Source: Nebraska Examiner
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the referendum is constitutional because it relates to a state appropriation | |
| Court: Nebraska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The referendum does not illegally target the state's power to appropriate funds and, therefore, can appear on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Latasha Collar | Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The partial referendum is unconstitutional because the state constitution prohibits veto referendums from targeting state appropriations. | Defendant argument: Unknown. |
Source: WFLA
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot | |
| Court: Nebraska Third District Court | |
| Ruling: | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R) | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) and campaign sponsors, Crista Eggers, State Sen. Anna Wishart (D), and former State Sen. Adam Morfeld (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The petition contains thousands of fraudulent signatures and therefore should be removed from the ballot. | Defendant argument: The petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the laws violate the state and federal constitutions | |
| Court: Nebraska Third District Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R) | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) |
| Plaintiff arguments: The laws delegate too much power to the regulatory commissions governing medical marijuana and they violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant arguments: Unknown |
Sources: The Pinnacle Gazette and 1011 Now
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot | |
| Court: Nebraska Third District Court | |
| Ruling: The petitions contained the required number of valid signatures. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R) | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) and campaign sponsors, Crista Eggers, State Sen. Anna Wishart (D), and former State Sen. Adam Morfeld (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The petition contains thousands of fraudulent signatures and therefore should be removed from the ballot. | Defendant argument: The petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot. |
Source: 1011 Now
Nevada
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2024 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was the "description of effect" insufficient or misleading? | |
| Court: Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Description of effect was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and Nevada Justice Association | Defendant(s): Uber Technologies Inc, et. al. |
Source: Nevada Supreme Court Ruling
New York
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did failing to give the attorney general 20 days to review the amendment before the state legislature voted on it disqualify the amendment from the ballot? | |
| Court: New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department court | |
| Ruling: Plaintiffs should have filed their challenge through an Article 78 proceeding, and not a challenge of constitutionality of defendants' actions | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes (R) | Defendant(s): New York State Senate |
Source: NYCourts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was the ballot language written in plain language no higher than an eighth-grade reading level, and was the language too technical and confusing for voters? | |
| Court: New York Supreme Court, County of Albany | |
| Ruling: Ballot language was rewritten to ensure it complies with state law | |
| Plaintiff(s): Victoria Fernandez, Katherine Hauser | Defendant(s): New York State Board of Elections, et al. |
Source: NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
Ohio
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2024 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the board-approved ballot language for Issue 1 violate the state constitution's requirement that the language "properly and lawfully describes the Amendment" and not "mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters?" | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The Ohio Supreme Court ordered two changes to the ballot language. However, most of the challenges were rejected. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Citizens Not Politicians, Cara Dillon, and Annette Tucker Sutherland | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board and Secretary of State Frank LaRose |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
South Dakota
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Dakotans For Health petitioners provide affidavit showing residency status, and were petition sheets left unattended? | |
| Court: South Dakota Second Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Life Defense Fund | Defendant(s): Dakotans for Health |
Source: Complaint
Utah
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Utah and 2024 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Utah's initiative signature deadlines are constitutional | |
| Court: United States District Court, District of Utah | |
| Plaintiff(s): Are You Listening Yet PAC, Tracie Halvorsen | Defendant(s): Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson |
Source: Court Listener
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language for Amendment A is misleading; whether the measure is valid since it was not published in a newspaper 60 days prior to the election as required by the state constitution | |
| Court: Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Utah Education Association | Defendant(s): Gov. Spencer Cox |
Source: KSLTV
Washington
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether a fiscal impact statement for the initiatives must be included in the voter pamphlet | |
| Court: Thurston County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Initiative sponsor Rep. Jim Walsh (R) and Deanna Martinez, chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington | Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal impact statements prepared for the three initiatives on the 2024 ballot are partisan and should not be included in the voter pamphlet | Defendant argument: Voters should be given a fiscal impact statement from the Office of Financial Management according to state law, which requires it |
Source: The Center Square
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether a fiscal impact statement for the initiatives must be included in the voter pamphlet | |
| Court: Thurston County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Initiative sponsor Rep. Jim Walsh (R) and Deanna Martinez, chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington | Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal impact statements prepared for the three initiatives on the 2024 ballot are partisan and should not be included in the voter pamphlet | Defendant argument: Voters should be given a fiscal impact statement from the Office of Financial Management according to state law, which requires it |
Source: The Center Square
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether a fiscal impact statement for the initiatives must be included in the voter pamphlet | |
| Court: Thurston County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Initiative sponsor Rep. Jim Walsh (R) and Deanna Martinez, chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington | Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal impact statements prepared for the three initiatives on the 2024 ballot are partisan and should not be included in the voter pamphlet | Defendant argument: Voters should be given a fiscal impact statement from the Office of Financial Management according to state law, which requires it |
Source: The Center Square
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violated the state's single subject rule | |
| Court: King County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Climate Solutions, Washington Conservation Action, Front and Centered, King County and the city of Seattle | Defendant(s): State of Washington |
Source: Washington State Standard
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the State Building Code Council | |
| Court: Thurston County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Building Industry Association of Washington | Defendant(s): Washington State Building Code Council |
Source: Washington State Standard
Subjects
This section provides a list of lawsuits about state ballot measures, based on legal subjects, that were filed or resolved in 2024. The following are common subjects addressed in ballot measure lawsuits:
- Alterations: Legislatures can amend ballot initiatives after an election; however, some states have rules limiting or otherwise regulating changes. When changes are made, lawsuits can be filed alleging that those changes violated state law.
- Campaigns: The committees that support or oppose ballot measures have specific state legal requirements. Lawsuits can be filed against PACs regarding alleged violations.
- Circulators: States have rules that govern signature gatherers. Lawsuits can be filed for alleged violations in the signature-gathering process.
- Constitutionality - Lawsuits are sometimes filed claiming that the content of a ballot measure violates a constitutional right, such as free speech or equal protection, or another federal or state constitutional provision.
- Deadlines - There are specific deadlines for ballot initiative petitions. Lawsuits can be filed for alleged violations of these deadlines or against the deadlines themselves as violating the law.
- Guides - Lawsuits can challenge the language used in state-produced voter guides regarding form, accuracy, and neutrality.
- Language: The ballot title or petition language can be challenged regarding form, accuracy, and neutrality. States often have specific standards for ballot language.
- Preemption - Lawsuits can allege that a ballot measure is preempted, such as a federal law that preempts state or local law.
- Signatures - Lawsuits can challenge whether signatures are valid or invalid.
- Subjects - States can have subject restrictions for ballot initiatives and single-subject rules. Measures can be challenged for alleged violations of these laws.
The following list also divides lawsuits into two additional categories, whether the lawsuits were filed to remove a measure from the ballot post-certification and whether the lawsuits were filed post-election.
Alterations
There were no lawsuits regarding legislative alterations of voter-approved ballot initiatives in 2024.
Campaigns
There were no lawsuits regarding ballot measure campaign finance in 2024.
Circulators
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Dakotans For Health petitioners provide affidavit showing residency status, and were petition sheets left unattended? | |
| Court: South Dakota Second Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Life Defense Fund | Defendant(s): Dakotans for Health |
Source: Complaint
Constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton | Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment. |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton | Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment. |
Source: Cal Cities
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Were a number of signatures verified that should have been rejected? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Appealed from Maricopa County Superior Court) | |
| Plaintiff(s): April Smith, Nira Lee, and Joshua Davidian | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Make Elections Fair PAC |
Source: Maricopa Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 140 violate the Arizona Constitution's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Appealed from Maricopa County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 140 does not violate the separate-vote requirement because "provisions of the Act are topically related, sufficiently interrelated, involve matters that have historically been treated as one subject and are qualitatively similar in their effect on the law." | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Susan Garvey, Kathleen Liles, and John Shadegg | Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and Make Elections Fair PAC |
Source: Maricopa Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Local Voters in Charge violated state law when collecting signatures and the signatures should be invalidated; whether the ballot language is sufficient | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
Source: Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Central Division | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses | Defendant(s): State of Arkansas |
Source: Arkansas Advocate
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot | |
| Court: Nebraska Third District Court | |
| Ruling: | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R) | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) and campaign sponsors, Crista Eggers, State Sen. Anna Wishart (D), and former State Sen. Adam Morfeld (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The petition contains thousands of fraudulent signatures and therefore should be removed from the ballot. | Defendant argument: The petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the laws violate the state and federal constitutions | |
| Court: Nebraska Third District Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R) | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) |
| Plaintiff arguments: The laws delegate too much power to the regulatory commissions governing medical marijuana and they violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant arguments: Unknown |
Sources: The Pinnacle Gazette and 1011 Now
Deadlines
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Utah's initiative signature deadlines are constitutional | |
| Court: United States District Court, District of Utah | |
| Plaintiff(s): Are You Listening Yet PAC, Tracie Halvorsen | Defendant(s): Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson |
Source: Court Listener
Guides
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether a fiscal impact statement for the initiatives must be included in the voter pamphlet | |
| Court: Thurston County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Initiative sponsor Rep. Jim Walsh (R) and Deanna Martinez, chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington | Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal impact statements prepared for the three initiatives on the 2024 ballot are partisan and should not be included in the voter pamphlet | Defendant argument: Voters should be given a fiscal impact statement from the Office of Financial Management according to state law, which requires it |
Source: The Center Square
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether a fiscal impact statement for the initiatives must be included in the voter pamphlet | |
| Court: Thurston County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Initiative sponsor Rep. Jim Walsh (R) and Deanna Martinez, chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington | Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal impact statements prepared for the three initiatives on the 2024 ballot are partisan and should not be included in the voter pamphlet | Defendant argument: Voters should be given a fiscal impact statement from the Office of Financial Management according to state law, which requires it |
Source: The Center Square
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether a fiscal impact statement for the initiatives must be included in the voter pamphlet | |
| Court: Thurston County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Initiative sponsor Rep. Jim Walsh (R) and Deanna Martinez, chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington | Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal impact statements prepared for the three initiatives on the 2024 ballot are partisan and should not be included in the voter pamphlet | Defendant argument: Voters should be given a fiscal impact statement from the Office of Financial Management according to state law, which requires it |
Source: The Center Square
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether a fiscal impact statement for the initiatives must be included in the voter pamphlet | |
| Court: Thurston County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Initiative sponsor Rep. Jim Walsh (R) and Deanna Martinez, chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington | Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal impact statements prepared for the three initiatives on the 2024 ballot are partisan and should not be included in the voter pamphlet | Defendant argument: Voters should be given a fiscal impact statement from the Office of Financial Management according to state law, which requires it |
Source: The Center Square
Language
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure is valid or not; whether signatures submitted were valid | |
| Court: Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial District, Orange County | |
| Plaintiff(s): St. Lucie County residents Hope Hoffman and Terri Kellogg, and Taylor County residents Chelsey Davis and Lorien Hershberger | Defendant(s): County Supervisors of Elections, Secretary of State Cord Byrd, the Florida Department of State, the Elections Canvassing Commission, and Floridians Protecting Freedom |
Source: Document Cloud
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the financial impact statement is accurate | |
| Court: 1st District Court of Appeal, Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants | |
| Plaintiff(s): Floridians Protecting Freedom | Defendant(s): State elections officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The financial impact statement is inaccurate and was written in a biased way that is confusing to voters | Defendant argument: The financial impact statement is accurate |
Source: WMNF
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the phrase "fetus" replace the phrase "unborn human" in the ballot pamphlet? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona for Abortion Access | Defendant(s): Ben Toma, et al. |
Source: Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0167-AP/EL
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot language of the initiative confusing or misleading to voters? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot description was accurate and complied with state law. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Right to Life | Defendant(s): Arizona for Abortion Access |
Source: Arizona Mirror
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Local Voters in Charge violated state law when collecting signatures and the signatures should be invalidated; whether the ballot language is sufficient | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
Source: Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Central Division | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses | Defendant(s): State of Arkansas |
Source: Arkansas Advocate
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot label accurately describes what the amendment would do | |
| Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County, California | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, without any changes to the ballot language. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association | Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot label does not state that the amendment would lower the existing vote threshold from 66.67% to 55%. | Defendant argument: The vote threshold information is described in the ballot title and summary. |
Source: Courthouse News Service
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot question is accurate | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ballot language is accurate and fair. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Elizabeth de Laperouse and Eric Bronner | Defendant(s): Rep. Dean Plocher (R), Sen. Caleb Rowden (R), Sen. Ben Brown (R), and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
Source: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the board-approved ballot language for Issue 1 violate the state constitution's requirement that the language "properly and lawfully describes the Amendment" and not "mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters?" | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The Ohio Supreme Court ordered two changes to the ballot language. However, most of the challenges were rejected. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Citizens Not Politicians, Cara Dillon, and Annette Tucker Sutherland | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board and Secretary of State Frank LaRose |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State. | Defendant argument: The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved. |
Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate? | |
| Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District | |
| Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) | Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor |
Source: Missouri Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: The Kansas City Star
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the fair ballot language of the measure argumentative and confusing for voters? | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: The fair ballot language was misleading to voters. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: Missouri Independent
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the amendment be removed from the ballot because it does not inform voters of laws and regulations that will be overturned? | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: Amendment 3 was certified on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Rep. Hannah Kelly, Peggy Forrest, et. al. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: U.S. News & World Report
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did failing to give the attorney general 20 days to review the amendment before the state legislature voted on it disqualify the amendment from the ballot? | |
| Court: New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department court | |
| Ruling: Plaintiffs should have filed their challenge through an Article 78 proceeding, and not a challenge of constitutionality of defendants' actions | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes (R) | Defendant(s): New York State Senate |
Source: NYCourts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was the ballot language written in plain language no higher than an eighth-grade reading level, and was the language too technical and confusing for voters? | |
| Court: New York Supreme Court, County of Albany | |
| Ruling: Ballot language was rewritten to ensure it complies with state law | |
| Plaintiff(s): Victoria Fernandez, Katherine Hauser | Defendant(s): New York State Board of Elections, et al. |
Source: NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language for Amendment A is misleading; whether the measure is valid since it was not published in a newspaper 60 days prior to the election as required by the state constitution | |
| Court: Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Utah Education Association | Defendant(s): Gov. Spencer Cox |
Source: KSLTV
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative is sufficient to have votes cast; whether the ballot language is inaccurate or misleading | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for Patient Access | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston (R) |
Source: Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was the "description of effect" insufficient or misleading? | |
| Court: Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Description of effect was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and Nevada Justice Association | Defendant(s): Uber Technologies Inc, et. al. |
Source: Nevada Supreme Court Ruling
Preemption
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State. | Defendant argument: The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved. |
Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate? | |
| Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District | |
| Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) | Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor |
Source: Missouri Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: The Kansas City Star
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the fair ballot language of the measure argumentative and confusing for voters? | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: The fair ballot language was misleading to voters. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: Missouri Independent
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the amendment be removed from the ballot because it does not inform voters of laws and regulations that will be overturned? | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: Amendment 3 was certified on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Rep. Hannah Kelly, Peggy Forrest, et. al. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: U.S. News & World Report
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the Supreme Court approve the signatures after the Board of State Canvassers previously approved the form of the petition used to collect them? | |
| Court: Michigan Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The appeal was denied. The petition language used to gain approval for the summary was not the same petition language submission to the Board of State Canvassers, so the Board was able to not approve the signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Fair Wage | Defendant(s): Michigan Board of State Canvassers |
Source: Michigan Courts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did failing to give the attorney general 20 days to review the amendment before the state legislature voted on it disqualify the amendment from the ballot? | |
| Court: New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department court | |
| Ruling: Plaintiffs should have filed their challenge through an Article 78 proceeding, and not a challenge of constitutionality of defendants' actions | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes (R) | Defendant(s): New York State Senate |
Source: NYCourts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was the ballot language written in plain language no higher than an eighth-grade reading level, and was the language too technical and confusing for voters? | |
| Court: New York Supreme Court, County of Albany | |
| Ruling: Ballot language was rewritten to ensure it complies with state law | |
| Plaintiff(s): Victoria Fernandez, Katherine Hauser | Defendant(s): New York State Board of Elections, et al. |
Source: NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was the "description of effect" insufficient or misleading? | |
| Court: Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Description of effect was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and Nevada Justice Association | Defendant(s): Uber Technologies Inc, et. al. |
Source: Nevada Supreme Court Ruling
Signatures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State. | Defendant argument: The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved. |
Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate? | |
| Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District | |
| Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) | Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor |
Source: Missouri Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: The Kansas City Star
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the fair ballot language of the measure argumentative and confusing for voters? | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: The fair ballot language was misleading to voters. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: Missouri Independent
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the amendment be removed from the ballot because it does not inform voters of laws and regulations that will be overturned? | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: Amendment 3 was certified on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Rep. Hannah Kelly, Peggy Forrest, et. al. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: U.S. News & World Report
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the Supreme Court approve the signatures after the Board of State Canvassers previously approved the form of the petition used to collect them? | |
| Court: Michigan Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The appeal was denied. The petition language used to gain approval for the summary was not the same petition language submission to the Board of State Canvassers, so the Board was able to not approve the signatures | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Fair Wage | Defendant(s): Michigan Board of State Canvassers |
Source: Michigan Courts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did failing to give the attorney general 20 days to review the amendment before the state legislature voted on it disqualify the amendment from the ballot? | |
| Court: New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department court | |
| Ruling: Plaintiffs should have filed their challenge through an Article 78 proceeding, and not a challenge of constitutionality of defendants' actions | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes (R) | Defendant(s): New York State Senate |
Source: NYCourts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was the ballot language written in plain language no higher than an eighth-grade reading level, and was the language too technical and confusing for voters? | |
| Court: New York Supreme Court, County of Albany | |
| Ruling: Ballot language was rewritten to ensure it complies with state law | |
| Plaintiff(s): Victoria Fernandez, Katherine Hauser | Defendant(s): New York State Board of Elections, et al. |
Source: NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was the "description of effect" insufficient or misleading? | |
| Court: Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Description of effect was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and Nevada Justice Association | Defendant(s): Uber Technologies Inc, et. al. |
Source: Nevada Supreme Court Ruling
Subjects
There were no lawsuits regarding ballot measure subjects in 2024.
Lawsuits filed post-certification
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton | Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment. |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton | Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment. |
Source: Cal Cities
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Dakotans For Health petitioners provide affidavit showing residency status, and were petition sheets left unattended? | |
| Court: South Dakota Second Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Life Defense Fund | Defendant(s): Dakotans for Health |
Source: Complaint
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature verification; whether the state Elections Division has authority to allow sponsors to fix errors on filed petitions | |
| Court: Alaska Third District Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The signature process was properly carried out and therefore the initiative was properly placed on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Elizabeth Medicine Crow, a former president of the First Alaskans Institute; Amber Lee, a political consultant in Anchorage; and Kevin McGee, a past president of the Anchorage branch of the NAACP | Defendant(s): Alaska Division of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures were collected in an illegal manner and the state Elections Division should not have allowed the sponsors to notarize signature booklets after they were submitted. | Defendant argument: Signatures were legally obtained and submitted. |
Source: AP News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative addresses multiple subjects and whether sponsors collected signatures without explaining the effect of the measure | |
| Court: Idaho Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The Supreme Court dismissed the case on procedural grounds. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) | Defendant(s): Idahoans for Open Primaries; Secretary of State Phil McGrane (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative addresses multiple subjects violating the state's single-subject rule, and the sponsors of the initiative did not explain the effect of the measure to signers while collecting signatures. | Defendant argument: The initiative addresses one subject, and sponsors explained the effect of the measure to voters signing the measure. |
Source: Idaho Statesman
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State. | Defendant argument: The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved. |
Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate? | |
| Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District | |
| Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) | Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor |
Source: Missouri Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: The Kansas City Star
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the fair ballot language of the measure argumentative and confusing for voters? | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: The fair ballot language was misleading to voters. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: Missouri Independent
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the amendment be removed from the ballot because it does not inform voters of laws and regulations that will be overturned? | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: Amendment 3 was certified on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Rep. Hannah Kelly, Peggy Forrest, et. al. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: U.S. News & World Report
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the referendum is constitutional because it relates to a state appropriation | |
| Court: Nebraska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The referendum does not illegally target the state's power to appropriate funds and, therefore, can appear on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Latasha Collar | Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The partial referendum is unconstitutional because the state constitution prohibits veto referendums from targeting state appropriations. | Defendant argument: Unknown. |
Source: WFLA
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot | |
| Court: Nebraska Third District Court | |
| Ruling: The petitions contained the required number of valid signatures. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R) | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) and campaign sponsors, Crista Eggers, State Sen. Anna Wishart (D), and former State Sen. Adam Morfeld (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The petition contains thousands of fraudulent signatures and therefore should be removed from the ballot. | Defendant argument: The petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot. |
Source: 1011 Now
Lawsuits filed post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Local Voters in Charge violated state law when collecting signatures and the signatures should be invalidated; whether the ballot language is sufficient | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
Source: Arkansas Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Central Division | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses | Defendant(s): State of Arkansas |
Source: Arkansas Advocate
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violated the state's single subject rule | |
| Court: King County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Climate Solutions, Washington Conservation Action, Front and Centered, King County and the city of Seattle | Defendant(s): State of Washington |
Source: Washington State Standard
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the State Building Code Council | |
| Court: Thurston County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Building Industry Association of Washington | Defendant(s): Washington State Building Code Council |
Source: Washington State Standard
Local
In 2024, Ballotpedia covered local ballot measures that appeared on the ballot for voters within the 100 largest cities in the U.S., within state capitals, and throughout California. You can review the coverage scope of the local ballot measures project here.
Ballotpedia covered electoral system-related ballot measures, like ranked-choice voting, and policing-related ballot measures outside of the largest cities.
- See also: Local ballot measure elections in 2024
See also
- 2024 ballot measures
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
