Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
List of certified state ballot measures removed from the ballot by courts
Between 2014 and 2024, state courts removed or disqualified 17 state ballot measures after officials certified them to appear on the ballot.
- An average of 2.7 measures were disqualified due to court rulings in each even-numbered election year during this period.
- Eight of the 17 (47%) were disqualified in Arkansas. Two were removed in Arizona, California, and Utah, while one was removed in Florida, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania.
- Eleven of the 17 (65%) were citizen-initiated ballot measures, five were legislative referrals, and one was a commission referral.
- Six (35%) were removed due to issues with signatures. Five (30%) were removed based on state constitutional issues, such as violating single-subject or separate-vote requirements. Four (35%) were removed on account of ballot language or publication issues.
- Two of the ballot measures had votes tabulated and released to the public after being ruled invalid. Votes were not certified, however. Both were pending appeals to their respective state supreme courts. These measures were in Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
List of ballot measures
2013-2024
The following table lists ballot measures from 2013 to 2024 that courts ruled invalid or void after state officials certified them to appear on the ballot.
| State | Year | Measure | Type | Court | Date | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 2024 | Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for New or Increased Taxes Initiative | Initiated (Constitutional) | California Supreme Court | June 20, 2024 | Constitutionality |
| Utah | 2024 | Constitutional Requirements for Education Funding Amendment | Referral (Constitutional) | Utah Third Judicial District Court | October 9, 2024 | Language |
| Utah | 2024 | Provide for Legislative Alteration of Ballot Initiatives and Ban Foreign Contributions Measure | Referral (Constitutional) | Utah Supreme Court | September 26, 2024 | Language |
| Arizona | 2022 | Election and Voting Policies Initiative | Initiated (Statute) | Arizona Supreme Court | August 26, 2022 | Signatures |
| Arizona | 2022 | Reduce Number of Income Tax Brackets to Flat Rate of 2.50% Referendum | Initiated (Referendum) | Arizona Supreme Court | April 21, 2022 | Constitutionality |
| Arkansas | 2020 | Practice of Optometry Referendum | Initiated (Referendum) | Arkansas Supreme Court | September 17, 2020 | Signatures |
| Arkansas | 2020 | Redistricting Commission Amendment | Initiated (Constitutional) | Arkansas Supreme Court | August 27, 2020 | Signatures |
| Arkansas | 2020 | Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative | Initiated (Constitutional) | Arkansas Supreme Court | August 27, 2020 | Signatures |
| Pennsylvania | 2019 | Marsy's Law Amendment | Referral (Constitutional) | Pennsylvania Supreme Court | October 30, 2019[1] | Constitutionality |
| Arkansas | 2018 | Cap on Attorney’s Fees and Damage Awards in Lawsuits Amendment | Referral (Constitutional) | Arkansas Supreme Court | October 18, 2018 | Constitutionality |
| Arkansas | 2018 | State Legislative Term Limits Initiative | Initiated (Constitutional) | Arkansas Supreme Court | October 19, 2018 | Signatures |
| California | 2018 | Three States Initiative | Initiated (Statute) | California Supreme Court | July 18, 2018 | Constitutionality |
| Florida | 2018 | School Board Term Limits, Non-Board Established Schools, and Civic Literacy Amendment | Referral (Constitutional) | Florida Supreme Court | September 7, 2018 | Language |
| Kentucky | 2018 | Marsy's Law Amendment | Referral (Constitutional) | Kentucky Supreme Court | October 15, 2018[2] | Language |
| Arkansas | 2016 | Cap on Medical Malpractice Attorney Fees Initiative | Initiated (Constitutional) | Arkansas Supreme Court | October 13, 2016 | Language |
| Arkansas | 2016 | Medical Marijuana Initiative | Initiated (Statute) | Arkansas Supreme Court | October 27, 2016 | Signatures |
| Arkansas | 2016 | Three New Casinos Initiative | Initiated (Constitutional) | Arkansas Supreme Court | October 13, 2016 | Language |
Rulings
2024
California
On June 20, 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for New or Increased Taxes Initiative amounted to a revision of the state constitution and could not go before voters. Justice Goodwin Liu said, "[The initiative] would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative."[3] Article 18 of the California Constitution says that ballot initiatives can amend the state constitution; however, constitutional revisions require a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber or a vote of delegates at a constitutional convention and voter approval. The California Supreme Court has defined constitutional revisions as changes that alter the basic governmental framework and that initiatives cannot make revisions.
Utah
Amendment A
On October 9, 2024, the Utah Third Judicial District Court ruled that Amendment A was void because the newspaper publication deadline was missed. Judge Laura Scott wrote, "The Court finds the per curiam opinion of the Utah Supreme Court in the League of Women Voters of Utah, et al. v. Utah State Legislature, et al., to be controlling as to the newspaper publication issue asserted in the seventh claim for relief in the Supplemental Complaint. In light of that controlling opinion, Legislative Defendants acknowledge that there is no basis to argue that the newspaper publication requirement of Article XXIII of the Utah Constitution was met with respect to Amendment A."[4] Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz did not appeal the ruling, saying, "[we] chose to file a joint brief allowing the district court to resolve the case. This action aimed to prevent unnecessary expenditure of tax dollars."[5]
Amendment D
On September 26, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the ballot language for Amendment D was misleading and publication deadlines were missed. The opinion said, "The Legislature did not cause the amendment to be published in newspapers throughout the state for two months, and the description that will appear on the ballot does not submit the amendment to voters ‘with such clarity as to enable voters to express their will.'"[6][7] On September 12, Utah Third Judicial District Court Judge Dianna Gibson ruled against Amendment D, saying, "They [the State of Utah] truncated the deadlines, sidestepped normal processes, and proposed in short order a constitutional amendment, with inaccurate descriptions, to shift power from the people to the Legislature."[8]
2022
Arizona
Initiative
On August 26, 2022, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision to invalidate the Election and Voting Policies Initiative due to issues with signatures, such as registrations and other paperwork for paid signature gatherers. After invalidating those signatures, the initiative was 1,458 signatures short of the required number.[9]
Referendum
On April 21, 2022, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that voters could not determine the flat tax proposal through a veto referendum. The court ruled that sections 13 and 15 of SB1828 fall into the support and maintenance exception of the Arizona Constitution.[10] The Supreme Court released the full opinion on August 20, finding that referendums cannot repeal tax decreases or increases, except in cases when a tax would fund a new government department. Judge John Lopez IV wrote, "A revenue measure is exempt from referendum, regardless of the increase or decrease in revenue, provided it is for the support and maintenance of existing departments of the state government and state institutions." Justices Bill Montgomery and James Beene dissented.[11]
2020
Arkansas
Issue 4 and Issue 5
On August 27, 2020, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that petitioners for Issue 4 and Issue 5 did not meet state requirements for certified criminal background checks. Therefore, the signatures were void, and the initiatives were disqualified. Associate Justice Robin Wynne wrote, "Simply acquiring or obtaining a background check is not sufficient under the plain language of the statute. The results of the background checks are not required to be filed with the Secretary of State, and the certification is the only assurance the public receives that the paid canvassers ‘passed’ background checks."[12]
Issue 6
On September 17, 2020, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that petitioners for Issue 6 did not meet state requirements for certified criminal background checks. Therefore, the signatures were void, and the initiative was disqualified. Chief Justice Dan Kemp wrote, "a sponsor is required both to obtain a criminal record search on each paid canvasser and to certify to the Secretary of State that each paid canvasser passed the criminal background check. Simply acquiring or obtaining a background check is not sufficient under the plain language of the statute."[13]
2019
Pennsylvania
On December 21, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. Therefore, the election results were not certified, and the amendment was not added to the state constitution.[14] On October 30, 2019, Commonwealth Court Judge Ellen Ceisler enjoined Acting Secretary of State Boockvar (D) from counting and certifying votes on the ballot measure, pending a final ruling. Judge Ceisler said she issued the injunction because approval of the constitutional amendment would have "immediate, profound, and in some instances, irreversible, consequences on the constitutional rights of the accused and in the criminal justice system." Judge Ceisler wrote the following regarding the single-subject issue: "The Proposed Amendment addresses a wide range of subject matters including bail, discovery, due process, restitution, the right to privacy, and evidence control, all under the auspices of connecting them to victims' rights."[15]
2018
Arkansas
Issue 1
On October 18, 2018, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that Issue 1 violated the state's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. The ruling said, "While SJR 8 divides Issue No. 1’s substantive changes into 'four' sections, Issue No. 1 would actually implement a considerably larger number of changes to our constitution. The actual text of SJR 8 itself, even by a generous reading, institutes at least seven individual numerated changes or additions to the constitution that would significantly alter the status quo."[16]
Issue 3
On October 19, 2018, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that about 14,000 signatures were counted for Issue 3 that should not have been, including petitions with false affidavits for signature gatherers, such as incorrect addresses, issues with sworn statements, and issues with the list of paid canvassers.[17]
California
On December 21, 2021, the California Supreme Court removed Proposition 9 from the ballot. The unanimous order stated that Proposition 9 was removed "because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.[18]
Florida
On September 7, 2018, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a lower court's ruling on Amendment 8, which held that the ballot language was misleading.[19] The state supreme court held that the ballot language should have mentioned charter schools.[20]
Kentucky
On June 13, 2019, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the ballot language for the Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment failed to meet the state's requirement that the language "inform the electorate of the substance of the amendment." The ruling stated, "We hold that Section 256 of the Kentucky Constitution requires the General Assembly to submit the full text of a proposed constitutional amendment to the electorate for a vote. Likewise, Section 257 requires the secretary of state to publish the full text of the proposed amendment at least ninety days before the vote. Because the form of the amendment that was published and submitted to the electorate for a vote in this case was not the full text, and was instead a question, the proposed amendment is void."[21] On October 15, 2018, Judge Thomas Wingate of the Franklin County Circuit Court blocked Secretary of State Alison Grimes from certifying the results of the constitutional amendment, pending a final ruling.[22]
2016
Arkansas
Issue 4
On October 13, 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the ballot language for Issue 4 was misleading. Associate Justice Paul Danielson said, "the ultimate issue is whether the voter, while insider the voting booth, is able to reach an intelligent and informed decision for or against the proposal and understands the consequences of his or her vote based on the ballot title." He stated that Issue 4 did not define non-economic damages for voters and thus did not provide voters with enough information to make an informed decision.[23]
Issue 5
On October 13, 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that Issue 5, which included sports betting, conflicted with the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). The court said this information should have been included in the ballot language. Associate Justice Karen R. Baker wrote, "The title informs voters that the Amendment will permit sports gambling, as well as any type of wagering allowed in Nevada, which necessarily includes wagers on sports. However, here, PASPA prohibits sports gambling in Arkansas. Accordingly, the Amendment's language clearly conflicts with Federal law that prohibits sports gambling in Arkansas. Yet the ballot title does not inform the voters that the Amendment violates federal law. … We conclude that the ballot title of the proposed Amendment is insufficient. It fails to convey to the voter the scope and import of the proposed measure."[24]
Issue 7
On October 27, 2016, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that petitioners for Issue 7 did not obtain enough valid signatures. The court invalidated 12,104 signatures, leaving the initiative with too few to be considered certified. The court held that these signatures were invalid due to the timeliness of state police background checks and issues with petitioner addresses.[25]
See also
- Laws governing ballot measures
- Ballot Measures overview
- List of ballot measures by year
- Frequently asked ballot measure questions
- List of California ballot initiatives that were withdrawn after signature verification
Footnotes
- ↑ Note: The injunction was appealed but was upheld on December 21, 2021.
- ↑ Note: The injunction was appealed but was upheld on June 13, 2019.
- ↑ Cal Matters, "High court blocks anti-tax measure from California ballot," June 20, 2024
- ↑ Fox 13, "Amendment A voided by court so votes on it won't count," October 9, 2024
- ↑ The Deseret News, "Amendment A voided, court rules," October 9, 2024
- ↑ The Salt Lake Tribune, "Utah Supreme Court puts end to Amendment D, ruling votes will not be counted," September 25, 2024
- ↑ U.S. News, "Utah Supreme Court crushes constitutional amendment deemed 'counterfactual' by lower court," September 26, 2024
- ↑ KUER, "Judge voids Amendment D but leaves it on Utah’s ballot, opening door for appeal," September 12, 2024
- ↑ Arizona Mirror, "Whiplash: Free and Fair Elections Act won’t be on the ballot after last-minute math changes," August 26, 2024
- ↑ ArizonaDailyIndependent.com, "New Flat Rate Income Tax Structure Is Upheld By Arizona Supreme Court," April 22, 2022
- ↑ AZ Family, "Arizona Supreme Court says voters can’t repeal tax cuts," August 20, 2022
- ↑ Arkansas Times, "The Arkansas Supreme Court kills constitutional amendments for nonpartisan redistricting and open primaries," August 7, 2024
- ↑ Talk Business & Politics, "Challenge to eye doctor law knocked off ballot by Arkansas Supreme Court," September 17, 2024
- ↑ Pennsylvania Supreme Court, "League of Women Voters of PA and Haw v. Degraffenreid - Ruling: Minority Opinion," December 21, 2021
- ↑ PennLive, "Marsy’s Law question will appear on ballot but won’t be counted after court injunction," October 30, 2019
- ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Martin v. Humphrey," October 18, 2018
- ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Zook v. Arkansas Term Limits," October 19, 2018
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "State Supreme Court removes measure to split California into three states from November ballot," July 18, 2018
- ↑ Spectrum News 13, "Florida judge: Charter school amendment for November ballot is misleading," August 20, 2018
- ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Florida Supreme Court removes Amendment 8 from ballot," September 7, 2018
- ↑ Lexington Herald Leader, "Kentucky Supreme Court strikes down Marsy’s Law, says ballot wording was too vague," June 13, 2020
- ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Kentucky judge blocks certification of ‘Marsy’s Law’ vote," October 15, 2018
- ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Ruling in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin," October 13, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Ruling in The Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now v. Martin," October 13, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas Supreme Court, "Benca v. Martin," October 27, 2016
