List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
From Ballotpedia
This page lists summaries of lawsuits filed about local ballot measures in 2016. 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; very infrequently are they filed against measures referred to the ballot by the legislature.
Lawsuits alleging the invalidity or unconstitutionality of a measure can also be filed after the election. Sometimes these court cases extend for years after a measure has been approved.
Click on the tabs below to see summaries of lawsuits:
- The By state tab organizes 2016 lawsuits about local ballot measures by state.
- The By subject tab organizes 2016 lawsuits about local ballot measures according to the subject of the lawsuits.
- The Historical measures tab lists lawsuits filed or ruled on in 2016 about historical local ballot measures.
- The State tab will bring you to information about lawsuits over statewide ballot measures.
By state
This tab lists local ballot measure lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2016, by state. It also lists 2016 lawsuits about any local measures targeting an election ballot in 2017 or a later year.
Arkansas
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: The lawsuit alleged that the ordinance violated state law, had inaccurate and misleading ballot language, and was unconstitutional. | |
| Court: Filed in Washington County Circuit Court, but ultimately appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Initially, the district court ruled in favor of the city and proponents of the ordinance, allowing the proposed anti-discrimination ordinance to be enforced despite Act 137. Ultimately, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance violated and was preempted by state law, overturning the ordinance. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Protect Fayetteville | Defendant(s): Fayetteville officials—in their official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: The ordinance—and the measure presenting the ordinance to voters—violated state law mandating uniform anti-discrimination rules, violated constitutional rights, and featured misleading and inaccurate ballot language. | Defendant argument: The lawsuit was frivolous, and the city (and courst) should honor the will of the voters. |
Source: Arkansas Online
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; the lawsuit alleged that the content of the initiative exceeded the scope of the local initiative process power. | |
| Court: Solano County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the city and blocked the initiative from the ballot. Judge Paul L. Beeman's decision stated that the initiative was unconstitutional because it related to an administrative action, not a legislative one, and, therefore, the tax increase was not subject to the initiative or veto referendum power. | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Dixon | Defendant(s): Solano Taxpayers Association |
| Plaintiff argument: The state had mandated a certain level of funding for certain utility services, making the initiative—which affected revenue designed to fund such utility services—illegal because it violated state-mandated funding requirements. | Defendant argument: The city had lots of avenues to achieve state-mandated funding levels, making the initiative appropriate and within the proper scope of the initiative process. |
Source: The Reporter and Daily Democrat
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; petition sheets were not formatted correctly. | |
| Court: Butte County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The deficiencies of the petition sheets were not significant enough to impede the initiative process. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sean P. Welch on behalf of Californians for a Safe Secure Energy Future | Defendant(s): County officials in an official capacity and initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: Petition sheets that were submitted had several fatal legal flaws that made them invalid. | Defendant argument: While the errors on the petition sheets were there, they were technical errors that should not invalidate the entire initiative petition effort. |
Source: Chico ER
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether the referendum petitions were valid considering an absence of certain reports and attachments | |
| Court: Yuba County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, forcing the board of supervisors to either rescind the Magnolia Ranch project or put it before voters in June 2016 | |
| Plaintiff(s): San Francisco-based Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger on behalf of Stop Magnolia Ranch | Defendant(s): Yuba County Clerk Terry Hansen |
| Plaintiff argument: Yuba County Clerk Terry Hansen should have accepted the veto referendum petition signatures despite the absence of certain texts and attachments because a good faith effort was made, thousands of citizens signed the petition, and voters should be allowed to decide the issue. | Defendant argument: State law requires the full text of laws targeted by veto referendum petitions to be present on the petition forms so that signers have full knowledge of what they are agreeing to put on the ballot, and the referendum petitions targeting the specific plan for the Magnolia Ranch Development failed to include certain reports and attachments essential to understanding the specific plan. |
Source: Appeal-Democrat
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should an injunction against the proposed project be granted | |
| Court: Mendocino County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: This lawsuit was abandoned by plaintiffs following a denial of a request for a preliminary injunction by the court and an advisory opinion by the court that the plaintiff's argument would likely fail in a full court hearing. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Concerned Citizens of Fort Bragg (CCFB) | Defendant(s): City of Fort Bragg |
| Plaintiff argument: An injunction should have been granted against the proposed homeless services project because the proposed project violated city zoning law, citizen were not given enough information about the project, and the city wasted public funds on the project. | Defendant argument: None of the accusations made by the plaintiff were true and no evidence for any of them existed. |
Source: The Press Democrat
Kansas
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Preemption and procedural issues; whether state law about marijuana prohibition preempted and invalidated the initiative and whether missed deadlines and filing requirements invalidated the initiative | |
| Court: Kansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative was invalid; ultimately the ruling was not based on the preemption argument but on missed deadlines and filing requirements. Thus the preemption question about state vs local authority was not answered in this case. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt | Defendant(s): City of Wichita, initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: The city—and therefore the city initiative power—did not have the authority to decriminalize marijuana since state law prescribed certain penalties; initiative petitioners missed certain deadlines and filing requirements that invalidated the initiative | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be honored |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Preemption; declaratory judgment on the legality of the measure | |
| Court: Sedgwick County District Court | |
| Ruling: Unnecessary because of supreme court decision | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Wichita | Defendant(s): N/A (The request was for declaratory judgment) |
| Plaintiff arguments: Considering active threats of litigation based on state law preemption, the city requested the court to give declaratory judgment on the legality of the measure. | Defendant arguments: N/A |
Sources: The Cannabist and Raw Story
Ohio
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; the lawsuit alleged that certain provisions of the initiative—specifically related to felonies—were not within the scope of the local initiative power and that a law making activity a crime but without prescribing a penalty was invalid and unconstitutional. | |
| Court: Lucas County Court | |
| Ruling: The provisions of the initiative targeted by the lawsuit were ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Mike DeWine (R), Sheriff John Tharp, and Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates | Defendant(s): Toledo city officials—in their official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: Provisions of the initiative regarding felony offenses according to state law were not within the scope of the city's legislative authority and, therefore, not within the scope of a city initiative. | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be honored and defended as far as possible. |
Source: Toledo Blade
By subject
This tab lists local ballot measure lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2016, by subject. It also lists 2016 lawsuits about any local measures targeting an election ballot in 2017 or a later year.
Subjects listed include the following:
- Ballot language - Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on petition forms or on the ballot
- Campaign finance - Lawsuits alleging campaign finance law violations
- Circulators - Lawsuits concerning the qualifications or actions of petition circulators
- Post-certification removal - Lawsuits seeking the removal of a local measure from the ballot after it was certified
- Post-election - Lawsuits filed concerning a local measure after the election has already occurred
- Preemption - Lawsuits alleging that a local measure is preempted by a higher authority (i.e. a state measure preempted by Federal authority/law or a local measure preempted by state authority/law)
- Signature validity - Lawsuits challenging the validity of signatures
- Signature deadlines - Lawsuits that argue proponents of a local measure did not meet the procedural deadlines required to put a measure on the ballot
- Single subject - Lawsuits challenging an initiative according to a state's single-subject rule
- Subject restriction - Lawsuits based on legal restrictions on the subject matter of local ballot measures
- Substantive constitutionality - Lawsuits alleging that the content of a local measure violates a constitutional provision such as a right to free speech or equal protection.
- Voter guide - Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on state-produced voter guides
Methodological note: Since multiple lawsuits are often filed surrounding one measure, and these lawsuits provide important context for each other, information about all lawsuits surrounding a specific measure will be listed whether or not each separate lawsuit concerns the subject under which the lawsuits are listed on this tab.
Ballot language
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity and ballot language; whether the petition language was misleading and whether the expired terms of the D.C. Board of Elections invalidated the board's certification of the initiative petition for circulation. | |
| Court: Superior Court of the District of Columbia | |
| Ruling: The court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, invalidating the petition, but the ruling was ultimately reversed to allow the initiative petitioners to continue to collect signatures. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Harry Wingo, who was president of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce at the time | Defendant(s): D.C. Board of Elections, the D.C. chapter of the Working Families Party (by intervention), and the D.C. Attorney General |
| Plaintiff argument: The petition language for the initiative was misleading and the members of the board of elections—which certified the initiative for circulation—all had expired terms, invalidating the initiative petition. | Defendant argument: The petition language was accurate; the board of elections was, by precedent, supposed to serve until replaced by new board members; and the plaintiff's argument cast doubt on the legitimacy of the previous mayoral and city council elections, as well as the approval of Initiative 71 in 2014. |
Source: NBC Washington
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: The lawsuit alleged that the ordinance violated state law, had inaccurate and misleading ballot language, and was unconstitutional. | |
| Court: Filed in Washington County Circuit Court, but ultimately appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Initially, the district court ruled in favor of the city and proponents of the ordinance, allowing the proposed anti-discrimination ordinance to be enforced despite Act 137. Ultimately, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance violated and was preempted by state law, overturning the ordinance. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Protect Fayetteville | Defendant(s): Fayetteville officials—in their official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: The ordinance—and the measure presenting the ordinance to voters—violated state law mandating uniform anti-discrimination rules, violated constitutional rights, and featured misleading and inaccurate ballot language. | Defendant argument: The lawsuit was frivolous, and the city (and courst) should honor the will of the voters. |
Source: Arkansas Online
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether the referendum petitions were valid considering an absence of certain reports and attachments | |
| Court: Yuba County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, forcing the board of supervisors to either rescind the Magnolia Ranch project or put it before voters in June 2016 | |
| Plaintiff(s): San Francisco-based Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger on behalf of Stop Magnolia Ranch | Defendant(s): Yuba County Clerk Terry Hansen |
| Plaintiff argument: Yuba County Clerk Terry Hansen should have accepted the veto referendum petition signatures despite the absence of certain texts and attachments because a good faith effort was made, thousands of citizens signed the petition, and voters should be allowed to decide the issue. | Defendant argument: State law requires the full text of laws targeted by veto referendum petitions to be present on the petition forms so that signers have full knowledge of what they are agreeing to put on the ballot, and the referendum petitions targeting the specific plan for the Magnolia Ranch Development failed to include certain reports and attachments essential to understanding the specific plan. |
Source: Appeal-Democrat
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2016 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2016.
Circulators
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2016 regarding circulators that took place in 2016.
Post-certification removal
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2016 regarding post-certification removal that took place in 2016.
Post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; the lawsuit alleged that certain provisions of the initiative—specifically related to felonies—were not within the scope of the local initiative power and that a law making activity a crime but without prescribing a penalty was invalid and unconstitutional. | |
| Court: Lucas County Court | |
| Ruling: The provisions of the initiative targeted by the lawsuit were ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Mike DeWine (R), Sheriff John Tharp, and Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates | Defendant(s): Toledo city officials—in their official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: Provisions of the initiative regarding felony offenses according to state law were not within the scope of the city's legislative authority and, therefore, not within the scope of a city initiative. | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be honored and defended as far as possible. |
Source: Toledo Blade
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Preemption and procedural issues; whether state law about marijuana prohibition preempted and invalidated the initiative and whether missed deadlines and filing requirements invalidated the initiative | |
| Court: Kansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative was invalid; ultimately the ruling was not based on the preemption argument but on missed deadlines and filing requirements. Thus the preemption question about state vs local authority was not answered in this case. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt | Defendant(s): City of Wichita, initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: The city—and therefore the city initiative power—did not have the authority to decriminalize marijuana since state law prescribed certain penalties; initiative petitioners missed certain deadlines and filing requirements that invalidated the initiative | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be honored |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Preemption; declaratory judgment on the legality of the measure | |
| Court: Sedgwick County District Court | |
| Ruling: Unnecessary because of supreme court decision | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Wichita | Defendant(s): N/A (The request was for declaratory judgment) |
| Plaintiff arguments: Considering active threats of litigation based on state law preemption, the city requested the court to give declaratory judgment on the legality of the measure. | Defendant arguments: N/A |
Sources: The Cannabist and Raw Story
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: The lawsuit alleged that the ordinance violated state law, had inaccurate and misleading ballot language, and was unconstitutional. | |
| Court: Filed in Washington County Circuit Court, but ultimately appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Initially, the district court ruled in favor of the city and proponents of the ordinance, allowing the proposed anti-discrimination ordinance to be enforced despite Act 137. Ultimately, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance violated and was preempted by state law, overturning the ordinance. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Protect Fayetteville | Defendant(s): Fayetteville officials—in their official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: The ordinance—and the measure presenting the ordinance to voters—violated state law mandating uniform anti-discrimination rules, violated constitutional rights, and featured misleading and inaccurate ballot language. | Defendant argument: The lawsuit was frivolous, and the city (and courst) should honor the will of the voters. |
Source: Arkansas Online
Preemption
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; the lawsuit alleged that the content of the initiative exceeded the scope of the local initiative process power. | |
| Court: Solano County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the city and blocked the initiative from the ballot. Judge Paul L. Beeman's decision stated that the initiative was unconstitutional because it related to an administrative action, not a legislative one, and, therefore, the tax increase was not subject to the initiative or veto referendum power. | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Dixon | Defendant(s): Solano Taxpayers Association |
| Plaintiff argument: The state had mandated a certain level of funding for certain utility services, making the initiative—which affected revenue designed to fund such utility services—illegal because it violated state-mandated funding requirements. | Defendant argument: The city had lots of avenues to achieve state-mandated funding levels, making the initiative appropriate and within the proper scope of the initiative process. |
Source: The Reporter and Daily Democrat
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; the lawsuit alleged that certain provisions of the initiative—specifically related to felonies—were not within the scope of the local initiative power and that a law making activity a crime but without prescribing a penalty was invalid and unconstitutional. | |
| Court: Lucas County Court | |
| Ruling: The provisions of the initiative targeted by the lawsuit were ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Mike DeWine (R), Sheriff John Tharp, and Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates | Defendant(s): Toledo city officials—in their official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: Provisions of the initiative regarding felony offenses according to state law were not within the scope of the city's legislative authority and, therefore, not within the scope of a city initiative. | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be honored and defended as far as possible. |
Source: Toledo Blade
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Preemption and procedural issues; whether state law about marijuana prohibition preempted and invalidated the initiative and whether missed deadlines and filing requirements invalidated the initiative | |
| Court: Kansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative was invalid; ultimately the ruling was not based on the preemption argument but on missed deadlines and filing requirements. Thus the preemption question about state vs local authority was not answered in this case. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt | Defendant(s): City of Wichita, initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: The city—and therefore the city initiative power—did not have the authority to decriminalize marijuana since state law prescribed certain penalties; initiative petitioners missed certain deadlines and filing requirements that invalidated the initiative | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be honored |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Preemption; declaratory judgment on the legality of the measure | |
| Court: Sedgwick County District Court | |
| Ruling: Unnecessary because of supreme court decision | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Wichita | Defendant(s): N/A (The request was for declaratory judgment) |
| Plaintiff arguments: Considering active threats of litigation based on state law preemption, the city requested the court to give declaratory judgment on the legality of the measure. | Defendant arguments: N/A |
Sources: The Cannabist and Raw Story
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: The lawsuit alleged that the ordinance violated state law, had inaccurate and misleading ballot language, and was unconstitutional. | |
| Court: Filed in Washington County Circuit Court, but ultimately appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Initially, the district court ruled in favor of the city and proponents of the ordinance, allowing the proposed anti-discrimination ordinance to be enforced despite Act 137. Ultimately, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance violated and was preempted by state law, overturning the ordinance. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Protect Fayetteville | Defendant(s): Fayetteville officials—in their official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: The ordinance—and the measure presenting the ordinance to voters—violated state law mandating uniform anti-discrimination rules, violated constitutional rights, and featured misleading and inaccurate ballot language. | Defendant argument: The lawsuit was frivolous, and the city (and courst) should honor the will of the voters. |
Source: Arkansas Online
Signature validity
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Preemption and procedural issues; whether state law about marijuana prohibition preempted and invalidated the initiative and whether missed deadlines and filing requirements invalidated the initiative | |
| Court: Kansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative was invalid; ultimately the ruling was not based on the preemption argument but on missed deadlines and filing requirements. Thus the preemption question about state vs local authority was not answered in this case. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt | Defendant(s): City of Wichita, initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: The city—and therefore the city initiative power—did not have the authority to decriminalize marijuana since state law prescribed certain penalties; initiative petitioners missed certain deadlines and filing requirements that invalidated the initiative | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be honored |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Preemption; declaratory judgment on the legality of the measure | |
| Court: Sedgwick County District Court | |
| Ruling: Unnecessary because of supreme court decision | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Wichita | Defendant(s): N/A (The request was for declaratory judgment) |
| Plaintiff arguments: Considering active threats of litigation based on state law preemption, the city requested the court to give declaratory judgment on the legality of the measure. | Defendant arguments: N/A |
Sources: The Cannabist and Raw Story
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; petition sheets were not formatted correctly. | |
| Court: Butte County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The deficiencies of the petition sheets were not significant enough to impede the initiative process. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sean P. Welch on behalf of Californians for a Safe Secure Energy Future | Defendant(s): County officials in an official capacity and initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: Petition sheets that were submitted had several fatal legal flaws that made them invalid. | Defendant argument: While the errors on the petition sheets were there, they were technical errors that should not invalidate the entire initiative petition effort. |
Source: Chico ER
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity and ballot language; whether the petition language was misleading and whether the expired terms of the D.C. Board of Elections invalidated the board's certification of the initiative petition for circulation. | |
| Court: Superior Court of the District of Columbia | |
| Ruling: The court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiff, invalidating the petition, but the ruling was ultimately reversed to allow the initiative petitioners to continue to collect signatures. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Harry Wingo, who was president of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce at the time | Defendant(s): D.C. Board of Elections, the D.C. chapter of the Working Families Party (by intervention), and the D.C. Attorney General |
| Plaintiff argument: The petition language for the initiative was misleading and the members of the board of elections—which certified the initiative for circulation—all had expired terms, invalidating the initiative petition. | Defendant argument: The petition language was accurate; the board of elections was, by precedent, supposed to serve until replaced by new board members; and the plaintiff's argument cast doubt on the legitimacy of the previous mayoral and city council elections, as well as the approval of Initiative 71 in 2014. |
Source: NBC Washington
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether the referendum petitions were valid considering an absence of certain reports and attachments | |
| Court: Yuba County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, forcing the board of supervisors to either rescind the Magnolia Ranch project or put it before voters in June 2016 | |
| Plaintiff(s): San Francisco-based Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger on behalf of Stop Magnolia Ranch | Defendant(s): Yuba County Clerk Terry Hansen |
| Plaintiff argument: Yuba County Clerk Terry Hansen should have accepted the veto referendum petition signatures despite the absence of certain texts and attachments because a good faith effort was made, thousands of citizens signed the petition, and voters should be allowed to decide the issue. | Defendant argument: State law requires the full text of laws targeted by veto referendum petitions to be present on the petition forms so that signers have full knowledge of what they are agreeing to put on the ballot, and the referendum petitions targeting the specific plan for the Magnolia Ranch Development failed to include certain reports and attachments essential to understanding the specific plan. |
Source: Appeal-Democrat
Signature deadlines
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Preemption and procedural issues; whether state law about marijuana prohibition preempted and invalidated the initiative and whether missed deadlines and filing requirements invalidated the initiative | |
| Court: Kansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative was invalid; ultimately the ruling was not based on the preemption argument but on missed deadlines and filing requirements. Thus the preemption question about state vs local authority was not answered in this case. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt | Defendant(s): City of Wichita, initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: The city—and therefore the city initiative power—did not have the authority to decriminalize marijuana since state law prescribed certain penalties; initiative petitioners missed certain deadlines and filing requirements that invalidated the initiative | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be honored |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Preemption; declaratory judgment on the legality of the measure | |
| Court: Sedgwick County District Court | |
| Ruling: Unnecessary because of supreme court decision | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Wichita | Defendant(s): N/A (The request was for declaratory judgment) |
| Plaintiff arguments: Considering active threats of litigation based on state law preemption, the city requested the court to give declaratory judgment on the legality of the measure. | Defendant arguments: N/A |
Sources: The Cannabist and Raw Story
Single subject
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2016 regarding single subject that took place in 2016.
Subject restriction
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2016 regarding subject restriction that took place in 2016.
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; the lawsuit alleged that the content of the initiative exceeded the scope of the local initiative process power. | |
| Court: Solano County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: The court ruled in favor of the city and blocked the initiative from the ballot. Judge Paul L. Beeman's decision stated that the initiative was unconstitutional because it related to an administrative action, not a legislative one, and, therefore, the tax increase was not subject to the initiative or veto referendum power. | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Dixon | Defendant(s): Solano Taxpayers Association |
| Plaintiff argument: The state had mandated a certain level of funding for certain utility services, making the initiative—which affected revenue designed to fund such utility services—illegal because it violated state-mandated funding requirements. | Defendant argument: The city had lots of avenues to achieve state-mandated funding levels, making the initiative appropriate and within the proper scope of the initiative process. |
Source: The Reporter and Daily Democrat
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; the lawsuit alleged that certain provisions of the initiative—specifically related to felonies—were not within the scope of the local initiative power and that a law making activity a crime but without prescribing a penalty was invalid and unconstitutional. | |
| Court: Lucas County Court | |
| Ruling: The provisions of the initiative targeted by the lawsuit were ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Mike DeWine (R), Sheriff John Tharp, and Lucas County Prosecutor Julia Bates | Defendant(s): Toledo city officials—in their official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: Provisions of the initiative regarding felony offenses according to state law were not within the scope of the city's legislative authority and, therefore, not within the scope of a city initiative. | Defendant argument: The will of the voters should be honored and defended as far as possible. |
Source: Toledo Blade
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: The lawsuit alleged that the ordinance violated state law, had inaccurate and misleading ballot language, and was unconstitutional. | |
| Court: Filed in Washington County Circuit Court, but ultimately appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Initially, the district court ruled in favor of the city and proponents of the ordinance, allowing the proposed anti-discrimination ordinance to be enforced despite Act 137. Ultimately, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the ordinance violated and was preempted by state law, overturning the ordinance. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Protect Fayetteville | Defendant(s): Fayetteville officials—in their official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: The ordinance—and the measure presenting the ordinance to voters—violated state law mandating uniform anti-discrimination rules, violated constitutional rights, and featured misleading and inaccurate ballot language. | Defendant argument: The lawsuit was frivolous, and the city (and courst) should honor the will of the voters. |
Source: Arkansas Online
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should an injunction against the proposed project be granted | |
| Court: Mendocino County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: This lawsuit was abandoned by plaintiffs following a denial of a request for a preliminary injunction by the court and an advisory opinion by the court that the plaintiff's argument would likely fail in a full court hearing. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Concerned Citizens of Fort Bragg (CCFB) | Defendant(s): City of Fort Bragg |
| Plaintiff argument: An injunction should have been granted against the proposed homeless services project because the proposed project violated city zoning law, citizen were not given enough information about the project, and the city wasted public funds on the project. | Defendant argument: None of the accusations made by the plaintiff were true and no evidence for any of them existed. |
Source: The Press Democrat
Voter approval requirements
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2016 regarding voter approval requirements that took place in 2016.
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2016 regarding voter guide language that took place in 2016.
Historical measures
This tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2016 against historical local ballot measures. For lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2016, see the By state and "By subject tabs.
Ballotpedia did not cover any local ballot measure lawsuits about historical measures in 2016.
Statewide measures
- See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
Ballotpedia covers all statewide measures in every state.
A compiled list of 2016 lawsuits about statewide ballot measures can be found here.
See also
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2013
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2011
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2009
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
- 2008 ballot measure lawsuits
- 2009 ballot measure litigation
- 2010 ballot measure litigation
- 2011 ballot measure litigation
- 2008 single-subject rule challenges
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 1999
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2024
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2024
Footnotes
| |||||||||||||
