List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
From Ballotpedia
This page lists summaries of lawsuits about local ballot measures filed or ruled on in 2017. 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 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017 by state.
- The By subject tab organizes lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017 according to the subject of the lawsuits.
- The Historical measures tab lists lawsuits filed or ruled on in 2017 about historical local ballot measures.
- The State tab will bring you to information about lawsuits over statewide ballot measures.
By state
This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2017—by state—for local measures proximate to 2017. It also lists 2017 lawsuits about any local measures targeting a ballot in 2018 or a later year.
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: Superior Court of Contra Costa County | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit suspended by plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff(s): California Apartment Association | Defendant(s): City of Richmond |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure L violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and runs counter to California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. | Defendant argument: The measure does not violate any laws. |
Source: California Apartment Association
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Invalid ordinance: the measure is not in compliance with state or city laws; Constitutionality of the measure: the measure violates the principles and purposes of state law and federal law preemption | |
| Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California | |
| Ruling: Measure O ruled invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): AMF 1278 LLC, Wendy J. McCammack; Kush Concepts Collective, MJ Dispensary Inc, JFTC Group Inc | Defendant(s): City of San Bernardino; Mark Scott, City of San Bernardino City Manager |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure O is invalid because it creates a zoning monopoly, which is against laws of the state of California, the city municipal code, and the city's general plan. Also, Measure O's definition of "permit" violates the principles and purposes of state law and federal law preemption, and the language that "authorizes a person to conduct commercial marijuana activities" violates federal law, the state constitution, and the city charter. | Defendant argument: Measure O is a valid land use regulation and should be implemented as indicated by voter approval. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Civil rights; the city has not recognized the election results | |
| Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California | |
| Ruling: Measure O was ruled invalid in a separate court case. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Lee, Jama Investments LLC, Yeying Shi, Oasis Wellness Center Inc.; Quiang Ye, 100 Hospitality LLC, Vincent Guzman | Defendant(s): City of San Bernardino |
| Plaintiff arguments: The city has not performed its mandatory obligation to implement the measure following the election, and is obstructing justice, interfering with the outcome of the election, and violating the civil rights of the plaintiffs. | Defendant arguments: The city has not implemented the provisions of Measure O due to the pending lawsuits with AMF 1278, LLC and Kush Concepts Collective. |
Sources: City of San Bernardino
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; allegedly violates certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2017 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jim Luke; Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance | Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure sets an unconstitutional incentive for private contractors to discriminate in hiring construction workers against out-of-state residents. | Defendant argument: The measure underwent a legal analysis by the Los Angeles City Attorney, who did not raise an issue with the constitutionality of the measure. |
Source: United States District Court for the Central District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Supermajority approval; measure actually needed a two-thirds majority approval because it was for a special tax. | |
| Court: Superior Court of Mendocino County | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2017 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs, said they misread the law regarding supermajority votes of fees and levies. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Johnson, Pebbles Trippet, Terry Johnson, Noel Manners, Paula Deeter, Rod Edwards, Ralf Laguna | Defendant(s): County of Mendocino |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure should be considered a special tax and should have needed to be passed with a two-thirds majority vote. | Defendant argument: The measure is a general tax and the voter approval percentage was sufficient. |
Source: Superior Court of Mendocino County
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: Superior Court of Santa Clara County | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit suspended by plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff(s): California Apartment Association | Defendant(s): City of Mountain View |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure V violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and runs counter to California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. | Defendant argument: The measure does not violate any laws. |
Source: California Apartment Association
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether or not Article XIII C(d)—which was enacted by Proposition 218 and requires general taxes to go before voters at regular general elections—applies to citizen initiatives | |
| Court: Ultimately appealed to the California Supreme Court | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2017 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; general election requirement for tax measures does not apply to initiatives
| |
| Plaintiff(s): California Cannabis Coalition et al., | Defendant(s): City of Upland et al., |
| Plaintiff argument: Article XIII C(d) does not apply to initiatives because the initiative power is separate from the powers of local government and Article XIII C(d) does not explicitly mention or implicitly affect initiatives. Therefore, initiatives that propose general taxes can be put on special election ballots. | Defendant argument: Article XIII C(d) applies to initiatives because the people's initiative power falls under local government and, therefore, initiatives that propose general taxes must be put before voters at a regular general election. |
Source: California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Validity of measure; state law prohibits voters from having a direct say on the use of public waterfront | |
| Court: Superior Court of San Francisco County | |
| Ruling: Ruling declined, case going to trial in September 2017 | |
| Plaintiff(s): California State Lands Commission | Defendant(s): City and County of San Francisco |
| Plaintiff argument: The city does not have authority over waterfront property, and therefore neither do the city's voters | Defendant argument: The city and its voters do have authority over waterfront property |
Source: Superior Court of San Francisco County
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Monterey County has jurisdiction over oil and gas operations | |
| Court: Superior Court of Monterey County, California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Overturned by California Supreme Court, unanimously ruling that state law reserves the power to regulate fossil fuel extraction | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chevron USA Inc, et al. (Other petitioners include Aera Energy, Key Energy Services, Ensign United States Drilling, San Ardo Union Elementary School District, California Resources Corporation, National Association of Royalty Owners, Trio Petroleum, Bradley Minerals, Monroe Swell Prospect, Sunset Exploration, and Eagle Petroleum.) | Defendant(s): Monterey County |
| Plaintiff argument: Monterey County does not have jurisdiction over drilling operations; there is currently no fracking in the county; and the provisions included in the measure could cause all operations to shut down, which could have a significant economic impact on the area. | Defendant argument: The measure is valid. |
Source: Superior Court of Monterey County, PR Newswire, and Courthouse News
Missouri
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of state statute; the state statute cited for removing the measure from the ballot is unconstitutional | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the measure to be placed on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rev. Samuel E. Mann et al (appellants); Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners et al (original defendants) | Defendant(s): City of Kansas City |
| Plaintiff argument: The state statute cited for removing the measure from the ballot is unconstitutional, and the measure should therefore be allowed to be placed on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The passage of House Bill 722 preempts local minimum wage increases, making it unnecessary to put the measure on the ballot |
Source: Supreme Court of Missouri
New Mexico
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single-subject rule and constitutionality; whether or not the state's single-subject rule applies to the initiative ordinance; whether provisions within the initiative—criminal penalites and fines—are outside the scope of the city's legislative authority; whether city initiatives, as such, violate the state constitution | |
| Court: Filed in district court and appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants in both courts, dismissing the request to block the initiative from the ballot and ordering that it be put before voters. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kaufman Fire Protection Services, Inc., Don Kaufman, the Association of Commerce and Industry, NAIOP, and the New Mexico Restaurant Association | Defendant(s): the city of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque City Council, Natalie Howard in her official capacity as city clerk, Organizers in the Land Of Enchantment, El Centro De Igualdad Y Derechos, Ole Education Fund, and Rebecca Glenn |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule for legislation; the initiative amends criminal law, which state law prohibits local governments from doing; the initiative provides for a penalty greater than a petty misdemeanor, which is also prohibited by state law; the local initiative process, as such, violates the state constitution; the initiative's definition of certain terms puts the law outside of the city's scope and jurisdiction. | Defendant argument: The state's single-subject rule doesn't apply to city ordinances; the initiative does not directly alter criminal law or provide for a penalty greater than a misdemeanor, and no evidence is available to show it would indirectly do so since the initiative hasn't been enacted or enforced; the state constitution does not prohibit home-rule charter cities from establishing a process for citizen initiatives; the initiative only applies to businesses and employers within the city and is, therefore, within the scope of city law. |
Source: District Court Ruling and Albuquerque Journal
Ohio
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Legality of initiative; initiative doesn't include a required county executive position | |
| Court: Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Defendants, keeping the charter initiative off of the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Athens County Bill of Rights Committee | Defendant(s): Athens County Board of Elections, Athens County Commissioners |
| Plaintiff argument: The board of elections is illegally preventing the people from exercising their right to change the form of county government | Defendant argument: The initiative does not include a required county executive position and therefore cannot go on the ballot |
Source: Athens County Common Pleas Court
Oregon
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: State law preemption; whether SB 863 preempts and prevents the enforcement of Measure 17-58 | |
| Court: Filed in 14th district circuit court appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, keeping the injunction against Measure 17-58 in place | |
| Plaintiff(s): Robert and Shelley White, sugar beet farmers | Defendant(s): Josephine County, Siskiyou Seeds, LLC, Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families |
| Plaintiff argument: SB 863 preempts and invalidates Measure 17-58. | Defendant argument: SB 863 is unconstitutional, and Measure 17-58 should be enforced. |
Source: Associated Press, WHITE v. COUNTY and SISKIYOU SEEDS, LLC (court of appeals) and WHITE v. COUNTY (circuit court)
Washington
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; violates free speech rights | |
| Court: King County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendant, upholding the initiative as constitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Elster and Sarah Pynchon | Defendant(s): City of Seattle |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 122 violates First Amendment rights by forcing citizens to support political candidates | Defendant argument: Programs that use public funds to support political campaigns are legal |
Source: Pacific Legal Foundation
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2017—by subject—for local measures proximate to 2017. It also lists 2017 lawsuits about any local measures targeting a ballot in 2018 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: Legality of initiative; initiative doesn't include a required county executive position | |
| Court: Ohio Fourth District Court of Appeals and the Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Defendants, keeping the charter initiative off of the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Athens County Bill of Rights Committee | Defendant(s): Athens County Board of Elections, Athens County Commissioners |
| Plaintiff argument: The board of elections is illegally preventing the people from exercising their right to change the form of county government | Defendant argument: The initiative does not include a required county executive position and therefore cannot go on the ballot |
Source: Athens County Common Pleas Court
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2017.
Circulators
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017 regarding circulators that took place in 2017.
Post-certification removal
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017 regarding post-certification removal that took place in 2017.
Post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: Superior Court of Contra Costa County | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit suspended by plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff(s): California Apartment Association | Defendant(s): City of Richmond |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure L violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and runs counter to California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. | Defendant argument: The measure does not violate any laws. |
Source: California Apartment Association
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Invalid ordinance: the measure is not in compliance with state or city laws; Constitutionality of the measure: the measure violates the principles and purposes of state law and federal law preemption | |
| Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California | |
| Ruling: Measure O ruled invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): AMF 1278 LLC, Wendy J. McCammack; Kush Concepts Collective, MJ Dispensary Inc, JFTC Group Inc | Defendant(s): City of San Bernardino; Mark Scott, City of San Bernardino City Manager |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure O is invalid because it creates a zoning monopoly, which is against laws of the state of California, the city municipal code, and the city's general plan. Also, Measure O's definition of "permit" violates the principles and purposes of state law and federal law preemption, and the language that "authorizes a person to conduct commercial marijuana activities" violates federal law, the state constitution, and the city charter. | Defendant argument: Measure O is a valid land use regulation and should be implemented as indicated by voter approval. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Civil rights; the city has not recognized the election results | |
| Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California | |
| Ruling: Measure O was ruled invalid in a separate court case. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Lee, Jama Investments LLC, Yeying Shi, Oasis Wellness Center Inc.; Quiang Ye, 100 Hospitality LLC, Vincent Guzman | Defendant(s): City of San Bernardino |
| Plaintiff arguments: The city has not performed its mandatory obligation to implement the measure following the election, and is obstructing justice, interfering with the outcome of the election, and violating the civil rights of the plaintiffs. | Defendant arguments: The city has not implemented the provisions of Measure O due to the pending lawsuits with AMF 1278, LLC and Kush Concepts Collective. |
Sources: City of San Bernardino
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; allegedly violates certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2017 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jim Luke; Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance | Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure sets an unconstitutional incentive for private contractors to discriminate in hiring construction workers against out-of-state residents. | Defendant argument: The measure underwent a legal analysis by the Los Angeles City Attorney, who did not raise an issue with the constitutionality of the measure. |
Source: United States District Court for the Central District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether the measure violates the U.S. Constitution by limiting national retail stores and violates the California Constitution's single-subject rule for ballot measures | |
| Court: California Second District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Park at Cross Creek LLC et al | Defendant(s): City of Malibu |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure R violates the U.S. Constitution by limiting national retail stores and violates the California Constitution's single subject rule for ballot measures. | Defendant argument: Voters expressed their views on the matter by approving Measure R, and the city will uphold the election results. |
Source: California Second District Court of Appeal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Supermajority approval; measure actually needed a two-thirds majority approval because it was for a special tax. | |
| Court: Superior Court of Mendocino County | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2017 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs, said they misread the law regarding supermajority votes of fees and levies. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Johnson, Pebbles Trippet, Terry Johnson, Noel Manners, Paula Deeter, Rod Edwards, Ralf Laguna | Defendant(s): County of Mendocino |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure should be considered a special tax and should have needed to be passed with a two-thirds majority vote. | Defendant argument: The measure is a general tax and the voter approval percentage was sufficient. |
Source: Superior Court of Mendocino County
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: Superior Court of Santa Clara County | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit suspended by plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff(s): California Apartment Association | Defendant(s): City of Mountain View |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure V violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and runs counter to California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. | Defendant argument: The measure does not violate any laws. |
Source: California Apartment Association
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Monterey County has jurisdiction over oil and gas operations | |
| Court: Superior Court of Monterey County, California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Overturned by California Supreme Court, unanimously ruling that state law reserves the power to regulate fossil fuel extraction | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chevron USA Inc, et al. (Other petitioners include Aera Energy, Key Energy Services, Ensign United States Drilling, San Ardo Union Elementary School District, California Resources Corporation, National Association of Royalty Owners, Trio Petroleum, Bradley Minerals, Monroe Swell Prospect, Sunset Exploration, and Eagle Petroleum.) | Defendant(s): Monterey County |
| Plaintiff argument: Monterey County does not have jurisdiction over drilling operations; there is currently no fracking in the county; and the provisions included in the measure could cause all operations to shut down, which could have a significant economic impact on the area. | Defendant argument: The measure is valid. |
Source: Superior Court of Monterey County, PR Newswire, and Courthouse News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; violates free speech rights | |
| Court: King County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendant, upholding the initiative as constitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Elster and Sarah Pynchon | Defendant(s): City of Seattle |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 122 violates First Amendment rights by forcing citizens to support political candidates | Defendant argument: Programs that use public funds to support political campaigns are legal |
Source: Pacific Legal Foundation
Preemption
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Validity of measure; state law prohibits voters from having a direct say on the use of public waterfront | |
| Court: Superior Court of San Francisco County | |
| Ruling: Ruling declined, case going to trial in September 2017 | |
| Plaintiff(s): California State Lands Commission | Defendant(s): City and County of San Francisco |
| Plaintiff argument: The city does not have authority over waterfront property, and therefore neither do the city's voters | Defendant argument: The city and its voters do have authority over waterfront property |
Source: Superior Court of San Francisco County
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of state statute; the state statute cited for removing the measure from the ballot is unconstitutional | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the measure to be placed on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rev. Samuel E. Mann et al (appellants); Kansas City Board of Election Commissioners et al (original defendants) | Defendant(s): City of Kansas City |
| Plaintiff argument: The state statute cited for removing the measure from the ballot is unconstitutional, and the measure should therefore be allowed to be placed on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The passage of House Bill 722 preempts local minimum wage increases, making it unnecessary to put the measure on the ballot |
Source: Supreme Court of Missouri
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Invalid ordinance: the measure is not in compliance with state or city laws; Constitutionality of the measure: the measure violates the principles and purposes of state law and federal law preemption | |
| Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California | |
| Ruling: Measure O ruled invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): AMF 1278 LLC, Wendy J. McCammack; Kush Concepts Collective, MJ Dispensary Inc, JFTC Group Inc | Defendant(s): City of San Bernardino; Mark Scott, City of San Bernardino City Manager |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure O is invalid because it creates a zoning monopoly, which is against laws of the state of California, the city municipal code, and the city's general plan. Also, Measure O's definition of "permit" violates the principles and purposes of state law and federal law preemption, and the language that "authorizes a person to conduct commercial marijuana activities" violates federal law, the state constitution, and the city charter. | Defendant argument: Measure O is a valid land use regulation and should be implemented as indicated by voter approval. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Civil rights; the city has not recognized the election results | |
| Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California | |
| Ruling: Measure O was ruled invalid in a separate court case. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Lee, Jama Investments LLC, Yeying Shi, Oasis Wellness Center Inc.; Quiang Ye, 100 Hospitality LLC, Vincent Guzman | Defendant(s): City of San Bernardino |
| Plaintiff arguments: The city has not performed its mandatory obligation to implement the measure following the election, and is obstructing justice, interfering with the outcome of the election, and violating the civil rights of the plaintiffs. | Defendant arguments: The city has not implemented the provisions of Measure O due to the pending lawsuits with AMF 1278, LLC and Kush Concepts Collective. |
Sources: City of San Bernardino
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: State law preemption; whether SB 863 preempts and prevents the enforcement of Measure 17-58 | |
| Court: Filed in 14th district circuit court appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, keeping the injunction against Measure 17-58 in place | |
| Plaintiff(s): Robert and Shelley White, sugar beet farmers | Defendant(s): Josephine County, Siskiyou Seeds, LLC, Oregonians for Safe Farms and Families |
| Plaintiff argument: SB 863 preempts and invalidates Measure 17-58. | Defendant argument: SB 863 is unconstitutional, and Measure 17-58 should be enforced. |
Source: Associated Press, WHITE v. COUNTY and SISKIYOU SEEDS, LLC (court of appeals) and WHITE v. COUNTY (circuit court)
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single-subject rule and constitutionality; whether or not the state's single-subject rule applies to the initiative ordinance; whether provisions within the initiative—criminal penalites and fines—are outside the scope of the city's legislative authority; whether city initiatives, as such, violate the state constitution | |
| Court: Filed in district court and appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants in both courts, dismissing the request to block the initiative from the ballot and ordering that it be put before voters. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kaufman Fire Protection Services, Inc., Don Kaufman, the Association of Commerce and Industry, NAIOP, and the New Mexico Restaurant Association | Defendant(s): the city of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque City Council, Natalie Howard in her official capacity as city clerk, Organizers in the Land Of Enchantment, El Centro De Igualdad Y Derechos, Ole Education Fund, and Rebecca Glenn |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule for legislation; the initiative amends criminal law, which state law prohibits local governments from doing; the initiative provides for a penalty greater than a petty misdemeanor, which is also prohibited by state law; the local initiative process, as such, violates the state constitution; the initiative's definition of certain terms puts the law outside of the city's scope and jurisdiction. | Defendant argument: The state's single-subject rule doesn't apply to city ordinances; the initiative does not directly alter criminal law or provide for a penalty greater than a misdemeanor, and no evidence is available to show it would indirectly do so since the initiative hasn't been enacted or enforced; the state constitution does not prohibit home-rule charter cities from establishing a process for citizen initiatives; the initiative only applies to businesses and employers within the city and is, therefore, within the scope of city law. |
Source: District Court Ruling and Albuquerque Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Monterey County has jurisdiction over oil and gas operations | |
| Court: Superior Court of Monterey County, California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Overturned by California Supreme Court, unanimously ruling that state law reserves the power to regulate fossil fuel extraction | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chevron USA Inc, et al. (Other petitioners include Aera Energy, Key Energy Services, Ensign United States Drilling, San Ardo Union Elementary School District, California Resources Corporation, National Association of Royalty Owners, Trio Petroleum, Bradley Minerals, Monroe Swell Prospect, Sunset Exploration, and Eagle Petroleum.) | Defendant(s): Monterey County |
| Plaintiff argument: Monterey County does not have jurisdiction over drilling operations; there is currently no fracking in the county; and the provisions included in the measure could cause all operations to shut down, which could have a significant economic impact on the area. | Defendant argument: The measure is valid. |
Source: Superior Court of Monterey County, PR Newswire, and Courthouse News
Signature validity
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017 regarding signature validity that took place in 2017.
Signature deadlines
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2017.
Single subject
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether the measure violates the U.S. Constitution by limiting national retail stores and violates the California Constitution's single-subject rule for ballot measures | |
| Court: California Second District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Park at Cross Creek LLC et al | Defendant(s): City of Malibu |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure R violates the U.S. Constitution by limiting national retail stores and violates the California Constitution's single subject rule for ballot measures. | Defendant argument: Voters expressed their views on the matter by approving Measure R, and the city will uphold the election results. |
Source: California Second District Court of Appeal
Subject restriction
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017 regarding subject restriction that took place in 2017.
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: Superior Court of Contra Costa County | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit suspended by plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff(s): California Apartment Association | Defendant(s): City of Richmond |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure L violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and runs counter to California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. | Defendant argument: The measure does not violate any laws. |
Source: California Apartment Association
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Invalid ordinance: the measure is not in compliance with state or city laws; Constitutionality of the measure: the measure violates the principles and purposes of state law and federal law preemption | |
| Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California | |
| Ruling: Measure O ruled invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): AMF 1278 LLC, Wendy J. McCammack; Kush Concepts Collective, MJ Dispensary Inc, JFTC Group Inc | Defendant(s): City of San Bernardino; Mark Scott, City of San Bernardino City Manager |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure O is invalid because it creates a zoning monopoly, which is against laws of the state of California, the city municipal code, and the city's general plan. Also, Measure O's definition of "permit" violates the principles and purposes of state law and federal law preemption, and the language that "authorizes a person to conduct commercial marijuana activities" violates federal law, the state constitution, and the city charter. | Defendant argument: Measure O is a valid land use regulation and should be implemented as indicated by voter approval. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Civil rights; the city has not recognized the election results | |
| Court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California | |
| Ruling: Measure O was ruled invalid in a separate court case. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Lee, Jama Investments LLC, Yeying Shi, Oasis Wellness Center Inc.; Quiang Ye, 100 Hospitality LLC, Vincent Guzman | Defendant(s): City of San Bernardino |
| Plaintiff arguments: The city has not performed its mandatory obligation to implement the measure following the election, and is obstructing justice, interfering with the outcome of the election, and violating the civil rights of the plaintiffs. | Defendant arguments: The city has not implemented the provisions of Measure O due to the pending lawsuits with AMF 1278, LLC and Kush Concepts Collective. |
Sources: City of San Bernardino
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; allegedly violates certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2017 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jim Luke; Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance | Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure sets an unconstitutional incentive for private contractors to discriminate in hiring construction workers against out-of-state residents. | Defendant argument: The measure underwent a legal analysis by the Los Angeles City Attorney, who did not raise an issue with the constitutionality of the measure. |
Source: United States District Court for the Central District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether the measure violates the U.S. Constitution by limiting national retail stores and violates the California Constitution's single-subject rule for ballot measures | |
| Court: California Second District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Park at Cross Creek LLC et al | Defendant(s): City of Malibu |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure R violates the U.S. Constitution by limiting national retail stores and violates the California Constitution's single subject rule for ballot measures. | Defendant argument: Voters expressed their views on the matter by approving Measure R, and the city will uphold the election results. |
Source: California Second District Court of Appeal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single-subject rule and constitutionality; whether or not the state's single-subject rule applies to the initiative ordinance; whether provisions within the initiative—criminal penalites and fines—are outside the scope of the city's legislative authority; whether city initiatives, as such, violate the state constitution | |
| Court: Filed in district court and appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants in both courts, dismissing the request to block the initiative from the ballot and ordering that it be put before voters. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kaufman Fire Protection Services, Inc., Don Kaufman, the Association of Commerce and Industry, NAIOP, and the New Mexico Restaurant Association | Defendant(s): the city of Albuquerque, the Albuquerque City Council, Natalie Howard in her official capacity as city clerk, Organizers in the Land Of Enchantment, El Centro De Igualdad Y Derechos, Ole Education Fund, and Rebecca Glenn |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule for legislation; the initiative amends criminal law, which state law prohibits local governments from doing; the initiative provides for a penalty greater than a petty misdemeanor, which is also prohibited by state law; the local initiative process, as such, violates the state constitution; the initiative's definition of certain terms puts the law outside of the city's scope and jurisdiction. | Defendant argument: The state's single-subject rule doesn't apply to city ordinances; the initiative does not directly alter criminal law or provide for a penalty greater than a misdemeanor, and no evidence is available to show it would indirectly do so since the initiative hasn't been enacted or enforced; the state constitution does not prohibit home-rule charter cities from establishing a process for citizen initiatives; the initiative only applies to businesses and employers within the city and is, therefore, within the scope of city law. |
Source: District Court Ruling and Albuquerque Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: Superior Court of Santa Clara County | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit suspended by plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff(s): California Apartment Association | Defendant(s): City of Mountain View |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure V violates due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution and runs counter to California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. | Defendant argument: The measure does not violate any laws. |
Source: California Apartment Association
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; violates free speech rights | |
| Court: King County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendant, upholding the initiative as constitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Elster and Sarah Pynchon | Defendant(s): City of Seattle |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 122 violates First Amendment rights by forcing citizens to support political candidates | Defendant argument: Programs that use public funds to support political campaigns are legal |
Source: Pacific Legal Foundation
Voter approval requirements
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017 regarding voter approval requirements that took place in 2017.
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2017 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017 regarding voter guide language that took place in 2017.
Historical measures
This tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2017 against historical local ballot measures. For lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2017, see the By state and "By subject tabs.
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; allegedly violates certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Central District of California | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2017 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jim Luke; Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance | Defendant(s): City of Los Angeles |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure sets an unconstitutional incentive for private contractors to discriminate in hiring construction workers against out-of-state residents. | Defendant argument: The measure underwent a legal analysis by the Los Angeles City Attorney, who did not raise an issue with the constitutionality of the measure. |
Source: United States District Court for the Central District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Supermajority approval; measure actually needed a two-thirds majority approval because it was for a special tax. | |
| Court: Superior Court of Mendocino County | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2017 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs, said they misread the law regarding supermajority votes of fees and levies. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Johnson, Pebbles Trippet, Terry Johnson, Noel Manners, Paula Deeter, Rod Edwards, Ralf Laguna | Defendant(s): County of Mendocino |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure should be considered a special tax and should have needed to be passed with a two-thirds majority vote. | Defendant argument: The measure is a general tax and the voter approval percentage was sufficient. |
Source: Superior Court of Mendocino County
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether or not Article XIII C(d)—which was enacted by Proposition 218 and requires general taxes to go before voters at regular general elections—applies to citizen initiatives | |
| Court: Ultimately appealed to the California Supreme Court | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2017 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; general election requirement for tax measures does not apply to initiatives
| |
| Plaintiff(s): California Cannabis Coalition et al., | Defendant(s): City of Upland et al., |
| Plaintiff argument: Article XIII C(d) does not apply to initiatives because the initiative power is separate from the powers of local government and Article XIII C(d) does not explicitly mention or implicitly affect initiatives. Therefore, initiatives that propose general taxes can be put on special election ballots. | Defendant argument: Article XIII C(d) applies to initiatives because the people's initiative power falls under local government and, therefore, initiatives that propose general taxes must be put before voters at a regular general election. |
Source: California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland
Statewide measures
- See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
Ballotpedia covers all statewide measures in every state.
A compiled list of 2017 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 2016
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
- 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
| |||||||||||||
