List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
This page lists summaries of lawsuits about local ballot measures filed or ruled on in 2018. 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 2018 by state.
- The By subject tab organizes lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 according to the subject of the lawsuits.
- The Historical measures tab lists lawsuits filed or ruled on in 2018 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 2018—by state—for local measures proximate to 2018. It also lists 2018 lawsuits about any local measures targeting a ballot in 2019 or a later year.
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Measure T is constitutional | |
| Court: El Dorado County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: A temporary injunction against certain provisions was granted through January 24, 2019. The city then agreed to further delay implementation of Measure T while under judicial review. | |
| Plaintiff(s): South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group | Defendant(s): City of South Lake Tahoe |
| Plaintiff argument: "The ordinance is unconstitutional and unenforceable because (1) it discriminates against owners who are not 'permanent residents' while allowing 'permanent residents' to continue renting their properties to visitors as short-term rentals; (2) the initiative imposes occupancy limits without regard to the size of the property; (3) the initiative conflicts with state and county law regarding land use regulation in the Lake Tahoe Region; (4) the initiative impermissibly intrudes into administrative matters rather than legislative issues; (5) the initiative interferes with vested rights; (6) the initiative contains numerous vague and ambiguous terms; (7) the initiative violates the privileges and immunities clause of the US. Constitution; and (8) the initiative impairs the obligations of contracts." | Defendant argument: The initiative is enforceable because it received majority approval from voters in the city. |
Source: Lawsuit filing
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition C required a two-thirds supermajority vote or a simple majority vote for approval | |
| Court: California First District Court of Appeal; originated in Superior Court of San Francisco | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, stating the measure required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority; appealed, lower court ruling upheld; appealed, declined by California Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, the California Business Properties Association, and the California Business Roundtable | Defendant(s): City and county of San Francisco |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition C is invalid because it should have required a two-thirds supermajority vote due to the specific designation for tax revenues (childcare and early education). | Defendant argument: Proposition C is valid because California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland declared the citizen initiative process separate from the actions of local governments, allowing local governments to require a simple majority for local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for a specific purpose. |
Source: Superior Court of San Francisco
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Supermajority requirement application; whether the two-thirds supermajority requirement for special taxes imposed by local governments applies | |
| Court: California Fifth District Court of Appeal (originated in Fresno County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, stating that Measure P was approved and required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority, for approval. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fresno Building Healthy Communities | Defendant(s): City of Fresno, with intervention from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
| Plaintiff argument: Because Measure P was a citizen initiative, it did not require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote and should have passed with 52 percent approval. | Defendant argument: Because Measure P was a special tax measure, it required a two-thirds (66.67%) vote and, therefore, failed when it received 52 percent approval. |
Source: GV Wire
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2018—by subject—for local measures proximate to 2018. It also lists 2018 lawsuits about any local measures targeting a ballot in 2019 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.
- Supermajority requirement - Lawsuits concerning the supermajority vote requirement for a measure.
- 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
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 regarding ballot language that took place in 2018.
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2018.
Circulators
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 regarding circulators that took place in 2018.
Post-certification removal
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 regarding post-certification removal that took place in 2018.
Post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition C required a two-thirds supermajority vote or a simple majority vote for approval | |
| Court: California First District Court of Appeal; originated in Superior Court of San Francisco | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, stating the measure required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority; appealed, lower court ruling upheld; appealed, declined by California Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, the California Business Properties Association, and the California Business Roundtable | Defendant(s): City and county of San Francisco |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition C is invalid because it should have required a two-thirds supermajority vote due to the specific designation for tax revenues (childcare and early education). | Defendant argument: Proposition C is valid because California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland declared the citizen initiative process separate from the actions of local governments, allowing local governments to require a simple majority for local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for a specific purpose. |
Source: Superior Court of San Francisco
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Supermajority requirement application; whether the two-thirds supermajority requirement for special taxes imposed by local governments applies | |
| Court: California Fifth District Court of Appeal (originated in Fresno County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, stating that Measure P was approved and required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority, for approval. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fresno Building Healthy Communities | Defendant(s): City of Fresno, with intervention from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
| Plaintiff argument: Because Measure P was a citizen initiative, it did not require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote and should have passed with 52 percent approval. | Defendant argument: Because Measure P was a special tax measure, it required a two-thirds (66.67%) vote and, therefore, failed when it received 52 percent approval. |
Source: GV Wire
Preemption
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 regarding preemption that took place in 2018.
Signature validity
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 regarding signature validity that took place in 2018.
Signature deadlines
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2018.
Single subject
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 regarding single subject that took place in 2018.
Subject restriction
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 regarding subject restriction that took place in 2018.
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Measure T is constitutional | |
| Court: El Dorado County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: A temporary injunction against certain provisions was granted through January 24, 2019. The city then agreed to further delay implementation of Measure T while under judicial review. | |
| Plaintiff(s): South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group | Defendant(s): City of South Lake Tahoe |
| Plaintiff argument: "The ordinance is unconstitutional and unenforceable because (1) it discriminates against owners who are not 'permanent residents' while allowing 'permanent residents' to continue renting their properties to visitors as short-term rentals; (2) the initiative imposes occupancy limits without regard to the size of the property; (3) the initiative conflicts with state and county law regarding land use regulation in the Lake Tahoe Region; (4) the initiative impermissibly intrudes into administrative matters rather than legislative issues; (5) the initiative interferes with vested rights; (6) the initiative contains numerous vague and ambiguous terms; (7) the initiative violates the privileges and immunities clause of the US. Constitution; and (8) the initiative impairs the obligations of contracts." | Defendant argument: The initiative is enforceable because it received majority approval from voters in the city. |
Source: Lawsuit filing
Voter approval requirements
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Supermajority requirement application; whether the two-thirds supermajority requirement for special taxes imposed by local governments applies | |
| Court: California Fifth District Court of Appeal (originated in Fresno County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, stating that Measure P was approved and required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority, for approval. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fresno Building Healthy Communities | Defendant(s): City of Fresno, with intervention from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
| Plaintiff argument: Because Measure P was a citizen initiative, it did not require a two-thirds (66.67%) vote and should have passed with 52 percent approval. | Defendant argument: Because Measure P was a special tax measure, it required a two-thirds (66.67%) vote and, therefore, failed when it received 52 percent approval. |
Source: GV Wire
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018 regarding voter guide language that took place in 2018.
Historical measures
This tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2018 against historical local ballot measures. For lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2018, see the By state and "By subject tabs.
Ballotpedia did not cover any local ballot measure lawsuits about historical measures in 2018.
Statewide measures
- See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
Ballotpedia covers all statewide measures in every state.
A compiled list of 2018 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 local ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
- List of 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
| |||||||||||||
