List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2020

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Laws governing ballot measures

BallotLaw final.png

State
Laws governing state initiative processes
Laws governing state recall processes
Changes to ballot measure law in 2025
Difficulty analysis of changes to laws governing ballot measures
Analysis of 2025 changes to laws governing ballot measures
Local
Laws governing local ballot measures

Learn about Ballotpedia's election legislation tracker.

2026 »
« 2024

This page lists summaries of lawsuits about local ballot measures filed or ruled on in 2020. 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 2020 by state.
  • The By subject tab organizes lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 according to the subject of the lawsuits.
  • The Historical measures tab lists lawsuits filed or ruled on in 2020 about historical local ballot measures.
  • The State tab will bring you to information about lawsuits over statewide ballot measures.

By state

Ballot Measure Law

This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2020—by state—for local measures proximate to 2020. It also lists 2020 lawsuits about any local measures targeting a ballot in 2020 or a later year.


California

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California


  • San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education (June 2018) - 
  •   
    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 RoundtableDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Fresno, California, Measure P, Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts (November 2018) - 
  •   
    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 CommunitiesDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Los Angeles County, California, Measure J, Budget Allocation for Alternatives to Incarceration Charter Amendment (November 2020) - Approved
  •   
    Lawsuit overview
    Issue: Constitutionality; whether the measure unconstitutionally restricts the ability of the board of supervisors to allocate revenue
    Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court
    Timeline: Filed in 2020 about a 2020 ballot measure
    Ruling: Tentative ruling in favor of plaintiffs overturning Measure J
    Plaintiff(s): The Coalition of County Unions, including the Assn. of Los Angeles Deputy SheriffsDefendant(s): Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
    Plaintiff argument:
    Measure J unconstitutionally limited the ability of the county board to allocate revenue
    Defendant argument:
    The county charter addresses many budget issues, and Measure J is just another of many budget restrictions in the charter

      Source: Los Angeles times

    Click here for details.


    By subject

    This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2020—by subject—for local measures proximate to 2020. It also lists 2020 lawsuits about any local measures targeting a ballot in 2020 or a later year.

    Subjects listed include the following:

    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 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding ballot language that took place in 2020.

    Campaign finance

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2020.

    Circulators

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding circulators that took place in 2020.

    Post-certification removal

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding post-certification removal that took place in 2020.

    Post-election


  • San Francisco, California, Proposition C, Commercial Rent Tax for Childcare and Early Education (June 2018) - 
  •   
    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 RoundtableDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


  • Fresno, California, Measure P, Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts (November 2018) - 
  •   
    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 CommunitiesDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


    Preemption

    See also: Preemption conflicts between state and local governments

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding preemption that took place in 2020.

    Signature validity

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding signature validity that took place in 2020.

    Signature deadlines

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2020.

    Single subject

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding single subject that took place in 2020.

    Subject restriction

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding subject restriction that took place in 2020.

    Substantive constitutionality


  • Los Angeles County, California, Measure J, Budget Allocation for Alternatives to Incarceration Charter Amendment (November 2020) - Approved
  •   
    Lawsuit overview
    Issue: Constitutionality; whether the measure unconstitutionally restricts the ability of the board of supervisors to allocate revenue
    Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court
    Timeline: Filed in 2020 about a 2020 ballot measure
    Ruling: Tentative ruling in favor of plaintiffs overturning Measure J
    Plaintiff(s): The Coalition of County Unions, including the Assn. of Los Angeles Deputy SheriffsDefendant(s): Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
    Plaintiff argument:
    Measure J unconstitutionally limited the ability of the county board to allocate revenue
    Defendant argument:
    The county charter addresses many budget issues, and Measure J is just another of many budget restrictions in the charter

      Source: Los Angeles times

    Click here for details.


    Voter approval requirements


  • Fresno, California, Measure P, Sales Tax for Recreation and Arts (November 2018) - 
  •   
    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 CommunitiesDefendant(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

    Click here for details.


    Voter guide

    Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding voter guide language that took place in 2020.

    Historical measures

    This tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2020 against historical local ballot measures. For lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020, see the By state and "By subject tabs.


  • Los Angeles County, California, Measure J, Budget Allocation for Alternatives to Incarceration Charter Amendment (November 2020) - Approved
  •   
    Lawsuit overview
    Issue: Constitutionality; whether the measure unconstitutionally restricts the ability of the board of supervisors to allocate revenue
    Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court
    Timeline: Filed in 2020 about a 2020 ballot measure
    Ruling: Tentative ruling in favor of plaintiffs overturning Measure J
    Plaintiff(s): The Coalition of County Unions, including the Assn. of Los Angeles Deputy SheriffsDefendant(s): Los Angeles Board of Supervisors
    Plaintiff argument:
    Measure J unconstitutionally limited the ability of the county board to allocate revenue
    Defendant argument:
    The county charter addresses many budget issues, and Measure J is just another of many budget restrictions in the charter

      Source: Los Angeles times

    Click here for details.


    Statewide measures

    See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020

    Ballotpedia covers all statewide measures in every state.

    A compiled list of 2020 lawsuits about statewide ballot measures can be found here.

    See also

    Footnotes