Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
From Ballotpedia
| 2021 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2022 »
« 2020
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Scorecard | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| Deadlines | |
| Requirements | |
| Lawsuits | |
| Readability | |
| Voter guides | |
| Election results | |
| Year-end analysis | |
| Campaigns | |
| Polls | |
| Media editorials | |
| Filed initiatives | |
| Finances | |
| Contributions | |
| Signature costs | |
| Ballot Measure Monthly | |
| Signature requirements | |
Have you subscribed yet?
Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
| |
This page lists summaries of lawsuits filed about ballot measures in 2021. 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.
Lawsuits alleging the invalidity or unconstitutionality of a measure independently from the presence of the measure on the ballot can also be filed. Such lawsuits are sometimes filed before the election and sometimes after the election. Sometimes these court cases extend for years after a measure has been approved.
By state
This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2021—by state—for measures proximate to 2021. It also lists 2021 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2021 or a later year.
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union | Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
| Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Davis White | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: California Third District Court of Appeal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the initiative violate the state's single-subject rule? | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and application for stay denied | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hollywood Park Casino Company, LLC and Cal-Pac Rancho Cordova, LLC | Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) and Coalition to Authorize Regulated Sports Wagering |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule because it includes sports betting, roulette and dice games, and a provision allowing the tribes to file suit against organizations that violate other state gambling limits. | Defendant argument: All matters in the initiative are related to gambling. |
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra) |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms | Defendant argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional |
Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause; upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc., | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Colorado
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment is substantially related to Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to appear on the 2021 ballot, which is limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR | |
| Court: Denver District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Wasserman of the Bell Policy Center and Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue | Defendant(s): Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, measure sponsor Michael Fields |
Source: KOAA.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition 118 is constitutional; whether it violates Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) | |
| Court: Denver District Court, Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and upheld Proposition 118; the measure does not violate TABOR; it is not an income tax; fees are held in the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chronos Builders, LLC | Defendant(s): Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Family and Medical Leave Insurance |
Source: Colorado Politics
Florida
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment's ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Attorney General | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Ashley Moody | Defendant(s): Sensible Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment's ballot language is misleading | Defendant argument: The ballot language is not misleading |
Source: Florida Supreme Court
Maine
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2021 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Question 1 violate the separation of powers or the companies' vested rights? | |
| Court: Cumberland County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs, agreed enough work was completed in good faith for the developers to have a right to complete the project. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Russell Black et al. | Defendant(s): Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, Maine Public Utilities Commission, Maine Senate, and Maine House of Representatives |
Source: WCVB
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does state law require splitting the ballot initiative into three separate questions? | |
| Court: Cumberland County Superior Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Secretary of State Bellows; Ruling said that state law does not require the secretary of state to divide a ballot initiative into separate questions | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Rep. Christopher Caiazzo | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows |
| Plaintiff argument: State law requires that voters decide each issue contained in the ballot initiative as a separate question. | Defendant argument: State law provides a recommended format for petitioners, but it is not mandatory. |
Source: Portland Press Herald
Mississippi
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure was placed on the ballot in accordance with the state constitution | |
| Court: Mississippi Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; initiative found invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Madison, Mississippi; Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler | Defendant(s): Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson |
| Plaintiff argument: Votes on the measure should not be counted because the measure was placed on the ballot in violation of the state constitution | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs could and should have filed the lawsuit much earlier before the measure was certified for the ballot. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
Montana
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot measure denies Montana voters the right to vote for all seven Supreme Court justices | |
| Court: Montana 2nd Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the measure is unconstitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sister Mary Jo McDonald, Lori Maloney, Fritz Daily, Bob Brown, Dorothy Bradley, Vernon Finley, Mae Nan Ellingson, and the League of Women Voters of Montana | Defendant(s): Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure violates Montana voters' right to vote for all seven Supreme Court justices. | Defendant argument: Voting by district for state Supreme Court justices will better represent the different populations of the state. |
Source: Daily Montanan
Nevada
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2021 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the state's single subject rule and other constitutional requirements | |
| Court: Carson City District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendant. The initiative complies with constitutional and statutory requirements. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Nathan Helton, a registered voter in Churchill County | Defendant(s): Nevada Voters First |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the single subject rule, adds a cost to the state without creating a funding source, and has a deficient "description of effect." | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single subject rule. |
Source: The Nevada Independent
Pennsylvania
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot measure for Marsy's Law violate the state constitution's requirement that separate amendments receive separate votes? | |
| Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: On December 21, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution and that results could not be certified | |
| Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Lorraine Haw | Defendant(s): Acting Secretary of State Veronica Degraffenreid (originally Acting Secretary Kathy Boockvar) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot measure proposed several amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution and therefore violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. | Defendant argument: The ballot measure contained related subparts that pertain to a single subject, which made the proposal constitutional. |
Source: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
South Dakota
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment comprises more than a single subject; whether the amendment is considered to be an amendment or a revision to the state constitution | |
| Court: Hughes County Circuit Court appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning Amendment A; the ruling was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court upon appeal. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller | Defendant(s): State of South Dakota; intervention by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure comprises more than one subject; the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature | Defendant argument: Amendment A contains one subject to which all provisions are essentially related, and the state constitution's definition of amendment and revision is permissive, not obligatory. |
Source: South Dakota Department of Public Safety
Texas
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Texas and 2021 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is biased against the proposed initiative | |
| Court: Third Court of Appeals;Texas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot language submitted by petitioners complied with state law and should appear on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Save Austin Now | Defendant(s): Austin City Council; City of Austin |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language as written by the city council is biased against the proposition because it doesn't include key provisions of the initiative, and the estimated fiscal cost is also misleading. | Defendant argument: The ballot language does comply with the city's charter. |
Source: Austin-American Statesman
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language complies with the city's charter | |
| Court: Third Court of Appeals;Texas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; Austin City Council ordered to change the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Linda Durin, Eric Krohn, and Michael Lovins | Defendant(s): Austin City Council; City of Austin |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language as written by the city council does not comply with the city's charter and is biased against the proposition. | Defendant argument: The ballot language does comply with the city's charter |
Source: Austin Bulldog
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition 2 was misleading and missing key information | |
| Court: Filed in 53rd District Court; appealed to the Texas Seventh District Court of Appeals | |
| Plaintiff(s): Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF), Grassroots America, We the People, and True Texas Project (TTP) | Defendant(s): Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language for Proposition 2 was misleading because it did not include language informing voters about the use of taxes to pay bonds issued by the county in the transportation reinvestment zones. | Defendant argument: The court does not have the authority to review the language drafted by the state legislature for Proposition 2 and doing so would violate the separation of powers. |
Source: The Texan
Wisconsin
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment informed the electorate what the amendment would do | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that the amendment's ballot language was not sufficient but leaving the amendment in effect during appeal; appealed; Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the amendment | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The ballot language, which was developed over two years through the legislative process, met all statutory requirements and did not deceive voters. |
Source: Urban Milwaukee
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot language accurately and completely summarize the constitutional amendment? | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI), Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson, and Fred A. Risser | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), WEC Chair Dean Knudson, Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and Attorney General Josh Kaul |
Source: Dane County Circuit Court
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2021—by subject—for measures proximate to 2021. It also lists 2021 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2021 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
- Legislative alteration - Lawsuits concerning actions by legislatures to repeal or amend citizen initiatives.
- Post-certification removal - Lawsuits seeking the removal of a measure from the ballot after it was certified
- Post-election - Lawsuits filed concerning a measure after the election has already occurred
- Preemption - Lawsuits alleging that a 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 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 ballot measures
- Substantive constitutionality - Lawsuits alleging that the content of a measure violates a constitutional provision such as a right to free speech or equal protection or that constitutional language added by a ballot measure is being violated by a statute, ordinance, or administrative action
- 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: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union | Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
| Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Davis White | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: California Third District Court of Appeal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment's ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Attorney General | |
| Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Ashley Moody | Defendant(s): Sensible Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment's ballot language is misleading | Defendant argument: The ballot language is not misleading |
Source: Florida Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is biased against the proposed initiative | |
| Court: Third Court of Appeals;Texas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot language submitted by petitioners complied with state law and should appear on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Save Austin Now | Defendant(s): Austin City Council; City of Austin |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language as written by the city council is biased against the proposition because it doesn't include key provisions of the initiative, and the estimated fiscal cost is also misleading. | Defendant argument: The ballot language does comply with the city's charter. |
Source: Austin-American Statesman
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language complies with the city's charter | |
| Court: Third Court of Appeals;Texas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; Austin City Council ordered to change the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Linda Durin, Eric Krohn, and Michael Lovins | Defendant(s): Austin City Council; City of Austin |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language as written by the city council does not comply with the city's charter and is biased against the proposition. | Defendant argument: The ballot language does comply with the city's charter |
Source: Austin Bulldog
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment informed the electorate what the amendment would do | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that the amendment's ballot language was not sufficient but leaving the amendment in effect during appeal; appealed; Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the amendment | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The ballot language, which was developed over two years through the legislative process, met all statutory requirements and did not deceive voters. |
Source: Urban Milwaukee
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot language accurately and completely summarize the constitutional amendment? | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI), Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson, and Fred A. Risser | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), WEC Chair Dean Knudson, Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and Attorney General Josh Kaul |
Source: Dane County Circuit Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition 2 was misleading and missing key information | |
| Court: Filed in 53rd District Court; appealed to the Texas Seventh District Court of Appeals | |
| Plaintiff(s): Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF), Grassroots America, We the People, and True Texas Project (TTP) | Defendant(s): Texas Secretary of State Jane Nelson (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language for Proposition 2 was misleading because it did not include language informing voters about the use of taxes to pay bonds issued by the county in the transportation reinvestment zones. | Defendant argument: The court does not have the authority to review the language drafted by the state legislature for Proposition 2 and doing so would violate the separation of powers. |
Source: The Texan
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2021.
Circulators
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding circulators that took place in 2021.
Legislative alteration
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding legislative alteration that took place in 2021.
Post-certification removal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure was placed on the ballot in accordance with the state constitution | |
| Court: Mississippi Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; initiative found invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Madison, Mississippi; Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler | Defendant(s): Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson |
| Plaintiff argument: Votes on the measure should not be counted because the measure was placed on the ballot in violation of the state constitution | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs could and should have filed the lawsuit much earlier before the measure was certified for the ballot. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment is substantially related to Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to appear on the 2021 ballot, which is limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR | |
| Court: Denver District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Wasserman of the Bell Policy Center and Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue | Defendant(s): Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, measure sponsor Michael Fields |
Source: KOAA.com
Post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union | Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
| Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Davis White | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: California Third District Court of Appeal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure was placed on the ballot in accordance with the state constitution | |
| Court: Mississippi Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; initiative found invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Madison, Mississippi; Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler | Defendant(s): Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson |
| Plaintiff argument: Votes on the measure should not be counted because the measure was placed on the ballot in violation of the state constitution | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs could and should have filed the lawsuit much earlier before the measure was certified for the ballot. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment informed the electorate what the amendment would do | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that the amendment's ballot language was not sufficient but leaving the amendment in effect during appeal; appealed; Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the amendment | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The ballot language, which was developed over two years through the legislative process, met all statutory requirements and did not deceive voters. |
Source: Urban Milwaukee
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot language accurately and completely summarize the constitutional amendment? | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI), Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson, and Fred A. Risser | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), WEC Chair Dean Knudson, Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and Attorney General Josh Kaul |
Source: Dane County Circuit Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition 118 is constitutional; whether it violates Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) | |
| Court: Denver District Court, Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and upheld Proposition 118; the measure does not violate TABOR; it is not an income tax; fees are held in the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chronos Builders, LLC | Defendant(s): Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Family and Medical Leave Insurance |
Source: Colorado Politics
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment comprises more than a single subject; whether the amendment is considered to be an amendment or a revision to the state constitution | |
| Court: Hughes County Circuit Court appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning Amendment A; the ruling was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court upon appeal. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller | Defendant(s): State of South Dakota; intervention by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure comprises more than one subject; the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature | Defendant argument: Amendment A contains one subject to which all provisions are essentially related, and the state constitution's definition of amendment and revision is permissive, not obligatory. |
Source: South Dakota Department of Public Safety
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra) |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms | Defendant argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional |
Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause; upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc., | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Preemption
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding preemption that took place in 2021.
Signature validity
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding signature validity that took place in 2021.
Signature deadlines
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2021.
Single subject
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the ballot measure for Marsy's Law violate the state constitution's requirement that separate amendments receive separate votes? | |
| Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: On December 21, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution and that results could not be certified | |
| Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Lorraine Haw | Defendant(s): Acting Secretary of State Veronica Degraffenreid (originally Acting Secretary Kathy Boockvar) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot measure proposed several amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution and therefore violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments. | Defendant argument: The ballot measure contained related subparts that pertain to a single subject, which made the proposal constitutional. |
Source: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Question 1 violate the separation of powers or the companies' vested rights? | |
| Court: Cumberland County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs, agreed enough work was completed in good faith for the developers to have a right to complete the project. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Russell Black et al. | Defendant(s): Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, Maine Public Utilities Commission, Maine Senate, and Maine House of Representatives |
Source: WCVB
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does state law require splitting the ballot initiative into three separate questions? | |
| Court: Cumberland County Superior Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Secretary of State Bellows; Ruling said that state law does not require the secretary of state to divide a ballot initiative into separate questions | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Rep. Christopher Caiazzo | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows |
| Plaintiff argument: State law requires that voters decide each issue contained in the ballot initiative as a separate question. | Defendant argument: State law provides a recommended format for petitioners, but it is not mandatory. |
Source: Portland Press Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the state's single subject rule and other constitutional requirements | |
| Court: Carson City District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendant. The initiative complies with constitutional and statutory requirements. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Nathan Helton, a registered voter in Churchill County | Defendant(s): Nevada Voters First |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the single subject rule, adds a cost to the state without creating a funding source, and has a deficient "description of effect." | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single subject rule. |
Source: The Nevada Independent
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the initiative violate the state's single-subject rule? | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and application for stay denied | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hollywood Park Casino Company, LLC and Cal-Pac Rancho Cordova, LLC | Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) and Coalition to Authorize Regulated Sports Wagering |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule because it includes sports betting, roulette and dice games, and a provision allowing the tribes to file suit against organizations that violate other state gambling limits. | Defendant argument: All matters in the initiative are related to gambling. |
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment comprises more than a single subject; whether the amendment is considered to be an amendment or a revision to the state constitution | |
| Court: Hughes County Circuit Court appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning Amendment A; the ruling was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court upon appeal. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller | Defendant(s): State of South Dakota; intervention by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure comprises more than one subject; the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature | Defendant argument: Amendment A contains one subject to which all provisions are essentially related, and the state constitution's definition of amendment and revision is permissive, not obligatory. |
Source: South Dakota Department of Public Safety
Subject restriction
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment is substantially related to Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to appear on the 2021 ballot, which is limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR | |
| Court: Denver District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Wasserman of the Bell Policy Center and Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue | Defendant(s): Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, measure sponsor Michael Fields |
Source: KOAA.com
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union | Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice? | |
| Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Davis White | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: California Third District Court of Appeal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot measure denies Montana voters the right to vote for all seven Supreme Court justices | |
| Court: Montana 2nd Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the measure is unconstitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sister Mary Jo McDonald, Lori Maloney, Fritz Daily, Bob Brown, Dorothy Bradley, Vernon Finley, Mae Nan Ellingson, and the League of Women Voters of Montana | Defendant(s): Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure violates Montana voters' right to vote for all seven Supreme Court justices. | Defendant argument: Voting by district for state Supreme Court justices will better represent the different populations of the state. |
Source: Daily Montanan
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition 118 is constitutional; whether it violates Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) | |
| Court: Denver District Court, Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and upheld Proposition 118; the measure does not violate TABOR; it is not an income tax; fees are held in the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chronos Builders, LLC | Defendant(s): Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Family and Medical Leave Insurance |
Source: Colorado Politics
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra) |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms | Defendant argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional |
Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause; upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc., | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding voter guides that took place in 2021
Past measures
Note: This section shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2021 against past ballot measures.
Ballotpedia is not covering any state ballot measure lawsuits about measures from past years filed or concluded in 2021.
Local
Ballotpedia covers all local measures in California, measures on the ballot for voters within the top 100 largest cities in the United States, and select measures that are notable because of their topic or because of the jurisdiction in which they are on the ballot.
A compiled list of 2021 lawsuits about local 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 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 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
