List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
From Ballotpedia
| 2018 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2019 »
« 2017
| |
 | |
| 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 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.
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 2018—by state—for measures proximate to 2018. It also lists 2018 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2018 or a later year.
Alaska
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alaska and 2018 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative makes an appropriation of a state asset as prohibited by Section 7 of Article XI of the Alaska Constitution | |
| Court: Filed in Alaska Third District Court; appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; appealed to the supreme court. The Supreme Court ruled that some language in the measure needed to be removed, but the remainder of the measure could appear on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Stand for Salmon | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott and the State of Alaska |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative updates permit regulations and does not eliminate the possibility of development or make an appropriation; rather it simply ensures that development is done in a way that doesn't damage fish habitats. Moreover, the initiative was written to apply equally to all projects and permit applicants. | Defendant argument: The initiative violates the state constitution's prohibition against initiatives that "dedicate revenues, [or] make or repeal appropriations" by preventing the state from allowing development of any waterways and, thereby, appropriating the state assets of fish and fish habitats. |
Source: Alaska Department of Law Press Release
Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did the 100-word petition summary need to include information about Proposition 207's elimination of the law indexing tax brackets to inflation? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing Proposition 207 from the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jaime Molera and Jennifer Henricks | Defendant(s): Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan |
| Plaintiff argument: The title and summary used on petitions was inaccurate and misleading, invalidating the petition, and other laws governing the initiative process were not followed. | Defendant argument: The initiative petition met all necessary requirements to remain eligible for the ballot and the petition language was accurate. |
Source: Tucson.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 127 violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 127 did not violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Vince Leach (R-11), Rep. John Kavanagh (R-23), Mesa Mayor John Giles, and five other individuals | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) and local election boards |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners failed to strictly follow state laws by not disclosing the actual financial backer of the initiative on petitions, firing signature gatherers based on quotas, submitting deficient petition sheets, providing a misleading title and summary on petitions | Defendant argument: The petitioners sufficiently complied with state laws and petitions included enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot |
Source: Daily Miner
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; Did Proposition 306 violate the constitution's single-subject requirement? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, saying that the single-subject requirement applied to constitutional amendments, but not statutory measures, and keeping Proposition 306 on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 306 violated the state's single-subject requirement for ballot measures. Proposition 306 addressed two subjects—how candidates can spend funds and the rulemaking powers of the commission. | Defendant argument: The single-subject requirement applied to legislative acts, which did not include statutes sent to voters, such as Proposition 306. |
Source: Tucson.com
Arkansas
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative is unconstitutional since it combines separate constitutional amendments into one ballot measure, whether the initiative violates provisions regarding separation of powers in the Arkansas Constitution | |
| Court: Filed in Circuit Court of Pulaski County, appealed to Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the judge ordered the secretary of state not to count any votes cast for the measure. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. On October 18, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling to not count any votes on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Judge Marion Humphrey | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure is actually four different constitutional amendments disguised as one, which violates the single-subject rule. It violates the separation of powers of the legislative and judicial branches of government. | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional and should go on the ballot. |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signatures are valid, whether signature gatherers properly acquired signatures | |
| Court: Filed in Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating the measure and ordering election official to not count votes on Issue 3 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Head of Arkansans for Common-Sense Term Limits and Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce President Randy Zook | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Signature gatherers did not have proper background checks and paperwork, signature gatherers did not have proper signature sheets showing the text of Issue 3, signatures are invalid, and the measure should be removed from the ballot | Defendant argument: The signatures are valid and the measure should remain on the ballot |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signatures are valid, whether signature gatherers for the initiative were properly registered as paid canvassers | |
| Court: Filed in Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit rejected, measure to remain on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for a Strong Economy | Defendant(s): Initiative proponents, state officials |
| Plaintiff argument: Signature gatherers were not properly registered as paid canvassers with the Arkansas Secretary of State's office, signatures are invalid, and the measure should be removed from the ballot | Defendant argument: The signatures are valid and the measure should remain on the ballot |
Source: Associated Press
California
| 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 District Court for the Southern District of California | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause. (Appealed) | |
| 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 Xavier Becerra |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 9 violate the California State Constitution's prohibition on ballot initiatives making major change to the state's constitutional framework? | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Removed from the ballot pending a formal ruling; Draper dropped his defense of the ballot measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Planning and Conservation League | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Tim Draper |
| Plaintiff argument: The Planning and Conservation League stated that Proposition 9 would make "sweeping changes in [the] state’s basic constitutional framework," which is a misuse of the ballot initiative process in California. | Defendant argument: Tim Draper said Proposition 9 would not be a constitutional revision, but rather a nullification of the California Constitution. |
Source: The Mercury News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Required number of signatures for the ballot initiative | |
| Court: Sacramento County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Gov. Jerry Brown | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Nina Salarno Besselman |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot initiative should have been considered a constitutional amendment, and thus should have required 585,407 signatures, rather than 365,880 signatures, to make the ballot. | Defendant argument: The ballot initiative met the signature requirements as required by the secretary of state. |
Source: Associated Press
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether initiative violated single-subject rule and reenactment requirement | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Santa Clara County, San Francisco, Miguel Márquez, Miller Ravel, and Jeffrey V. Smith | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Joseph Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters of Contra Costa County |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot initiative encompasses more than one subject and violates the requirement that statute be directly amended. | Defendant argument: As of June 26, 2018, Ballotpedia did not find a response from the defendants. |
Source: California Supreme Court
Florida
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is inaccurate and misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Leon County, Florida, moved to Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Judge ruled the amendment be taken off the ballot. Supreme Court reversed lower court's ruling, amendment to appear on ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Florida Greyhound Association and its president, James Blanchard | Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the Florida Department of State |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment's ballot title and summary are inaccurate and misleading and do not inform voters of the true effects of the measure | Defendant argument: The ballot language is not misleading |
Source: Sun Sentinel
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment violates the single subject rule, whether ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing Amendment 8 from the ballot. Appealed to the Supreme Court. On September 7, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling.[1] | |
| Plaintiff(s): Filed by Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Florida League of Women Voters | Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure combines three separate and unrelated measures into one, so voters must either reject or approve all three; the ballot language is misleading and therefore the measure should not be placed on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The ballot language is clear; Florida voters are entitled to vote on the amendment. |
Source: SPLC Center, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment applies retroactively | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County circuit court; appealed to First District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; case dismissed; appeal failed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Volusia County, Florida | Defendant(s): Governor Rick Scott (R) and Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment is misleading because it failed to make clear whether or not it applies retroactively or only prospectively. The amendment should be interpreted to only apply going forward. Volusia County should not have to restructure its government and restore constitutional offices that it had abolished. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Orlando Sentinel
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County Circuit Court, rejected by circuit judge James Shelfer, appealed by plaintiffs and forwarded to Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and ordered the amendment to appear on the 2018 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): The counties of Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Broward | Defendant(s): State officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is misleading, the amendment combines more than a single subject, it would interfere with the counties' rights of self-government and control of local government structure | Defendant argument: The amendment should appear on the ballot |
Source: Miami Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments | |
| Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2] | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas | Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading. | Defendant argument: Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot. |
Source: Florida Supreme Court filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments | |
| Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2] | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas | Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading. | Defendant argument: Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot. |
Source: Florida Supreme Court filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments | |
| Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2] | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas | Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading. | Defendant argument: Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot. |
Source: Florida Supreme Court filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is inaccurate and misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County, Florida. Supreme Court hearing scheduled at 4th District Court of Appeals at West Palm Beach courthouse | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, amendment removed from the ballot. State appealed to Supreme Court. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Lee Hollander, a south Florida criminal defense attorney | Defendant(s): Unknown |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment should be removed from the ballot because Florida already has victim protections and rights, the amendment removes rights of criminal defendants, the ballot language is misleading | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Orlando Sentinel
Hawaii
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Hawaii and 2018 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading, unclear, and deceptive | |
| Court: Filed in Honolulu circuit court, appealed to Hawaii Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure invalid and votes not to be counted | |
| Plaintiff(s): The city of Honolulu and counties of Kauai, Hawaii, and Maui | Defendant(s): Hawaii state elections officials including Governor David Ige and Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment's ballot language is misleading, unclear, and deceptive. The ballot question and measure text do not clearly define investment real property and do not mention taxes or that the state legislature would have a new taxing power. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Honolulu Civil Beat
Idaho
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Idaho and 2018 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative unconstitutionally delegates too much power to the federal government and the state Department of Health and Welfare | |
| Court: Filed in Idaho Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, Proposition 2 is legal | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kootenai County Republican Central Committee chairman and head of the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s board of directors, Brent Regan | Defendant(s): Idaho Secretary of State Lawerence Denney |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the constitution by delegating too much power to the federal government and the state Department of Health and Welfare | Defendant argument: The lawsuit is unfounded because Medicaid expansion under the initiative does not remove the state's ability to opt in or out and does not cede power to the federal government |
Source: Post Register
Kentucky
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment. |
Source: WFPL
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure | |
| Court: Franklin Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system. | Defendant argument: Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years." |
Source: Courier Journal
Maine
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2018 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Implementation—whether the Maine Department of Health & Human Services is required to submit a plan for Medicaid expansion | |
| Court: Kennebec County Superior Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, requiring the state to file a plan to expand Medicaid | |
| Plaintiff(s): Maine Equal Justice Partners, Consumers for Affordable Health Care, Maine Primary Care Association, Cassie Steimlosk, Donna Wall, Charles McDaniel, Ann Avery, Gina Zamello, and Penobscot Community Health Care | Defendant(s): Ricker Hamilton, Commissioner of Maine Department of Health & Human Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The Maine Department of Health & Human Services is required, per Question 2, to submit a plan for Medicaid expansion | Defendant argument: Courts cannot require expenditures, as that would violate the separation of powers between courts and the legislature. |
Source: Kennebec County Superior Court
Massachusetts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether the initiative violates Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution on three counts: (1) whether the initiative's subjects are related; (2) whether the initiative makes specific appropriations; and (3) whether the initiative takes control of the legislature's power to generate revenue. | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure removed and blocked from November 2018 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christopher Anderson, Christopher Carlozzi, Richard Lord, Eileen Mcanneny, and Daniel O’Connell | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of State Bill Galvin |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative should not appear on the ballot in 2018. The initiative contains unrelated subjects, makes specific appropriations, and takes control of the legislature's ability to generate revenue. | Defendant argument: The initiative was correctly certified for the ballot because provisions are mutually dependent and related. |
Source: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single-subject rule; whether the provision requiring certain patient assignment limits and the provision prohibiting reduced staffing are unrelated. | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, the initiative may appear on November ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Four Massachusetts voters backed by the Steward Health Care System LLC | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative's provision concerning nurse-patient assignment limits and the provision prohibiting reduced staffing are unrelated and violate the constitutional requirement that initiatives concern only one subject. | Defendant argument: The initiative was designed to establish a system of related regulations and meets the constitutional requirement. |
Source: Boston Herald
Michigan
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Would the ballot measure violate the state's prohibition on initiatives that change the fundamental operation of state government? | |
| Court: Michigan Supreme Court (appealed from the Michigan Court of Appeals) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendants, keeping the measure on the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution | Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State and Michigan Board of Canvassers |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative would change "the fundamental operation of state government," which state law prohibited. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the subject restriction on initiated constitutional amendments. |
Source: Michigan Supreme Court
Missouri
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: St. Louis Public Raido
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether signatures collected from certain congressional districts are invalid | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: Plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit before the scheduled hearing | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft and Lowell Pearson (sponsor of Proposition C) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures collected from Congressional District 5 were determined to be valid but were invalid, making the petition insufficient | Defendant argument: Signatures collected were valid |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; Does Proposition D encompass a single subject or multiple subjects? | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping Proposition D on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Mike Moon and Ron Calzone | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition D violated the state's single-subject rule. | Defendant argument: Proposition D did not violate the state's single-subject rule. |
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Amendment 1 violate the state's single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Cole County Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, removing Amendment 1 from the ballot for violating the single-subject rule. Judge Daniel Green said Amendment 1 addressed two issues, not one—ethics and the state legislature's organization. The Missouri Court of Appeals overturned Judge Green's decision, allowing Amendment 1 to remain on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Paul Ritter | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment 1 violates the state's single-subject rule. | Defendant argument: Amendment 1 addresses policies related to a single issue—ethics. |
Source: The Kansas City Star
Nevada
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2018 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the measure violates the requirements that an initiative contains a single subject and be designed as legislative policy and that a petition describe an initiative's effects | |
| Court: Filed in First Judicial District Court; appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Nevada Supreme Court in favor of defendants that the initiative contains a single subject, but ruled in favor of proponents that the ballot summary was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Haley, Theresa Navarro, Tu Casa Latina | Defendant(s): Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC, Jeremy Hughes, and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske |
| Plaintiff argument: (1) The definition of sanctuary cities violated the single-subject rule. (2) The petitions for the initiative did not describe the initiative's effects on finances and public safety. (3) The initiative was not designed as a legislative law, but rather an executive action. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule and addresses just one subject—immigration law. |
Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court and Las Vegas Journal-Review
North Carolina
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot | |
| Court: Wake County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: North Carolina Supreme Court overturned previous rulings, allowing the voter ID amendment to take effect | |
| Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina | Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment affects African American and Indian American voters negatively, places a cost on voting, and impedes one from exercising the right to vote | |
| Court: Wake County Superior Court and North Carolina Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: 2023 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jabari Holmes, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, Shakoya Carrie Brown, and Paul Kearney, Sr. | Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore |
Sources: Wake County Superior Court
Ohio
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2018 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether or not required documentation for paid signature petition efforts was filed in time | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of paintiffs, invalidating the initiative petition | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohio Renal Association and Ian Weir | Defendant(s): Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection Amendment Committee, Anthony Caldwell, Mary Jo Ivan, Samara Knight, and Secretary of State Jon Husted |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures were invalid because documentation required for paid siganture gathering efforts was not filed prior to circulation. | Defendant argument: The lawsuit was an abuse of the court system, the spirit of the law was followed with regard to the documentation, and it was possible that the petition management company had been operating on a volunteer basis until after the required documentation was submitted. |
Source: Cleveland.org
Oklahoma
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether the initiative concerns two distinct subjects—as prohibited by the constitution—because it was designed to affect both optometrists and opticians | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of initiative proponents, allowing the initiative to be circulated | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahoma Association for Optometric Physicians | Defendant(s): Initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state constitution's requirement that an initiative concern only a single subject because it was designed to affect two professions: the professions of optometrists and opticians. | Defendant argument: While the initiative does affect two professions, both professions relate to eye care and both professions depend on each other. |
Source: News OK
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
Oregon
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Oregon and 2018 ballot measures
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2018 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
South Dakota
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the language complies with South Dakota Code 12-13-25.1 ("... objective, clear, and simple summary to educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed initiative..."). | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit and South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, allowing the attorney general's original ballot title and summary to remain. The plaintiffs appealed to state Supreme Court. In May 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld Jackley's ballot title and summary. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) | Defendant(s): Attorney General Marty Jackley |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary needs to include information about a provision giving petitioners legal standing to defend the measure in court and about potential effects. | Defendant argument: The ballot summary is fair, clear, and simple. |
Source: Capital Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether petition circulators falsely swore their residence address or were not South Dakota residents, and whether circulators made errors in obtaining signatures rendering them in violation of South Dakota law | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the initiative was removed from the ballot on July 16, 2018 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson and South Dakotans Against the Deceptive Ballot RX Issue | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shantel Krebs |
| Plaintiff argument: The circulators of the petition submitted 13,871 invalid signatures, petition circulators were not residents of South Dakota, which is in violation of state law | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Dakota War College
Utah
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Utah and 2018 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signature removal process is constitutional and whether the initiative should be included on the November 2018 ballot | |
| Court: Utah Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, measure not to be placed on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Count My Vote | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox and county clerks of Washington, Utah, and Davis counties |
| Plaintiff argument: The signature removal process is unconstitutional because it favors opponents of initiatives rather than proponents by making it easier to have signatures removed rather than gathering them, the initiative should be on the ballot and was wrongfully blocked when Keep My Voice persuaded enough voters to remove their signature from the petition | Defendant argument: The Count My Vote measure is the only measure that didn't qualify even though other measures faced opposition and signature-removal campaigns, opponents are allowed to circulate signature-removal forms |
Source: Utah Policy
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot measure violates the constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection | |
| Court: Filed in State Court of Utah, Third Judicial District in Salt Lake County; moved to the federal court system | |
| Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah, Walter J. Plumb III of Truth About Prop 2 | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox, Utah Patients Coalition |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot initiative violates constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection and should be removed from the ballot | Defendant argument: The measure is not unconstitutional, Cox has the authority to place the measure on the ballot |
Source: Court filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the lieutenant governor can approve a statewide measure that would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause | |
| Court: United States District Court, District of Utah | |
| Ruling: Plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit[4] | |
| Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution which makes federal law the law of the land, since marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. | Defendant argument: The lieutenant governor is within his authority to certify the initiative for the ballot, the lawsuit should be dismissed because plaintiffs "lack standing because they have not been injured by the mere presence of the Initiative on the ballot. Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe because the voters may reject the Initiative" |
Source: Fox 13 Salt Lake City
Washington
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; whether federal law preempts the paid sick leave requirements for airlines | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, denying the request for a summary judgment by plaintiffs and upholding the application of Initiative 1433 paid sick leave provisions for airlines. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Parcel Service, et al. | Defendant(s): The Washington Department of Labor & Industries |
| Plaintiff argument: Because airline crew members regularly work in multiple states even within the same work shift, the application of state paid sick leave requirements is unreasonable and a violation of the U.S. Constitution's limits on a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce; and that the initiative violates the federal Airline Deregulation Act. | Defendant argument: Unknown; the department and the attorney general had not yet responded to the lawsuit as of February 9, 2018. A flight attendant union representative, however, said that it is reasonable and compatible with the constitution to require compliance with state law while operating within the state and that the lawsuit had no merit. |
Source: Herald and News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether Initiative 1433 was about only one subject—as required | |
| Court: Kittitas County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs, upholding the initiative as compatible with the state's constitutional single-subject rule | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Haberman, National Federation of Independent Business, Northwest Food Processors Association, Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Retail Association et al. | Defendant(s): State of Washington and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in his official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 1433 was about two subjects: the minimum wage and mandatory paid leave. | Defendant argument: Initiative 1433 was about the single subject of labor standards. |
Source: Business Examiner and Seattlepi.com
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2018—by subject—for measures proximate to 2018. It also lists 2018 lawsuits about any measures for elections 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
- 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: Ballot language; whether the language complies with South Dakota Code 12-13-25.1 ("... objective, clear, and simple summary to educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed initiative..."). | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit and South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, allowing the attorney general's original ballot title and summary to remain. The plaintiffs appealed to state Supreme Court. In May 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld Jackley's ballot title and summary. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) | Defendant(s): Attorney General Marty Jackley |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary needs to include information about a provision giving petitioners legal standing to defend the measure in court and about potential effects. | Defendant argument: The ballot summary is fair, clear, and simple. |
Source: Capital Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether petition circulators falsely swore their residence address or were not South Dakota residents, and whether circulators made errors in obtaining signatures rendering them in violation of South Dakota law | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the initiative was removed from the ballot on July 16, 2018 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson and South Dakotans Against the Deceptive Ballot RX Issue | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shantel Krebs |
| Plaintiff argument: The circulators of the petition submitted 13,871 invalid signatures, petition circulators were not residents of South Dakota, which is in violation of state law | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Dakota War College
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is inaccurate and misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Leon County, Florida, moved to Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Judge ruled the amendment be taken off the ballot. Supreme Court reversed lower court's ruling, amendment to appear on ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Florida Greyhound Association and its president, James Blanchard | Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the Florida Department of State |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment's ballot title and summary are inaccurate and misleading and do not inform voters of the true effects of the measure | Defendant argument: The ballot language is not misleading |
Source: Sun Sentinel
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment violates the single subject rule, whether ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing Amendment 8 from the ballot. Appealed to the Supreme Court. On September 7, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling.[1] | |
| Plaintiff(s): Filed by Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Florida League of Women Voters | Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure combines three separate and unrelated measures into one, so voters must either reject or approve all three; the ballot language is misleading and therefore the measure should not be placed on the ballot. | Defendant argument: The ballot language is clear; Florida voters are entitled to vote on the amendment. |
Source: SPLC Center, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment. |
Source: WFPL
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure | |
| Court: Franklin Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system. | Defendant argument: Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years." |
Source: Courier Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did the 100-word petition summary need to include information about Proposition 207's elimination of the law indexing tax brackets to inflation? | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing Proposition 207 from the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jaime Molera and Jennifer Henricks | Defendant(s): Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan |
| Plaintiff argument: The title and summary used on petitions was inaccurate and misleading, invalidating the petition, and other laws governing the initiative process were not followed. | Defendant argument: The initiative petition met all necessary requirements to remain eligible for the ballot and the petition language was accurate. |
Source: Tucson.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading, unclear, and deceptive | |
| Court: Filed in Honolulu circuit court, appealed to Hawaii Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure invalid and votes not to be counted | |
| Plaintiff(s): The city of Honolulu and counties of Kauai, Hawaii, and Maui | Defendant(s): Hawaii state elections officials including Governor David Ige and Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment's ballot language is misleading, unclear, and deceptive. The ballot question and measure text do not clearly define investment real property and do not mention taxes or that the state legislature would have a new taxing power. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Honolulu Civil Beat
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 127 violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 127 did not violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Vince Leach (R-11), Rep. John Kavanagh (R-23), Mesa Mayor John Giles, and five other individuals | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) and local election boards |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners failed to strictly follow state laws by not disclosing the actual financial backer of the initiative on petitions, firing signature gatherers based on quotas, submitting deficient petition sheets, providing a misleading title and summary on petitions | Defendant argument: The petitioners sufficiently complied with state laws and petitions included enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot |
Source: Daily Miner
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is inaccurate and misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County, Florida. Supreme Court hearing scheduled at 4th District Court of Appeals at West Palm Beach courthouse | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, amendment removed from the ballot. State appealed to Supreme Court. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Lee Hollander, a south Florida criminal defense attorney | Defendant(s): Unknown |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment should be removed from the ballot because Florida already has victim protections and rights, the amendment removes rights of criminal defendants, the ballot language is misleading | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Orlando Sentinel
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2018 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2018.
Circulators
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether or not required documentation for paid signature petition efforts was filed in time | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of paintiffs, invalidating the initiative petition | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohio Renal Association and Ian Weir | Defendant(s): Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection Amendment Committee, Anthony Caldwell, Mary Jo Ivan, Samara Knight, and Secretary of State Jon Husted |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures were invalid because documentation required for paid siganture gathering efforts was not filed prior to circulation. | Defendant argument: The lawsuit was an abuse of the court system, the spirit of the law was followed with regard to the documentation, and it was possible that the petition management company had been operating on a volunteer basis until after the required documentation was submitted. |
Source: Cleveland.org
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: St. Louis Public Raido
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 127 violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 127 did not violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Vince Leach (R-11), Rep. John Kavanagh (R-23), Mesa Mayor John Giles, and five other individuals | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) and local election boards |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners failed to strictly follow state laws by not disclosing the actual financial backer of the initiative on petitions, firing signature gatherers based on quotas, submitting deficient petition sheets, providing a misleading title and summary on petitions | Defendant argument: The petitioners sufficiently complied with state laws and petitions included enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot |
Source: Daily Miner
Legislative alteration
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2018 regarding legislative alteration that took place in 2018.
Post-certification removal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: St. Louis Public Raido
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether signatures collected from certain congressional districts are invalid | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: Plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit before the scheduled hearing | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft and Lowell Pearson (sponsor of Proposition C) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures collected from Congressional District 5 were determined to be valid but were invalid, making the petition insufficient | Defendant argument: Signatures collected were valid |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment. |
Source: WFPL
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure | |
| Court: Franklin Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system. | Defendant argument: Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years." |
Source: Courier Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 127 violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 127 did not violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Vince Leach (R-11), Rep. John Kavanagh (R-23), Mesa Mayor John Giles, and five other individuals | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) and local election boards |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners failed to strictly follow state laws by not disclosing the actual financial backer of the initiative on petitions, firing signature gatherers based on quotas, submitting deficient petition sheets, providing a misleading title and summary on petitions | Defendant argument: The petitioners sufficiently complied with state laws and petitions included enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot |
Source: Daily Miner
Post-election
| 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 District Court for the Southern District of California | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause. (Appealed) | |
| 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 Xavier Becerra |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; whether federal law preempts the paid sick leave requirements for airlines | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, denying the request for a summary judgment by plaintiffs and upholding the application of Initiative 1433 paid sick leave provisions for airlines. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Parcel Service, et al. | Defendant(s): The Washington Department of Labor & Industries |
| Plaintiff argument: Because airline crew members regularly work in multiple states even within the same work shift, the application of state paid sick leave requirements is unreasonable and a violation of the U.S. Constitution's limits on a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce; and that the initiative violates the federal Airline Deregulation Act. | Defendant argument: Unknown; the department and the attorney general had not yet responded to the lawsuit as of February 9, 2018. A flight attendant union representative, however, said that it is reasonable and compatible with the constitution to require compliance with state law while operating within the state and that the lawsuit had no merit. |
Source: Herald and News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether Initiative 1433 was about only one subject—as required | |
| Court: Kittitas County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs, upholding the initiative as compatible with the state's constitutional single-subject rule | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Haberman, National Federation of Independent Business, Northwest Food Processors Association, Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Retail Association et al. | Defendant(s): State of Washington and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in his official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 1433 was about two subjects: the minimum wage and mandatory paid leave. | Defendant argument: Initiative 1433 was about the single subject of labor standards. |
Source: Business Examiner and Seattlepi.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; whether or not state law can preempt local laws governing marijuana because of the conflict between state legalized marijuana and federal law (Note: This lawsuit also affects Oregon's medical marijuana initiative, Measure 67 (1998) and other state laws.) | |
| Court: U.S. District Court of Oregon | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2014 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Dismissed; the county, as a subdivision of the state, does not have standing to sue over a state law. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Josephine County | Defendant(s): State of Oregon and Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum |
| Plaintiff argument: State law should not preempt Josephine County from regulating and restricting marijuana cultivation, sales, and use because marijuana is illegal according to federal law. | Defendant argument: An official response from the defendants was not available as of April 10, 2018. |
Source: Josephine County v. State of Oregon
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Implementation—whether the Maine Department of Health & Human Services is required to submit a plan for Medicaid expansion | |
| Court: Kennebec County Superior Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, requiring the state to file a plan to expand Medicaid | |
| Plaintiff(s): Maine Equal Justice Partners, Consumers for Affordable Health Care, Maine Primary Care Association, Cassie Steimlosk, Donna Wall, Charles McDaniel, Ann Avery, Gina Zamello, and Penobscot Community Health Care | Defendant(s): Ricker Hamilton, Commissioner of Maine Department of Health & Human Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The Maine Department of Health & Human Services is required, per Question 2, to submit a plan for Medicaid expansion | Defendant argument: Courts cannot require expenditures, as that would violate the separation of powers between courts and the legislature. |
Source: Kennebec County Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin destroy the intent of the initiative, whether board members and the governor held a secret meeting which violates the Open Meetings Act | |
| Court: Filed in the district court in and for Oklahoma County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Green the Vote | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin, The Oklahoma Department of Health, and board members of the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: Governor Fallin and five board members named as defendants held a secret meeting before voting to ban smokable marijuana products at dispensaries and require licensed pharmacists to be on-site at dispensaries, which "destroy the intent [of State Question 788]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Green the Vote Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules | |
| Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al. | Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health |
| Plaintiff argument: The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted. | Defendant argument: Unknown as of July 16, 2018 |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters | Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana. | Defendant argument: The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original. |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment applies retroactively | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County circuit court; appealed to First District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; case dismissed; appeal failed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Volusia County, Florida | Defendant(s): Governor Rick Scott (R) and Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment is misleading because it failed to make clear whether or not it applies retroactively or only prospectively. The amendment should be interpreted to only apply going forward. Volusia County should not have to restructure its government and restore constitutional offices that it had abolished. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Orlando Sentinel
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County Circuit Court, rejected by circuit judge James Shelfer, appealed by plaintiffs and forwarded to Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and ordered the amendment to appear on the 2018 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): The counties of Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Broward | Defendant(s): State officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is misleading, the amendment combines more than a single subject, it would interfere with the counties' rights of self-government and control of local government structure | Defendant argument: The amendment should appear on the ballot |
Source: Miami Herald
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot | |
| Court: Wake County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: North Carolina Supreme Court overturned previous rulings, allowing the voter ID amendment to take effect | |
| Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina | Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment affects African American and Indian American voters negatively, places a cost on voting, and impedes one from exercising the right to vote | |
| Court: Wake County Superior Court and North Carolina Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: 2023 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jabari Holmes, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, Shakoya Carrie Brown, and Paul Kearney, Sr. | Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore |
Sources: Wake County Superior Court
Preemption
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2018 regarding preemption that took place in 2018.
Signature validity
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the language complies with South Dakota Code 12-13-25.1 ("... objective, clear, and simple summary to educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed initiative..."). | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit and South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, allowing the attorney general's original ballot title and summary to remain. The plaintiffs appealed to state Supreme Court. In May 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld Jackley's ballot title and summary. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) | Defendant(s): Attorney General Marty Jackley |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary needs to include information about a provision giving petitioners legal standing to defend the measure in court and about potential effects. | Defendant argument: The ballot summary is fair, clear, and simple. |
Source: Capital Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether petition circulators falsely swore their residence address or were not South Dakota residents, and whether circulators made errors in obtaining signatures rendering them in violation of South Dakota law | |
| Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the initiative was removed from the ballot on July 16, 2018 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson and South Dakotans Against the Deceptive Ballot RX Issue | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shantel Krebs |
| Plaintiff argument: The circulators of the petition submitted 13,871 invalid signatures, petition circulators were not residents of South Dakota, which is in violation of state law | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Dakota War College
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signature removal process is constitutional and whether the initiative should be included on the November 2018 ballot | |
| Court: Utah Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, measure not to be placed on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Count My Vote | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox and county clerks of Washington, Utah, and Davis counties |
| Plaintiff argument: The signature removal process is unconstitutional because it favors opponents of initiatives rather than proponents by making it easier to have signatures removed rather than gathering them, the initiative should be on the ballot and was wrongfully blocked when Keep My Voice persuaded enough voters to remove their signature from the petition | Defendant argument: The Count My Vote measure is the only measure that didn't qualify even though other measures faced opposition and signature-removal campaigns, opponents are allowed to circulate signature-removal forms |
Source: Utah Policy
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether or not required documentation for paid signature petition efforts was filed in time | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of paintiffs, invalidating the initiative petition | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohio Renal Association and Ian Weir | Defendant(s): Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection Amendment Committee, Anthony Caldwell, Mary Jo Ivan, Samara Knight, and Secretary of State Jon Husted |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures were invalid because documentation required for paid siganture gathering efforts was not filed prior to circulation. | Defendant argument: The lawsuit was an abuse of the court system, the spirit of the law was followed with regard to the documentation, and it was possible that the petition management company had been operating on a volunteer basis until after the required documentation was submitted. |
Source: Cleveland.org
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: St. Louis Public Raido
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether signatures collected from certain congressional districts are invalid | |
| Court: Cole County Court | |
| Ruling: Plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit before the scheduled hearing | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft and Lowell Pearson (sponsor of Proposition C) |
| Plaintiff argument: Signatures collected from Congressional District 5 were determined to be valid but were invalid, making the petition insufficient | Defendant argument: Signatures collected were valid |
Source: The Joplin Globe
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 127 violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Proposition 127 did not violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Vince Leach (R-11), Rep. John Kavanagh (R-23), Mesa Mayor John Giles, and five other individuals | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) and local election boards |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners failed to strictly follow state laws by not disclosing the actual financial backer of the initiative on petitions, firing signature gatherers based on quotas, submitting deficient petition sheets, providing a misleading title and summary on petitions | Defendant argument: The petitioners sufficiently complied with state laws and petitions included enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot |
Source: Daily Miner
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signatures are valid, whether signature gatherers properly acquired signatures | |
| Court: Filed in Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating the measure and ordering election official to not count votes on Issue 3 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Head of Arkansans for Common-Sense Term Limits and Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce President Randy Zook | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin |
| Plaintiff argument: Signature gatherers did not have proper background checks and paperwork, signature gatherers did not have proper signature sheets showing the text of Issue 3, signatures are invalid, and the measure should be removed from the ballot | Defendant argument: The signatures are valid and the measure should remain on the ballot |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signatures are valid, whether signature gatherers for the initiative were properly registered as paid canvassers | |
| Court: Filed in Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Lawsuit rejected, measure to remain on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for a Strong Economy | Defendant(s): Initiative proponents, state officials |
| Plaintiff argument: Signature gatherers were not properly registered as paid canvassers with the Arkansas Secretary of State's office, signatures are invalid, and the measure should be removed from the ballot | Defendant argument: The signatures are valid and the measure should remain on the ballot |
Source: Associated Press
Signature deadlines
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2018 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2018.
Single subject
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; whether federal law preempts the paid sick leave requirements for airlines | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, denying the request for a summary judgment by plaintiffs and upholding the application of Initiative 1433 paid sick leave provisions for airlines. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Parcel Service, et al. | Defendant(s): The Washington Department of Labor & Industries |
| Plaintiff argument: Because airline crew members regularly work in multiple states even within the same work shift, the application of state paid sick leave requirements is unreasonable and a violation of the U.S. Constitution's limits on a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce; and that the initiative violates the federal Airline Deregulation Act. | Defendant argument: Unknown; the department and the attorney general had not yet responded to the lawsuit as of February 9, 2018. A flight attendant union representative, however, said that it is reasonable and compatible with the constitution to require compliance with state law while operating within the state and that the lawsuit had no merit. |
Source: Herald and News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether Initiative 1433 was about only one subject—as required | |
| Court: Kittitas County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs, upholding the initiative as compatible with the state's constitutional single-subject rule | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Haberman, National Federation of Independent Business, Northwest Food Processors Association, Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Retail Association et al. | Defendant(s): State of Washington and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in his official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 1433 was about two subjects: the minimum wage and mandatory paid leave. | Defendant argument: Initiative 1433 was about the single subject of labor standards. |
Source: Business Examiner and Seattlepi.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether the initiative violates Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution on three counts: (1) whether the initiative's subjects are related; (2) whether the initiative makes specific appropriations; and (3) whether the initiative takes control of the legislature's power to generate revenue. | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure removed and blocked from November 2018 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christopher Anderson, Christopher Carlozzi, Richard Lord, Eileen Mcanneny, and Daniel O’Connell | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of State Bill Galvin |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative should not appear on the ballot in 2018. The initiative contains unrelated subjects, makes specific appropriations, and takes control of the legislature's ability to generate revenue. | Defendant argument: The initiative was correctly certified for the ballot because provisions are mutually dependent and related. |
Source: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether the initiative concerns two distinct subjects—as prohibited by the constitution—because it was designed to affect both optometrists and opticians | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of initiative proponents, allowing the initiative to be circulated | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oklahoma Association for Optometric Physicians | Defendant(s): Initiative proponents |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state constitution's requirement that an initiative concern only a single subject because it was designed to affect two professions: the professions of optometrists and opticians. | Defendant argument: While the initiative does affect two professions, both professions relate to eye care and both professions depend on each other. |
Source: News OK
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single-subject rule; whether the provision requiring certain patient assignment limits and the provision prohibiting reduced staffing are unrelated. | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, the initiative may appear on November ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Four Massachusetts voters backed by the Steward Health Care System LLC | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative's provision concerning nurse-patient assignment limits and the provision prohibiting reduced staffing are unrelated and violate the constitutional requirement that initiatives concern only one subject. | Defendant argument: The initiative was designed to establish a system of related regulations and meets the constitutional requirement. |
Source: Boston Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment applies retroactively | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County circuit court; appealed to First District Court of Appeal | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; case dismissed; appeal failed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Volusia County, Florida | Defendant(s): Governor Rick Scott (R) and Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment is misleading because it failed to make clear whether or not it applies retroactively or only prospectively. The amendment should be interpreted to only apply going forward. Volusia County should not have to restructure its government and restore constitutional offices that it had abolished. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Orlando Sentinel
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Filed in Leon County Circuit Court, rejected by circuit judge James Shelfer, appealed by plaintiffs and forwarded to Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and ordered the amendment to appear on the 2018 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): The counties of Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Broward | Defendant(s): State officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is misleading, the amendment combines more than a single subject, it would interfere with the counties' rights of self-government and control of local government structure | Defendant argument: The amendment should appear on the ballot |
Source: Miami Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; Does Proposition D encompass a single subject or multiple subjects? | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping Proposition D on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Mike Moon and Ron Calzone | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition D violated the state's single-subject rule. | Defendant argument: Proposition D did not violate the state's single-subject rule. |
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments | |
| Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2] | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas | Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading. | Defendant argument: Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot. |
Source: Florida Supreme Court filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments | |
| Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2] | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas | Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading. | Defendant argument: Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot. |
Source: Florida Supreme Court filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Amendment 1 violate the state's single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Cole County Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, removing Amendment 1 from the ballot for violating the single-subject rule. Judge Daniel Green said Amendment 1 addressed two issues, not one—ethics and the state legislature's organization. The Missouri Court of Appeals overturned Judge Green's decision, allowing Amendment 1 to remain on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Paul Ritter | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment 1 violates the state's single-subject rule. | Defendant argument: Amendment 1 addresses policies related to a single issue—ethics. |
Source: The Kansas City Star
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; Did Proposition 306 violate the constitution's single-subject requirement? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, saying that the single-subject requirement applied to constitutional amendments, but not statutory measures, and keeping Proposition 306 on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 306 violated the state's single-subject requirement for ballot measures. Proposition 306 addressed two subjects—how candidates can spend funds and the rulemaking powers of the commission. | Defendant argument: The single-subject requirement applied to legislative acts, which did not include statutes sent to voters, such as Proposition 306. |
Source: Tucson.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative is unconstitutional since it combines separate constitutional amendments into one ballot measure, whether the initiative violates provisions regarding separation of powers in the Arkansas Constitution | |
| Court: Filed in Circuit Court of Pulaski County, appealed to Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the judge ordered the secretary of state not to count any votes cast for the measure. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. On October 18, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling to not count any votes on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Judge Marion Humphrey | Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure is actually four different constitutional amendments disguised as one, which violates the single-subject rule. It violates the separation of powers of the legislative and judicial branches of government. | Defendant argument: The measure is constitutional and should go on the ballot. |
Source: Court Filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether initiative violated single-subject rule and reenactment requirement | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Santa Clara County, San Francisco, Miguel Márquez, Miller Ravel, and Jeffrey V. Smith | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Joseph Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters of Contra Costa County |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot initiative encompasses more than one subject and violates the requirement that statute be directly amended. | Defendant argument: As of June 26, 2018, Ballotpedia did not find a response from the defendants. |
Source: California Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments | |
| Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2] | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas | Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner |
| Plaintiff argument: Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading. | Defendant argument: Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot. |
Source: Florida Supreme Court filings
Subject restriction
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the measure violates the requirements that an initiative contains a single subject and be designed as legislative policy and that a petition describe an initiative's effects | |
| Court: Filed in First Judicial District Court; appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Nevada Supreme Court in favor of defendants that the initiative contains a single subject, but ruled in favor of proponents that the ballot summary was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Haley, Theresa Navarro, Tu Casa Latina | Defendant(s): Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC, Jeremy Hughes, and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske |
| Plaintiff argument: (1) The definition of sanctuary cities violated the single-subject rule. (2) The petitions for the initiative did not describe the initiative's effects on finances and public safety. (3) The initiative was not designed as a legislative law, but rather an executive action. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule and addresses just one subject—immigration law. |
Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court and Las Vegas Journal-Review
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative makes an appropriation of a state asset as prohibited by Section 7 of Article XI of the Alaska Constitution | |
| Court: Filed in Alaska Third District Court; appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; appealed to the supreme court. The Supreme Court ruled that some language in the measure needed to be removed, but the remainder of the measure could appear on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Stand for Salmon | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott and the State of Alaska |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative updates permit regulations and does not eliminate the possibility of development or make an appropriation; rather it simply ensures that development is done in a way that doesn't damage fish habitats. Moreover, the initiative was written to apply equally to all projects and permit applicants. | Defendant argument: The initiative violates the state constitution's prohibition against initiatives that "dedicate revenues, [or] make or repeal appropriations" by preventing the state from allowing development of any waterways and, thereby, appropriating the state assets of fish and fish habitats. |
Source: Alaska Department of Law Press Release
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Would the ballot measure violate the state's prohibition on initiatives that change the fundamental operation of state government? | |
| Court: Michigan Supreme Court (appealed from the Michigan Court of Appeals) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendants, keeping the measure on the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018 | |
| Plaintiff(s): Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution | Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State and Michigan Board of Canvassers |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative would change "the fundamental operation of state government," which state law prohibited. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the subject restriction on initiated constitutional amendments. |
Source: Michigan Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot measure violates the constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection | |
| Court: Filed in State Court of Utah, Third Judicial District in Salt Lake County; moved to the federal court system | |
| Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah, Walter J. Plumb III of Truth About Prop 2 | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox, Utah Patients Coalition |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot initiative violates constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection and should be removed from the ballot | Defendant argument: The measure is not unconstitutional, Cox has the authority to place the measure on the ballot |
Source: Court filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the lieutenant governor can approve a statewide measure that would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause | |
| Court: United States District Court, District of Utah | |
| Ruling: Plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit[4] | |
| Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution which makes federal law the law of the land, since marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. | Defendant argument: The lieutenant governor is within his authority to certify the initiative for the ballot, the lawsuit should be dismissed because plaintiffs "lack standing because they have not been injured by the mere presence of the Initiative on the ballot. Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe because the voters may reject the Initiative" |
Source: Fox 13 Salt Lake City
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 9 violate the California State Constitution's prohibition on ballot initiatives making major change to the state's constitutional framework? | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Removed from the ballot pending a formal ruling; Draper dropped his defense of the ballot measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Planning and Conservation League | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Tim Draper |
| Plaintiff argument: The Planning and Conservation League stated that Proposition 9 would make "sweeping changes in [the] state’s basic constitutional framework," which is a misuse of the ballot initiative process in California. | Defendant argument: Tim Draper said Proposition 9 would not be a constitutional revision, but rather a nullification of the California Constitution. |
Source: The Mercury News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Required number of signatures for the ballot initiative | |
| Court: Sacramento County Superior Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Gov. Jerry Brown | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Nina Salarno Besselman |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot initiative should have been considered a constitutional amendment, and thus should have required 585,407 signatures, rather than 365,880 signatures, to make the ballot. | Defendant argument: The ballot initiative met the signature requirements as required by the secretary of state. |
Source: Associated Press
Substantive constitutionality
| 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 District Court for the Southern District of California | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause. (Appealed) | |
| 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 Xavier Becerra |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the measure violates the requirements that an initiative contains a single subject and be designed as legislative policy and that a petition describe an initiative's effects | |
| Court: Filed in First Judicial District Court; appealed to Nevada Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Nevada Supreme Court in favor of defendants that the initiative contains a single subject, but ruled in favor of proponents that the ballot summary was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Michael Haley, Theresa Navarro, Tu Casa Latina | Defendant(s): Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC, Jeremy Hughes, and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske |
| Plaintiff argument: (1) The definition of sanctuary cities violated the single-subject rule. (2) The petitions for the initiative did not describe the initiative's effects on finances and public safety. (3) The initiative was not designed as a legislative law, but rather an executive action. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule and addresses just one subject—immigration law. |
Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court and Las Vegas Journal-Review
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; whether federal law preempts the paid sick leave requirements for airlines | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, denying the request for a summary judgment by plaintiffs and upholding the application of Initiative 1433 paid sick leave provisions for airlines. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Parcel Service, et al. | Defendant(s): The Washington Department of Labor & Industries |
| Plaintiff argument: Because airline crew members regularly work in multiple states even within the same work shift, the application of state paid sick leave requirements is unreasonable and a violation of the U.S. Constitution's limits on a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce; and that the initiative violates the federal Airline Deregulation Act. | Defendant argument: Unknown; the department and the attorney general had not yet responded to the lawsuit as of February 9, 2018. A flight attendant union representative, however, said that it is reasonable and compatible with the constitution to require compliance with state law while operating within the state and that the lawsuit had no merit. |
Source: Herald and News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether Initiative 1433 was about only one subject—as required | |
| Court: Kittitas County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs, upholding the initiative as compatible with the state's constitutional single-subject rule | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Haberman, National Federation of Independent Business, Northwest Food Processors Association, Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Retail Association et al. | Defendant(s): State of Washington and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in his official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 1433 was about two subjects: the minimum wage and mandatory paid leave. | Defendant argument: Initiative 1433 was about the single subject of labor standards. |
Source: Business Examiner and Seattlepi.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 9 violate the California State Constitution's prohibition on ballot initiatives making major change to the state's constitutional framework? | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Removed from the ballot pending a formal ruling; Draper dropped his defense of the ballot measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Planning and Conservation League | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Tim Draper |
| Plaintiff argument: The Planning and Conservation League stated that Proposition 9 would make "sweeping changes in [the] state’s basic constitutional framework," which is a misuse of the ballot initiative process in California. | Defendant argument: Tim Draper said Proposition 9 would not be a constitutional revision, but rather a nullification of the California Constitution. |
Source: The Mercury News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate | |
| Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance. | Defendant argument: The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment. |
Source: WFPL
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure | |
| Court: Franklin Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system. | Defendant argument: Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years." |
Source: Courier Journal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot measure violates the constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection | |
| Court: Filed in State Court of Utah, Third Judicial District in Salt Lake County; moved to the federal court system | |
| Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah, Walter J. Plumb III of Truth About Prop 2 | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox, Utah Patients Coalition |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot initiative violates constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection and should be removed from the ballot | Defendant argument: The measure is not unconstitutional, Cox has the authority to place the measure on the ballot |
Source: Court filings
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the lieutenant governor can approve a statewide measure that would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause | |
| Court: United States District Court, District of Utah | |
| Ruling: Plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit[4] | |
| Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah | Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution which makes federal law the law of the land, since marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. | Defendant argument: The lieutenant governor is within his authority to certify the initiative for the ballot, the lawsuit should be dismissed because plaintiffs "lack standing because they have not been injured by the mere presence of the Initiative on the ballot. Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe because the voters may reject the Initiative" |
Source: Fox 13 Salt Lake City
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri | |
| Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania | Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services |
| Plaintiff argument: The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: St. Louis Public Raido
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals | |
| Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw | Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri |
| Plaintiff argument: Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process. | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded. |
Source: The Joplin Globe
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2018 regarding voter guides that took place in 2018.
Past measures
Note: This section shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2018 against past ballot measures.
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; whether federal law preempts the paid sick leave requirements for airlines | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Washington | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2016 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, denying the request for a summary judgment by plaintiffs and upholding the application of Initiative 1433 paid sick leave provisions for airlines. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaska Airlines, United Airlines, Southwest Airlines, United Parcel Service, et al. | Defendant(s): The Washington Department of Labor & Industries |
| Plaintiff argument: Because airline crew members regularly work in multiple states even within the same work shift, the application of state paid sick leave requirements is unreasonable and a violation of the U.S. Constitution's limits on a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce; and that the initiative violates the federal Airline Deregulation Act. | Defendant argument: Unknown; the department and the attorney general had not yet responded to the lawsuit as of February 9, 2018. A flight attendant union representative, however, said that it is reasonable and compatible with the constitution to require compliance with state law while operating within the state and that the lawsuit had no merit. |
Source: Herald and News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Single subject; whether Initiative 1433 was about only one subject—as required | |
| Court: Kittitas County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs, upholding the initiative as compatible with the state's constitutional single-subject rule | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brad Haberman, National Federation of Independent Business, Northwest Food Processors Association, Washington Farm Bureau, Washington Food Industry Association, Washington Retail Association et al. | Defendant(s): State of Washington and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson in his official capacity |
| Plaintiff argument: Initiative 1433 was about two subjects: the minimum wage and mandatory paid leave. | Defendant argument: Initiative 1433 was about the single subject of labor standards. |
Source: Business Examiner and Seattlepi.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Preemption; whether or not state law can preempt local laws governing marijuana because of the conflict between state legalized marijuana and federal law (Note: This lawsuit also affects Oregon's medical marijuana initiative, Measure 67 (1998) and other state laws.) | |
| Court: U.S. District Court of Oregon | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2014 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Dismissed; the county, as a subdivision of the state, does not have standing to sue over a state law. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Josephine County | Defendant(s): State of Oregon and Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum |
| Plaintiff argument: State law should not preempt Josephine County from regulating and restricting marijuana cultivation, sales, and use because marijuana is illegal according to federal law. | Defendant argument: An official response from the defendants was not available as of April 10, 2018. |
Source: Josephine County v. State of Oregon
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 2018 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 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
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedstruck - ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Florida Supreme Court, "Online docket search for case number 1513," accessed October 3, 2018
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 KOSU, "Two Groups Sue Oklahoma Over Last-Minute Marijuana Regulations," accessed July 16, 2017
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedkuer
