Ballot Title Litigation

Contents 1 2012 1.1 Missouri 2 2010 2.1 Alaska 2.2 Arizona 2.3 Arkansas 2.4 California 2.5 Florida 2.6 Missouri 2.7 South Dakota 2.8 Washington 3 2008 3.1 Arkansas 3.2 Arizona 3.3 California 3.4 Colorado 3.5 Florida 3.6 Illinois 3.7 Maryland 3.8 Missouri 3.9 Nebraska 3.10 Nevada 3.11 North Dakota 3.12 Ohio 3.13 Washington 4 See also 5 Footnotes

Ballot law State laws Initiative law Recall law Changes to law Court cases Ballot measure lawsuits Local ballot measure laws

Ballot title challenges and litigation occur when the supporters or opponents of a proposed ballot measure believe that the way the measure will be described to voters on ballots when they're in the voting booth is an unfair or inaccurate representation of what will happen if the initiative passes.

2012[edit]

Missouri[edit]

Missouri Income Tax Replacement Initiative (2012)

• In early March 2011 a lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed measure's ballot summary and fiscal note. The suit was brought by a group called Missourians for Fair Taxation, opponents of the proposed measure. Attorneys Khristine Heisinger and Chuck Hatfield filed the challenge.^[1]
  • Specifically, the lawsuit called into question the ballot summary drafted by Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. The group called the summary, "insufficient, unfair and likely to deceive and mislead voters." The group specifically pointed to the fact that the text stated that the measure would impose an expanded sales tax. They said that was not the case. The measure would have, instead, mandated that the legislature impose one but they argued that the text did not specifically state what would have happened if the legislature refused. Additionally, the lawsuit argued that State Auditor Tom Schweich failed to differentiate between the nine filed initiatives and could have estimated the fiscal impacts based on information provided by state agencies, supporters and opponents.^[1]

• The initiative did not qualify for the ballot.

Missouri Municipal Police Amendment (2012)

• On March 24, 2011, officers of the St. Louis Police Officers' Association filed a lawsuit in Cole County against the proposed measure. The challenge specifically questioned the measure's summary and financial estimate.^[2] The suit argued that the summary was unfair and misleading. The cost summary, prepared by Auditor Thomas Schweich, they argued was based "solely" on information provided by Mayor Francis Slay, a proponent of the proposed changes. The filed lawsuit added that the fiscal statement didn't include expenses like increased legal fees.^[3]

2010[edit]

Alaska[edit]

Alaska Parental Notification Initiative (2010)

• A lawsuit was filed by Jeff Feldman, an attorney for Planned Parenthood of Alaska, who were in opposition to the Parental Notification Initiative. Feldman stated that the lieutenant governor should not have approved the initiative, arguing the measure misled voters and was unlawful. The case was heard by the Alaska Supreme Court on February 24, 2010. The case was appealed after a ruling stating that the measure could stay on the ballot, but language had to be re-written. Arguments were scheduled to be heard on May 20, 2010.^[4][5][6]

Arizona[edit]

Arizona Medical Marijuana Question, 2010

• According to reports, there was discussion of a possible legal action in separate cases if the medical marijuana initiative was sent to the ballot and enacted by voters. The aspect of the initiative that was under concern was the provision that states that employers cannot hire, fire and discipline residents who are considered holders of medical marijuana cards. According to Arizona attorney Don Johnsen, then-current state law did not mandate that employers and companies accommodate medical marijuana patients that were employees, or potential employees of the company. According to Johnsen, "This ballot initiative obviously would reverse that." However, challenges to this provision were possible if the measure had passed. Johnsen later stated, "One doctor may say, 'Yeah, based on these facts, in my professional opinion this person was impaired or under the influence.' In another case, a doctor might reach a different conclusion."^[7]

Arizona First Things First Program Repeal, Proposition 302 (2010)

• An initial hearing was set for July 12, 2010, to review the description of First Things First Repeal Measure. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbillig was set to review the validity of the description, which opponents stated would persuade voters to vote for the measure during the November elections. The suit, filed on behalf of the Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board, claims that Proposition 302's description misleads voters and hides important facts to consider. On July 12, 2010, Oberbillig ordered a hearing of each side's arguments on July 26, 2010.^[8]

Arkansas[edit]

Arkansas Legislative Tax Abolishment, 2010

• Brandon Woodrome, director for the group backing the flat tax initiative, Arkansas Progressive Group, filed a legal sufficiency challenge on the ballot language with the Arkansas Supreme Court in order to see if the measure's wording was in compliance with state and federal constitutions. The group was technically taking their own ballot language to court, in order to cover every base. According to Woodrome, the group did not want to spend their money, time and effort on the initiative only to have it taken off the ballot by legal action in the weeks leading up to the November election. On May 20, 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that sponsors of the initiative could not file a challenge to their own measure, dismissing the challenge from court.^[5]

California[edit]

California Proposition 17 (June 2010)

• The "Yes on Proposition 17" campaign filed a lawsuit against the "No on 17" campaign to "force Proposition 17 opponents to make changes to their ballot arguments and ballot rebuttals and correct the patently false and misleading statements contained therein."^[9] The "Yes on 17" campaign wanted the court to order a re-write of the opposition's ballot arguments before March 15, which is the statutory deadline for resolving all ballot language issues before the Official Voter's Guide goes to press.^[9]

• The "No on Proposition 17" advocate Harvey Rosenfield filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court, urging the court to remove from the official voter's guide what he characterized in the lawsuit as false and misleading statements made by the "Yes on 17" side.^[10]

California Proposition 25, Simple Majority Vote to Enact State Budget Amendment (2010)

• Allan Zaremberg of the California Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit contesting the ballot title that was written for Proposition 25 by the Office of the Attorney General of California. Zaremberg said, ""We've said for weeks that Prop. 25 is riddled with flaws, chief among them the ability of the Legislature to pass majority vote tax increases, and the title and summary perpetrated that deception."^[11] On August 5, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette ruled that the phrase in the ballot title, "retains the two-thirds vote requirement on taxes" might mislead voters into thinking that they had to vote for Prop. 25 in order to keep the state's supermajority requirement on tax increases intact and ordered that it be changed.^[12] Proposition 25 supporters appealed Judge Marlette's ruling to California's Third District Court of Appeals. There, Judge Marlette's ruling was overturned.^[13]

California Proposition 23, Suspension of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Law Initiative (2010)

• The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court on July 29 asserting that the ballot title prepared by the Office of the Attorney General of California for Proposition 23 was "false, misleading and unfair" and should therefore be changed.^[14] Arguments filed in court said the title and summary should not refer to "air pollution control laws" because Proposition 23 does not apply to multiple laws and should not refer to "major polluters" because power plants and refineries are not the only businesses affected by the law, since emissions from universities, agricultural facilities, municipal buildings, and other private companies and citizens are also affected.^[15] On Tuesday, August 3, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley issued a ruling that took the side of the plaintiffs and ordered that the state government change the ballot title and summary.^[16]

Florida[edit]

Florida Redistricting, Amendment 7 (2010)

• On May 21, 2010 proponents of Amendment 5 and 6, citizen initiatives, filed a lawsuit to removed Amendment 7 from the statewide ballot. The suit was filed in state Circuit Court in Tallahassee by Florida State Conference of the NAACP (dead link), the League of Women Voters, Democracia Ahora as well as former Republican comptroller Bob Milligan. Citizen initiative supporters argue that the legislatively referred amendment is a "poison pill" specifically designed to divert Amendments 5 and 6. They argue that the ballot title and summary are misleading and is hiding the measure's "true purpose."^[17] In a statement Rep. Dean Cannon said Amendment 7 means exactly what is said and that the lawsuit is trying to argue "that the intent matters more than the plain meaning of the words."^[18] On August 31 the state's high court upheld previous lower court decisions to throw out the proposed measure. The court ruled that the measure was also misleading because it did not highlight to voters the effect on the state's district requirements and because it would undermine the state's current requirement that districts be "contiguous."^[19][19]

Florida Legislative District Boundaries, Amendment 5 and Florida Congressional District Boundaries, Amendment 6

• On May 24, 2010 U.S. Reps. Corrine Brown and Mario Diaz-Balart filed a lawsuit against Amendment 6 in Leon County Circuit Court. Balart said,"Amendment 6 is riddled with inconsistencies and, if passed, would set unworkable standards in drawing districts." Both U.S. Representatives had previously testified against Amendment 6. Ellen Freidin, FairDistricts chairwoman - sponsors of Amendment 5 and 6, said the lawsuit by the congressional members was aimed at "playing games." Amendment 5, also a proposed redistricting measure, is not directly cited in the lawsuit. Freidin added,"They clearly haven’t read the language of our amendments. We specifically have addressed their concerns."^[20] But both Brown and Diaz-Balart argue that Amendment 6 is not only misleading but would dilute minority voting powers in the state.^[21] In late August 2010 the high court dismissed challenges to two both citizen proposed redistricting initiatives - Amendment 5 and Amendment 6.^[22]

Florida Class Size, Amendment 8 (2010)

• Amendment 8 appeaerd on the November 2, 2010 general election ballot. On September 10, 2010 Leon County Circuit Court Chief Judge Charles Francis upheld the measure after citing that the measure was neither misleading or ambiguous.^[23] In the 10-page opinion Francis said, "When read together, the ballot title and summary clearly and unambiguously advise the voter that the Legislature is still obligated to provide the funding required to meet the class size approved by the voter."^[24] An appeal was filed but after being heard by the Florida Supreme Court the measure was upheld and remained on the 2010 ballot.^[25]

Florida Healthcare Freedom, Amendment 9 (2010)

• Mona Mangat et al. v. Florida Department of State (Florida Second Judicial Circuit Court) - In early July 2010, four Florida voters filed a lawsuit against the Florida Department of State. Plaintiffs Louisa McQueeney, Gracie Fowler, Diana Demerest and Mona Mangat said the current ballot title and summary mislead the public of the measure's true intent. All four plaintiffs are asking the court to consider the wording invalid.^[26] Attorney General Bill McCollum has agreed to defend the proposed measure. McCollum has also filed a lawsuit challenging the federal health care law. "Attorney General McCollum is upholding a right that Floridians and people across the nation continue to demand in the face of big-government mandates," said Rep. Scott Plakon.^[27] On August 31 the state's high court upheld previous lower court decisions to throw out Amendment 9. "The ballot language put forth … contains misleading and ambiguous language. Currently our only recourse is to strike the proposed constitutional amendment from the ballot," said the justices.^[28]

Florida Property Tax Limit, Amendment 3 (2010)

• The Florida AFL-CIO and Jacksonville resident Brian K. Doyle filed a lawsuit challenging proposed Amendment 3. Both argue that the title and summary of the amendment are flawed. Specifically they said that the text does not mention the purchase date. The proposal would give people who haven't owned a home for at least 8 years an addition, temporary homestead exemption. The exemption would only apply to residences purchases on or after January 1, 2010. Additionally, plaintiffs argue that the title and the summary conflict because the title states that the exemption applies to "new homestead owners," while the summary states that it applies to "a first-time homestead." The provision, however, allows for previous homeowners to qualify.^[29] Less than a day following the July 22 court hearings, Circuit Judge John Cooper ruled that Amendment 3 should be removed from the ballot. In early August, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments on August 18.^[30] On August 31 the state's high court upheld previous lower court decisions to throw out the proposed measure. Specifically, the high court ruled that the proposed Amendment 3 was misleading because the ballot language did not clarify to voters that the tax break applied only to property bought after January 1, 2010.^[19][31]

Missouri[edit]

Missouri No Public Funds for Stem Cell Research Initiative (2010)

• Supporters of abortion rights (who are opposed to this initiative) filed a lawsuit claiming that the ballot title written by Robin Carnahan's office does not fully explain that the initiative, if approved, could bar abortions at public hospitals and possibly also put the state in conflict with Medicaid requirements.^[32]
• Missouri Roundtable for Life, supporters of the initiative, say that Carnahan's title is biased and misleading in such a way as to artificially skew public perception against the initiative.^[32]
  
  

Missouri Judicial Selection Amendment (2010)

• On September 15, 2009 two lawsuits were filed in the Cole County Circuit Court against the proposed amendment.^[33] One argued that the petition for the proposed constitutional amendment did not follow the laws governing the initiative process and should be thrown out. The other argued that State Auditor Susan Montee did not offer an accurate fiscal note. On February 26, 2010 Cole County Circuit Court Judge Patricia Joyce ruled that the challenge was invalid. An appeal was argued and submitted on July 22, 2010. However, on August 3, 2010 the secretary of state announced that the initiative had failed to qualify for the 2010 ballot because an insufficient number of valid signatures were obtained. Shortly, thereafter the court dismissed the case on the grounds that the case was moot and a ruling would have no impact on the 2010 initiative efforts.^[34]
  
  

Missouri Eminent Domain Reform Initiatives (2010)

• The Missouri Municipal League filed two lawsuits in January 2009 arguing that the fiscal impact statements prepared by the state auditor and the ballot language approved by the Missouri Secretary of State are misleading. In particular, the Missouri Municipal League believes that the fiscal note prepared by the state auditor is wrong because it underestimates the costs on cities.^[35]
  • Conclusion: Ballot summary was revised and the second lawsuit was dropped. A summary of Missouri Municipal League v. Carnahan can be viewed here.
• An audio recording, filed in December 2009, questioned the motives behind the lawsuits. A lawyer, identified as Carrie Hermeling, for the firm representing the Missouri Municipal League was recorded as saying they were using the courts to delay the petition drive.^[36]
  
  

Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act (2010)

• According to filed lawsuits, challenges address both the language of the ballot title and the fiscal impact statement. In light of the challenges, measure supporters have refrained from collecting signatures. According to state law, if the ballot title is changed, previously collected signatures are considered voided. Missouri Healthcare Freedom Act proponents anticipate the challenge being resolved by January or February 2010.^[37]
  
  

Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative, Proposition B (2010)

• Karen Strange of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Robin Carnahan that challenges the approved ballot language. The term "puppy mills" is at the center of the challenge. "The Humane Society intentionally uses the term 'puppy mill' because they know it infuriates people," she said. However, Strange also questions whether the language details the actual legislation being proposed.^[38]
  • On August 13, 2010 Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled to uphold the ballot language for Proposition B.^[39] Specifically, the judge ruled that the ballot summary drafted by Secretary Carnahan was "neither insufficient nor unfair."^[40]
    
    

Missouri Earnings Tax Initiative, Proposition A (2010)

• On August 13, 2010 Galen Beaufort, the Kansas City attorney, filed a lawsuit in Cole County Circuit Court against Proposition A. Challengers argue that the proposed measure is unconstitutional and are asking the court to remove the measure from the November 2010 ballot.^[39] Specifically the lawsuit said the measure violates the state's single-subject rule, fails to make necessary distinctions between personal and business versions of the tax and mandates elections without funding them.^[41] On September 20 Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled that Proposition A would remain on the 2010 ballot. In a two-page ruling Judge Beetem ruled that the allegations should be raised in a lawsuit following the November elections and rejected the challenges raised by Kansas City officials.^[42]

South Dakota[edit]

South Dakota Vote by Secret Ballot, Amendment K (2010)

• The South Dakota State Federation of Labor filed a lawsuit in May 2010 to either rewrite Amendment K's ballot summary or remove it from the ballot. "The bottom line is we would like the court to go ahead and strike the measure, or at the very least to direct the attorney general to write a better explanation," said Steven Sandven, a Sioux Falls lawyer representing the federation. Specifically the federation argues that the summary incorrectly explains the measures and does not explain that voter approval of the amendment may make the state "vulnerable to an expensive lawsuit." However, Attorney General Marty Jackley argues that it is not his job to revise what legislators have approved. He defends the summary and said the measure should appear on the ballot for voters to decide.^[43]

• Following a court hearing Circuit Judge John Brown denied the federation's request to remove measure from the ballot. Additionally the judge upheld the South Dakota attorney general's official ballot explanation of the measure.^[44]

Washington[edit]

Washington Public Works Bond Measure (2010)

• On May 10, 2010 the Association of Washington Business filed a lawsuit with the Thurston County Superior Court regarding a $500 million bond measure scheduled to appear on the November 2, 2010 statewide ballot.The association has asked to change the ballot language. According to the filing the organization contends that the legislature omitted information. Specifically, the group points to the fact that a temporary sales tax on bottled water would be made permanent if the measure is approved by voters.^[45]

Washington Privatize State Liquor Stores, Initiative 1100 (2010) and Washington Revise State Liquor Laws, Initiative 1105 (2010)

• On June 1, 2010 supporters of competing initiative - Initiative 1100 - filed a ballot title and summary challenge against Initiative 1105. According to the filed challenge the ballot language is too vague. I-1100 supporters point to the fact that the language does not reflect that in addition to privatizing state liquor stores the language does not specifiy thet I-1105 would repeal the existing alcohol tax and require the legislature to create a new tax.^[46][47] A hearing on the challenge is scheduled for June 9.

2008[edit]

Arkansas[edit]

• The title for the Severance Tax Increase (an initiative which ultimately did not turn in signatures) proposed by its sponsors was rejected by the Attorney General, which had the effect of halting the initiative.

• Opponents announced in late August they would file a lawsuit against the Unmarried Couple Adoption Ban because the ballot title, they say, is misleading. In late September, opponents said they would not file the suit.^[48]

• The Arkansas Family Council filed a lawsuit against the Arkansas State Lottery, Proposed Constitutional Amendment 3 (2008) on September 19, asking that the initiative be removed from the ballot because of its ballot title. The legal challenge will be heard by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The claim in the suit is that the initiative's title and name are "inaccurate, incomplete and misleading" because they don't define lotteries and don't include warnings about the potential consequences of approving a state-run lottery.^[49]

Arizona[edit]

• Arizona Proposition 102 (Proposed ban on same-sex marriage.) Arizona Secretary of State Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard disagreed over how to describe on the ballot what the effect of a "no" vote would be. A lawsuit was filed by the "Yes on 102" campaign to block Brewer's way of describing it in the ballot title. However, the dispute was resolved short of the courtroom shortly before the ballot booklets went to press in late August.^[50]

• Arizona Proposition 200. Opponents of Proposition 200 filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Jan Brewer asking her to clarify the descriptive language of the measure. A judge ruled that the group had filed their objection too late which means the ballot language can include the phrase, "This measure will bring dramatic pro-consumer reform to payday lending and preserve consumer choice."^[51]

• Arizona Proposition 201. The Homebuilders Association filed a lawsuit seeking to keep Proposition 201 off the ballot on the grounds that the ballot title for the proposition is "rife with errors and intentionally misleading."^[52]

• Arizona Proposition 203. Supporters of the TIME initiative filed a lawsuit against the ballot title written by the Arizona Legislative Council saying that the ALC's description of the effect of the proposition might confuse voters into thinking that the measure would increase taxes 17.8 cents rather than 17.8%. Judge Edward Burke agreed with the plaintiffs on August 1, saying the ALC's wording is "intended to exaggerate the tax increase" and constitutes an "editorial comment." The ALC planned to appeal Judge Burke's decision, but this was rendered unnecessary when it turned out that the initiative had insufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot.^[53]

California[edit]

• Opponents of Proposition 4 sued, but unsuccessfully, to have references to "Sarah" or "Sarah's Law" deleted from the official voter's guide.^[54]

• Supporters and opponents of Proposition 7 both sued over various arguments in the official California voter's guide. Both lawsuits failed.

• Supporters of Proposition 8 sued, unsuccessfully, to have the ballot title of the proposition read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" versus "Eliminates the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry."

• Opponents of Proposition 98 filed a lawsuit against the California Attorney General arguing that the ballot title should more conspicuously refer to Prop. 98's impact on rent control. A judge upheld the original title.^[55][56]

Colorado[edit]

• Opponents of Amendment 48 sued the Ballot Title Setting Board (BTSB) for the title it had conferred on Amendment 48.^[57] The case went all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court, which upheld the BTSB's title.

• Opponents of Initiative 82 filed a lawsuit against the title set by the Ballot Title Setting Board (BTSB).^[58] The title was declared invalid on March 5, 2008, a decision which was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

• Colorado Initiative 57 (2008)

• Colorado Initiative 62 (2008)

• Colorado Initiative 76 (2008)

• Colorado Equal Opportunity Initiative (2008)

• Colorado Initiative 73 (2008)

• Colorado Initiative 75 (2008)

Florida[edit]

• The Florida Education Association (FEA) successfully sued to have Amendment 7 and Amendment 9 removed from the ballot because of their ballot titles. A lower court judge had ruled in favor of keeping the amendments on the ballot, so the FEA appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which struck the amendments from the ballot.^[59][60]

• A court in Leon County pulled Florida Amendment 5 (2008) from the ballot, stating "the ballot title and summary provided in the proposition for Amendment 5 fail to fairly inform the voter, in a clear and unambiguous language, of the chief purposes of the amendment and the language of the title and summary, as written, is misleading in the foregoing respects." The ruling was appealed by the state to the Florida Supreme Court, which struck the amendment from the ballot.^[61] The ruling "doesn't mean anything," says Gov. Crist, a key backer of the amendment. "I was disappointed but not dismayed. It will be appealed — I think everybody knows that," Crist said. "I hope it stays on the ballot because I like the will of the people. I want them to weigh in. I want them to have that power, because they're the boss."^[62] The 1st District Court of Appeal agreed to pass the case directly to the Supreme Court without a ruling to expediate the process.^[63][64][65]

Illinois[edit]

The Chicago Bar Association, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn and a group of voters sued the state elections board over the ballot title for the Illinois Constitutional Convention (2008); a lawsuit they won on October 2. They particularly objected to a paragraph that included the results of a failed 1988 constitutional convention vote and a separate sentence declaring that not voting on the question is the equivalent of a "no" vote.

Cook County Circuit Judge Nathaniel Howse Jr. in his ruling said, "I believe the language is not accurate [and] interferes with the rights of voters." He ordered lawyers to develop a new version of the ballot summary by October 3 which they may be ordered to print on separate paper that carries an official government seal for distribution at polling places on election day, since the state's official ballots had already been printed by the time of his decision.^[66]

Maryland[edit]

The ballot title of the Maryland Casino Measure was challenged in court by opponents of the measure, who said the title was overstated the extent to which slots revenue would go to education. The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with the opponents. The word "primary" was then added to the title, so that its final version says in the relevant part, that slots revenue would be used "for the primary purpose of raising revenue for education."^[67]

Missouri[edit]

• The ballot title of the Civil Rights Initiative that had been set by the Missouri Secretary of State was challenged in court by the initiative's proponents^[68]

• The ballot title of the Cloning Ban Initiative set by the Missouri Secretary of State was challenged in court by the initiative's proponents^[69] The court ruled against Carnahan's title.^[70]

• Two lawsuits have been filed against Missouri Proposition A contesting its ballot title and ballot description.^[71]

Nebraska[edit]

Opponents of the Nebraska Civil Rights Initiative filed a lawsuit in Lancaster County objecting to the measure's ballot title.^[72]

Nevada[edit]

• Nevada Taxpayer Protection Act (2008)

• Nevada Proposition 13 (2008)

• Nevada Funding Nevada's Priorities Act (2008)

• Nevada Education Enhancement Act (2008)

• Nevada Save Our Schools Initiative (2008)

North Dakota[edit]

North Dakota Secretary of State Al Jaeger approved a ballot title for the Income Tax Cut Initiative before circulation in July 2007. After signatures were turned in, Jaeger changed the title that will appear on the ballot. His change says that under the provisions of the initiative, income in two income tax brackets may not be taxed at all. The state's tax department says that this may be true of up to 325 taxpayers in the state out of 320,000 whil file tax returns. The initiave's sponsors objected, unsuccessfully, to the change in wording.^[73][74]

Ohio[edit]

• Ohio Payday Loan Referendum (2008)

Washington[edit]

• Duane French, an opponent of Washington I-1000 who is associated with the organization Not Dead Yet filed a lawsuit challenging the measure's ballot title. French wanted the title to have the phrase "assisted suicide" in it. The judge ruled against French, saying that neither "suicide" nor "death with dignity" (the term preferred by I-1000 supporters) are neutral, so the final ballot title describes the measure as "aid in dying" and says that terminally ill adults would be allowed to "request and self-administer lethal medication prescribed by a physician."^[75][76][77]

• Tim Eyman filed a lawsuit in late August against the ballot title for the King County Charter Amendments (2008), saying that the language on the ballot doesn't tell voters the charter would double the number of signatures required to qualify future citizen-initiated amendments. On September 11, a judge agreed with Eyman.^[78][79][80]

See also[edit]

• What are ballot titles?
• 2008 ballot measure lawsuits
• Latest Ballot Access Lawsuit News
• 2008 single-subject rule challenges

Footnotes[edit]

---

Additional information about ballot litigation in 2008