List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2016

2017 lawsuits →

<- 2015 lawsuits

2016 U.S. State
Ballot Measures

2017 »

« 2015

Overview
Election results
Scorecard
Tuesday Count
Lawsuits
Deadlines
Voter guides
Initiatives filed
Year-end analysis
Part 2: Campaigns
Polls
Media editorials
Part 3: 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.
Click here to learn more.

This page lists summaries of lawsuits about statewide ballot measures filed or ruled on in 2016. Lawsuits can be filed before an election specifically to keep a measure from being put on the ballot or after an election in order to invalidate the measure or certain provisions of the measure.

Pre-election lawsuits often allege one or more of the following:

* invalid signatures,
* unqualified signature gatherers,
* the unconstitutionality of the measure,
* biased or misleading petition language, or
* other criticisms that—if agreed to by a judge—could cause the measure to be removed or blocked from the ballot.

Pre-election lawsuits are most often filed against citizen initiatives and veto referendums; very infrequently are they filed against measures referred to the ballot by the legislature.

Lawsuits alleging the invalidity or unconstitutionality of a measure can also be filed after the election. Sometimes these court cases extend for years after a measure has been approved.

Click on the tabs below to see summaries of lawsuits:

* The By state tab organizes lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016 by state.
* The By subject tab organizes lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016 according to the subject of the lawsuits.
* The Historical measures tab lists lawsuits filed or ruled on in 2016 about historical statewide ballot measures.
* The Local tab will bring you to information about lawsuits over local ballot measures.

## Contents

* 1 By state
* 1.1 Alabama
* 1.2 Arizona
* 1.3 Arkansas
* 1.4 California
* 1.5 Florida
* 1.6 Maine
* 1.7 Michigan
* 1.8 Missouri
* 1.9 Montana
* 1.10 Nebraska
* 1.11 Nevada
* 1.12 Ohio
* 1.13 Oklahoma
* 2 By subject
* 2.1 Ballot language
* 2.2 Campaign finance
* 2.3 Circulators
* 2.4 Post-certification removal
* 2.5 Post-election
* 2.6 Preemption
* 2.7 Signature validity
* 2.8 Signature deadlines
* 2.9 Single subject
* 2.10 Subject restriction
* 2.11 Substantive constitutionality
* 2.12 Voter guide
* 3 Historical measures
* 4 Local
* 4.1 See also

# By state[edit]

This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2016—by state—for measures proximate to 2016. It also lists 2016 lawsuits about any measures targeting a ballot in 2017 or a later year.

Lawsuits about at least 34 different statewide ballot measures[1] were filed or ruled on in 2016. Sixteen states featured ballot measure-related lawsuits in 2016.

### Alabama

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alabama and 2016 ballot measures

* Alabama Approval of Budget Isolation Resolution Proposing a Local Law, Amendment 14 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Deadline for legislative referral
Court: Alabama 15th Judicial Circuit Court
Ruling: The deadline is not a constitutional requirement nor a state statute, rather a procedural guideline; the measure must be placed on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Chilton County Health Care Authority| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Merrill
Plaintiff argument:
Secretary of state was misapplying the law; deadline was 74 days prior to the election| Defendant argument:
There was no misapplication of the law and the deadline was 76 days prior to the election

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Overturning of judge's previous ruling
Court: Montgomery Circuit Court
Ruling: Official ruling not found; Amendment 14 remained on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Bob Friedman| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Merrill, six state legislators
Plaintiff arguments:
The measure could unnecessarily overturn a judge's previous ruling that stopped a Jefferson County sales tax plan| Defendant arguments:
No comment yet

Sources: Al.com

Click here for details.

### Arizona

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arizona and 2016 ballot measures

* Arizona Minimum Wage and Paid Time Off, Proposition 206 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure creates new costs without providing new revenue sources (which is banned by the state's initiative law) and whether the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 206 is constitutional.
Plaintiff(s): Jane Ann Riddle, William L. Riddle, III, Valle Luna, Charlottee Chester, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, Yuma County Chamber of Commerce, Marc Community Resources, Inc., Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and Abrio Family Services and Supports, Inc.| Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Industrial Commission of Arizona, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Thomas J. Betlach, Arizona Department of Administration, Craig C. Brown, and Arizonans for Fair Wages and Health Families
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative unconstitutionally created new costs to the general fund without providing a new revenue source, and the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule since it was about the minimum wage and paid sick leave.| Defendant argument:
The measure is constitutional.

Source: The Arizona Republic

Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; petition circulators were not legally qualified
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: The litigation was filed too late.
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Restaurant Association| Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families
Plaintiff argument:
Some petition circulators were not legally qualified.| Defendant argument:
The litigation was filed too late.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Violation of contract; signature gathering company was allegedly not paid in full for services.
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling:
Plaintiff(s): Sign Here Petitions| Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families
Plaintiff arguments:
Sign Here Petitions is owed $65,000, as per the contract with supporting campaign.| Defendant arguments:
Contract required payment for valid signatures. Around 25 percent of signatures were discarded, but the campaign still paid for 90 percent of them.

Sources: Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic

Click here for details.

* Arizona Education Finance Amendment, Proposition 123 (May 2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality; Whether Proposition 123 violated the federal government's law on Arizona's land trust fund
Court: Filed in United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Appealed to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Plaintiff(s): Michael Pierce| Defendant(s): Gov. Doug Ducey
Plaintiff argument:
Proposition 123 violated the federal law on the state's land trust fund because the proposition removed principal from the fund| Defendant argument:
Proposition 123 did not violate federal law because Congress no longer has oversight of the state's land trust fund

Source: United States District Court for the District of Arizona

Click here for details.

* Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Petition summary; allegedly too unclear for voters to make an informed decision whether to sign or not
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Seth Leibsohn, Sheila Polk, Bill Montgomery, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary is vague and the initiative's funding mechanism is unconstitutional.| Defendant argument:
The ballot summary is as clear as it can be in 100 words.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Ballot language; alleged inaccuracies in the text of the measure
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff on the issue of how age was presented, but not other issues
Plaintiff(s): J.P. Holyoak| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Plaintiff arguments:
Proposition 205's ballot text is inaccurate and downplays significant aspects of the initiative.| Defendant arguments:
Changes are not needed
Click here for details.

### Arkansas

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arkansas and 2016 ballot measures

* Arkansas Three New Casinos Amendment, Issue 5 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language and signature validity
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot
Plaintiff(s): The Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title misled voters to believe that gambling on sports events would be permitted, while federal law prohibited it| Defendant argument:
Language was clear and succinct, and the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case
Click here for details.

* Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment, Issue 6 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot title misinformation
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Toni Rose and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title omitted pertinent information, including ability for dispensaries to sell food and drinks that contain marijuana and legalization's potential effects on local social institutions| Defendant argument:
Ballot title was succinctly and accurately worded

Source: Arkansas Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act, Issue 7 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Alleged biased ballot title language
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping measure on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Melanie Conway and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title contains biased and misleading language and omits facts about the measure| Defendant argument:
Ballot title is unbiased and objective

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Deficient petitions
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff, removing the measure on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Kara Benca| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff arguments:
Missing information about canvassers and irregularities with signers of the petitions| Defendant arguments:
Petitions were certified as valid

Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court (Conway v. Martin) and Arkansas Supreme Court (Benca v. Martin)

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Cap on Medical Malpractice Attorney Fees, Issue 4 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Ballot language; ballot title was allegedly misleading
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Fairness for Arkansans| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title did not inform voters of various components of the measure| Defendant argument:
Ballot title adequately explained the measure

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Signatures; allegation that not all signatures validated were collected lawfully
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed due to ruling in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin
Plaintiff(s): Committee to Protect AR Families| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff arguments:
Health Care Access for Arkansans did not comply with mandatory canvasser certification laws and mandatory filing requirements| Defendant arguments:
The secretary of state already found that Health Care Access for Arkansans complied with the circulation process

Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### California

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California and 2016 ballot measures

* California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016) - Approved
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: The official opposition arguments found in the voter guide are misleading.
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed.
Plaintiff(s): Yes on 64| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and No on 64
Plaintiff argument:
There were at least four false statements about the initiative in the "arguments against" section of the voter guide.| Defendant argument:
The arguments are not misleading.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: The official support arguments found in the voter guide are misleading.
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed.
Plaintiff(s): No on 64| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and Yes on 64
Plaintiff arguments:
There were at least two false statements about the initiative in the "arguments in favor" section of the voter guide.| Defendant arguments:
The arguments are not misleading.
Click here for details.

* California Proposition 57, Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Removal of initiative from the ballot due to allegedly illegal unrelated amendments to initiative text
Court: Filed in Sacramento County Superior Court; appealed to California Supreme Court
Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the initiative to stay on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): California District Attorneys Association| Defendant(s): Initiative petitioners
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners made amendments to their initiative that were substantive and unrelated to the original initiative text after filing it with the attorney general, which is prohibited by law.| Defendant argument:
The amendments were "reasonably germane" to the subject and purpose of the original initiative text filed with the attorney general, as required by law.
Click here for details.

* California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality; whether Prop. 66 violates provisions in the state constitution concerning the death penalty.
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposition 66 to go into effect.
Plaintiff(s): Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor| Defendant(s): Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Judicial Council of California, and Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty (Intervenor)
Plaintiff argument:
Prop. 66 unconstitutionally restricts the role of the Supreme Court and appellate court, and the time limits on death penalty cases violates the constitutional rights of death row inmates.| Defendant argument:
The will of the voters should be respected, and the initiative is constitutional.

Source: California Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 61, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Plaintiff alleges that legislative analyst's statement on VA drug prices was misleading
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: The judge ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff's issue was not concerning because elsewhere the legislative analyst states that "[t]he federal government has established discount programs that place upper limits on the prices paid for prescription drugs by selected federal payers, including the VA."
Plaintiff(s): Aref Aziz| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla
Plaintiff argument:
The statement "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices" is misleading; federal law limits drug companies from raising VA drug prices above 76 percent of average manufacture price. The statement should read "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices, subject to federal price caps on brand-name drugs."| Defendant argument:
The legislative analyst's statement is not misleading.

Source: Sacramento Superior Court

Click here for details.

### Florida

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Florida and 2016 ballot measures

* Florida Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana Legalization Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2
Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2.
Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana| Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden
Plaintiff argument:
Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2| Defendant argument:
Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional.

Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots
Court: Broward County Circuit Court
Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied.
Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida| Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida
Plaintiff argument:
The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted.| Defendant argument:
There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots.

Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald

Click here for details.

### Maine

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2016 ballot measures

* Maine Question 1, Casino or Slot Machines in York County Initiative (2017) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity
Court: Kennebec County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, upholding the secretary of state's signature count.
Plaintiff(s): Horseracing Jobs Fairness| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matt Dunlap
Plaintiff argument:
The secretary of state's office applied inconsistent standards to reviewing signatures.| Defendant argument:
The office was correct to deem petitions invalid that contained a circulator’s signature or notary's signature that did not match signatures on file.

Source: Bangor Daily News

Click here for details.

* Maine Marijuana Legalization, Question 1 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Invalid signatures
Court: Kennebec County Superior Court
Ruling: Overturned secretary of state's decision to disqualify the measure
Plaintiff(s): Roger Birks, John Black, David Boyer, Eric Brakey, Erin Canavin, Christina Jones, Olga LaPlante, Matthew Maloney, Paul McCarrier, Tom Obear, Bethany Profaizer, Samantha Rocray, Diane Russell, and Luke Sirois| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap
Plaintiff argument:
Plaintiffs claimed that Dunlap only reviewed a portion of the notaries' signatures and then disqualified all petitions signed by that notary, rather than reviewing all notary signatures.| Defendant argument:
The defendant claimed that 17,000 signatures were invalid because the signature of the notary for those signatures did not match the signature on file with the secretary of state's office.
Click here for details.

### Michigan

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan and 2016 ballot measures

* Michigan Marijuana Legalization and Regulation Initiative (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the state's given time frame of 180 days for collecting initiative signatures
Court: Michigan Court of Claims and Michigan Court of Appeals
Ruling: Dismissed by lower courts
Plaintiff(s): Michigan Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Committee aka MILegalize| Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, Bureau of Elections Director Chris Thomas, and the Michigan Board of Canvassers
Plaintiff argument:
The 180-day time frame is unconstitutional because it places undue burden on petitioners and is impossible to comply with.| Defendant argument:
The time frame is constitutional.

Source: MILegalize Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Click here for details.

### Missouri

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Missouri and 2016 ballot measures

* Missouri 60 Cent Cigarette Tax, Constitutional Amendment 3 (2016) - Defeated
Although four lawsuits were filed against Amendment 3, only the two lawsuits most directly relevant to Amendment 3 are summarized in the chart below. For details on the other two lawsuits that concerned the ballot summary and fiscal impact statement for the amendment, click here.Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged the petition summary was inaccurate, invalidating signatures
Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents| Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary used during signature gathering was incomplete and misleading.| Defendant argument:
Removing the measure from the ballot would disenfranchise the voters who signed the petition, and state law does not require the removal of an initiative from the ballot due to ballot summary changes ordered after signature gathering is complete.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Constitutionality; argued the measure was unclear
Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court
Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot because the election was to close and consideration of the constitutionality of the amendment would have to wait until after the election
Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents| Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids
Plaintiff arguments:
Amendment 3 violates the state constitution because of a lack of clarity about the raising and expenditure of revenue and because it was designed to implement a fee on certain tobacco businesses.| Defendant arguments:
Amendment 3 complies with the constitution and it was too close to the election to decide on the constitutionality of the measure.

Sources: Education Week and St. Louis Public Radio

Click here for details.

### Montana

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Montana and 2016 ballot measures

* Montana Bonds to Fund Biomedical Research Authority, I-181 (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether public money can be spent on private organizations
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure
Plaintiff(s): Montana Taxpayers Association| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Linda McCulloch
Plaintiff argument:
Measure is unconstitutional because the state cannot spend public revenue on private organizations| Defendant argument:
The measure is constitutional.

Source: Billings Gazette

Click here for details.

### Nebraska

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nebraska and 2016 ballot measures

* Nebraska Referendum 426, Death Penalty Measure (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Omission of a petition sponsor
Court: Filed in Nebraska Third District Court; appealed to Nebraska Supreme Court
Ruling: Rejected; ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the referendum to appear on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Christy and Richard Hargesheimer, on behalf of Nebraskans for Public Safety| Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale, Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, Judy Glasburner, Aimee Melton, and Bob Evnen
Plaintiff argument:
Plaintiffs argued that the referendum was invalid because the petition failed to list Governor Ricketts, who they believed was an initiating force behind the petition, as a sponsor.| Defendant argument:
The defendant argued that support of a petition does not necessarily make a person a sponsor of a petition.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Misleading ballot language
Court: Nebraska Third District Court
Ruling: Rejected; ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the referendum to appear on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Lyle Koenig, on behalf of Nebraskans for Public Safety| Defendant(s): Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson and Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale
Plaintiff arguments:
Plaintiffs argued that the ballot measure language was misleading because it said the maximum sentence for first-degree murder was life in prison, while the group noted that life imprisonment would be the only penalty permitted for first-degree murder.| Defendant arguments:
The defendant argued the ballot text was taken directly from language drafted by the legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
Click here for details.

### Nevada

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2016 ballot measures

* Nevada Solar Rate Restoration Veto Referendum, Question 5 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the use of a veto referendum; veto referendums are only allowed to be used to reject whole pieces of legislation
Court: Filed in Carson City District Court, appealed to Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness| Defendant(s): No Solar Tax PAC
Plaintiff argument:
Plaintiffs argued that the referendum sought only to reject portions of a bill and that the Nevada Constitution requires veto referendums to only be used to reject entire pieces of legislation. They also argued that the language used to describe the measure during signature collection was misleading.| Defendant argument:
Defendants contested the court's interpretation of the initiative and referendum provisions of the Nevada Constitution.

Source: Nevada Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### Ohio

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2016 ballot measures

* Ohio Issue 2, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2017) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged violation of petition circulation laws by defendant.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, disqualifying 10,303 signatures
Plaintiff(s): Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Keith A. Lake, and Ryan R. Augsburger| Defendant(s): Ohioans for Drug Price Relief
Plaintiff argument:
Proponents broke petition circulations laws to the point of signatures falling below the legal threshold of consideration.| Defendant argument:
Signatures were valid.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged miscount of signatures by defendant.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, recovering 20,840 signatures
Plaintiff(s): Tracy L. Jones, William S. Booth, Daniel L. Darland, and Latonya D. Thurman (Ohioans for Drug Price Relief)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jon Husted
Plaintiff arguments:
Husted's office should have counted signatures on petitions containing other signatures crossed out.| Defendant arguments:
The issue had been adjudicated by a court already, and there was an unreasonable delay in filing the case.

Sources: Ohio Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### Oklahoma

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Oklahoma and 2016 ballot measures

* Oklahoma Rehabilitative Programs Fund Initiative, State Question 781 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; alleged that the provided ballot title was inaccurate and biased.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The court ruled that the ballot title proposed by the attorney general was biased and that the ballot title proposed by petitioners was insufficiently clear and information. The court provided a rewritten ballot title.
Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and petitioners| Defendant(s): Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The attorney general's ballot title was biased against the initiative and did not accurately represent the proposal.| Defendant argument:
The petitioners' proposed ballot title did not explain the full effects of the measure and the attorney general's ballot title accurately and neutrally explained the state question.

Source: Justia US Law

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma State Question 788, Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative (June 2018)/Full article - Approved
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]."[2] 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

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma State Question 788, Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative (June 2018) - Approved
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]."[2] 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

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, State Question 779 (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Violation of single-subject rule.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative did not violate the single-subject rule.
Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact| Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative addressed two subjects, teacher salaries and taxes, not one subject.| Defendant argument:
The different parts of the measure relate to a single scheme, which was how previous rulings defined "single-subject."

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Petition summary; The lawsuit claimed that the petition summary was misleading.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The initiative remained on the ballot, but the ballot title was rewritten.
Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact| Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future
Plaintiff arguments:
The ballot summary lacked pertinent information.| Defendant arguments:
The plaintiffs were using criticisms about the ballot language to attempt to stop the measure from going to the ballot.

Sources: The Oklahoman and The Oklahoman

Click here for details.

# By subject[edit]

This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2016—by subject—for measures proximate to 2016. It also lists 2016 lawsuits about any measures targeting a ballot in 2017 or a later year.

Subjects listed include the following:

* Ballot language \- Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on petition forms or on the ballot
* Campaign finance \- Lawsuits alleging campaign finance law violations
* Circulators \- Lawsuits concerning the qualifications or actions of petition circulators
* Post-certification removal \- Lawsuits seeking the removal of a 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.
* 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[edit]

* Nevada Solar Rate Restoration Veto Referendum, Question 5 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the use of a veto referendum; veto referendums are only allowed to be used to reject whole pieces of legislation
Court: Filed in Carson City District Court, appealed to Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness| Defendant(s): No Solar Tax PAC
Plaintiff argument:
Plaintiffs argued that the referendum sought only to reject portions of a bill and that the Nevada Constitution requires veto referendums to only be used to reject entire pieces of legislation. They also argued that the language used to describe the measure during signature collection was misleading.| Defendant argument:
Defendants contested the court's interpretation of the initiative and referendum provisions of the Nevada Constitution.

Source: Nevada Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016) - Approved
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: The official opposition arguments found in the voter guide are misleading.
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed.
Plaintiff(s): Yes on 64| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and No on 64
Plaintiff argument:
There were at least four false statements about the initiative in the "arguments against" section of the voter guide.| Defendant argument:
The arguments are not misleading.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: The official support arguments found in the voter guide are misleading.
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed.
Plaintiff(s): No on 64| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and Yes on 64
Plaintiff arguments:
There were at least two false statements about the initiative in the "arguments in favor" section of the voter guide.| Defendant arguments:
The arguments are not misleading.
Click here for details.

* Missouri 60 Cent Cigarette Tax, Constitutional Amendment 3 (2016) - Defeated
Although four lawsuits were filed against Amendment 3, only the two lawsuits most directly relevant to Amendment 3 are summarized in the chart below. For details on the other two lawsuits that concerned the ballot summary and fiscal impact statement for the amendment, click here.Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged the petition summary was inaccurate, invalidating signatures
Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents| Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary used during signature gathering was incomplete and misleading.| Defendant argument:
Removing the measure from the ballot would disenfranchise the voters who signed the petition, and state law does not require the removal of an initiative from the ballot due to ballot summary changes ordered after signature gathering is complete.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Constitutionality; argued the measure was unclear
Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court
Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot because the election was to close and consideration of the constitutionality of the amendment would have to wait until after the election
Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents| Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids
Plaintiff arguments:
Amendment 3 violates the state constitution because of a lack of clarity about the raising and expenditure of revenue and because it was designed to implement a fee on certain tobacco businesses.| Defendant arguments:
Amendment 3 complies with the constitution and it was too close to the election to decide on the constitutionality of the measure.

Sources: Education Week and St. Louis Public Radio

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma Rehabilitative Programs Fund Initiative, State Question 781 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; alleged that the provided ballot title was inaccurate and biased.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The court ruled that the ballot title proposed by the attorney general was biased and that the ballot title proposed by petitioners was insufficiently clear and information. The court provided a rewritten ballot title.
Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Criminal Justice Reform and petitioners| Defendant(s): Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The attorney general's ballot title was biased against the initiative and did not accurately represent the proposal.| Defendant argument:
The petitioners' proposed ballot title did not explain the full effects of the measure and the attorney general's ballot title accurately and neutrally explained the state question.

Source: Justia US Law

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma State Question 788, Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative (June 2018)/Full article - Approved
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]."[2] 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

Click here for details.

* Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Petition summary; allegedly too unclear for voters to make an informed decision whether to sign or not
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Seth Leibsohn, Sheila Polk, Bill Montgomery, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary is vague and the initiative's funding mechanism is unconstitutional.| Defendant argument:
The ballot summary is as clear as it can be in 100 words.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Ballot language; alleged inaccuracies in the text of the measure
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff on the issue of how age was presented, but not other issues
Plaintiff(s): J.P. Holyoak| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Plaintiff arguments:
Proposition 205's ballot text is inaccurate and downplays significant aspects of the initiative.| Defendant arguments:
Changes are not needed
Click here for details.

* Arkansas Three New Casinos Amendment, Issue 5 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language and signature validity
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot
Plaintiff(s): The Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title misled voters to believe that gambling on sports events would be permitted, while federal law prohibited it| Defendant argument:
Language was clear and succinct, and the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case
Click here for details.

* Oklahoma State Question 788, Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative (June 2018) - Approved
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]."[2] 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

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 57, Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Removal of initiative from the ballot due to allegedly illegal unrelated amendments to initiative text
Court: Filed in Sacramento County Superior Court; appealed to California Supreme Court
Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the initiative to stay on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): California District Attorneys Association| Defendant(s): Initiative petitioners
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners made amendments to their initiative that were substantive and unrelated to the original initiative text after filing it with the attorney general, which is prohibited by law.| Defendant argument:
The amendments were "reasonably germane" to the subject and purpose of the original initiative text filed with the attorney general, as required by law.
Click here for details.

* Oklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, State Question 779 (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Violation of single-subject rule.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative did not violate the single-subject rule.
Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact| Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative addressed two subjects, teacher salaries and taxes, not one subject.| Defendant argument:
The different parts of the measure relate to a single scheme, which was how previous rulings defined "single-subject."

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Petition summary; The lawsuit claimed that the petition summary was misleading.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The initiative remained on the ballot, but the ballot title was rewritten.
Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact| Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future
Plaintiff arguments:
The ballot summary lacked pertinent information.| Defendant arguments:
The plaintiffs were using criticisms about the ballot language to attempt to stop the measure from going to the ballot.

Sources: The Oklahoman and The Oklahoman

Click here for details.

* Nebraska Referendum 426, Death Penalty Measure (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Omission of a petition sponsor
Court: Filed in Nebraska Third District Court; appealed to Nebraska Supreme Court
Ruling: Rejected; ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the referendum to appear on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Christy and Richard Hargesheimer, on behalf of Nebraskans for Public Safety| Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale, Nebraskans for the Death Penalty, Judy Glasburner, Aimee Melton, and Bob Evnen
Plaintiff argument:
Plaintiffs argued that the referendum was invalid because the petition failed to list Governor Ricketts, who they believed was an initiating force behind the petition, as a sponsor.| Defendant argument:
The defendant argued that support of a petition does not necessarily make a person a sponsor of a petition.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Misleading ballot language
Court: Nebraska Third District Court
Ruling: Rejected; ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the referendum to appear on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Lyle Koenig, on behalf of Nebraskans for Public Safety| Defendant(s): Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson and Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale
Plaintiff arguments:
Plaintiffs argued that the ballot measure language was misleading because it said the maximum sentence for first-degree murder was life in prison, while the group noted that life imprisonment would be the only penalty permitted for first-degree murder.| Defendant arguments:
The defendant argued the ballot text was taken directly from language drafted by the legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana Legalization Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2
Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2.
Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana| Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden
Plaintiff argument:
Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2| Defendant argument:
Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional.

Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots
Court: Broward County Circuit Court
Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied.
Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida| Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida
Plaintiff argument:
The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted.| Defendant argument:
There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots.

Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment, Issue 6 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot title misinformation
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Toni Rose and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title omitted pertinent information, including ability for dispensaries to sell food and drinks that contain marijuana and legalization's potential effects on local social institutions| Defendant argument:
Ballot title was succinctly and accurately worded

Source: Arkansas Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act, Issue 7 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Alleged biased ballot title language
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping measure on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Melanie Conway and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title contains biased and misleading language and omits facts about the measure| Defendant argument:
Ballot title is unbiased and objective

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Deficient petitions
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff, removing the measure on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Kara Benca| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff arguments:
Missing information about canvassers and irregularities with signers of the petitions| Defendant arguments:
Petitions were certified as valid

Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court (Conway v. Martin) and Arkansas Supreme Court (Benca v. Martin)

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Cap on Medical Malpractice Attorney Fees, Issue 4 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Ballot language; ballot title was allegedly misleading
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Fairness for Arkansans| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title did not inform voters of various components of the measure| Defendant argument:
Ballot title adequately explained the measure

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Signatures; allegation that not all signatures validated were collected lawfully
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed due to ruling in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin
Plaintiff(s): Committee to Protect AR Families| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff arguments:
Health Care Access for Arkansans did not comply with mandatory canvasser certification laws and mandatory filing requirements| Defendant arguments:
The secretary of state already found that Health Care Access for Arkansans complied with the circulation process

Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 61, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Plaintiff alleges that legislative analyst's statement on VA drug prices was misleading
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: The judge ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff's issue was not concerning because elsewhere the legislative analyst states that "[t]he federal government has established discount programs that place upper limits on the prices paid for prescription drugs by selected federal payers, including the VA."
Plaintiff(s): Aref Aziz| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla
Plaintiff argument:
The statement "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices" is misleading; federal law limits drug companies from raising VA drug prices above 76 percent of average manufacture price. The statement should read "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices, subject to federal price caps on brand-name drugs."| Defendant argument:
The legislative analyst's statement is not misleading.

Source: Sacramento Superior Court

Click here for details.

### Campaign finance[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016 regarding campaign finance.

### Circulators[edit]

* Ohio Issue 2, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2017) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged violation of petition circulation laws by defendant.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, disqualifying 10,303 signatures
Plaintiff(s): Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Keith A. Lake, and Ryan R. Augsburger| Defendant(s): Ohioans for Drug Price Relief
Plaintiff argument:
Proponents broke petition circulations laws to the point of signatures falling below the legal threshold of consideration.| Defendant argument:
Signatures were valid.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged miscount of signatures by defendant.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, recovering 20,840 signatures
Plaintiff(s): Tracy L. Jones, William S. Booth, Daniel L. Darland, and Latonya D. Thurman (Ohioans for Drug Price Relief)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jon Husted
Plaintiff arguments:
Husted's office should have counted signatures on petitions containing other signatures crossed out.| Defendant arguments:
The issue had been adjudicated by a court already, and there was an unreasonable delay in filing the case.

Sources: Ohio Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act, Issue 7 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Alleged biased ballot title language
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping measure on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Melanie Conway and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title contains biased and misleading language and omits facts about the measure| Defendant argument:
Ballot title is unbiased and objective

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Deficient petitions
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff, removing the measure on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Kara Benca| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff arguments:
Missing information about canvassers and irregularities with signers of the petitions| Defendant arguments:
Petitions were certified as valid

Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court (Conway v. Martin) and Arkansas Supreme Court (Benca v. Martin)

Click here for details.

### Post-certification removal[edit]

* Missouri 60 Cent Cigarette Tax, Constitutional Amendment 3 (2016) - Defeated
Although four lawsuits were filed against Amendment 3, only the two lawsuits most directly relevant to Amendment 3 are summarized in the chart below. For details on the other two lawsuits that concerned the ballot summary and fiscal impact statement for the amendment, click here.Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged the petition summary was inaccurate, invalidating signatures
Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents| Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary used during signature gathering was incomplete and misleading.| Defendant argument:
Removing the measure from the ballot would disenfranchise the voters who signed the petition, and state law does not require the removal of an initiative from the ballot due to ballot summary changes ordered after signature gathering is complete.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Constitutionality; argued the measure was unclear
Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court
Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot because the election was to close and consideration of the constitutionality of the amendment would have to wait until after the election
Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents| Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids
Plaintiff arguments:
Amendment 3 violates the state constitution because of a lack of clarity about the raising and expenditure of revenue and because it was designed to implement a fee on certain tobacco businesses.| Defendant arguments:
Amendment 3 complies with the constitution and it was too close to the election to decide on the constitutionality of the measure.

Sources: Education Week and St. Louis Public Radio

Click here for details.

* Nevada Solar Rate Restoration Veto Referendum, Question 5 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the use of a veto referendum; veto referendums are only allowed to be used to reject whole pieces of legislation
Court: Filed in Carson City District Court, appealed to Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness| Defendant(s): No Solar Tax PAC
Plaintiff argument:
Plaintiffs argued that the referendum sought only to reject portions of a bill and that the Nevada Constitution requires veto referendums to only be used to reject entire pieces of legislation. They also argued that the language used to describe the measure during signature collection was misleading.| Defendant argument:
Defendants contested the court's interpretation of the initiative and referendum provisions of the Nevada Constitution.

Source: Nevada Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Montana Bonds to Fund Biomedical Research Authority, I-181 (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether public money can be spent on private organizations
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure
Plaintiff(s): Montana Taxpayers Association| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Linda McCulloch
Plaintiff argument:
Measure is unconstitutional because the state cannot spend public revenue on private organizations| Defendant argument:
The measure is constitutional.

Source: Billings Gazette

Click here for details.

* Alabama Approval of Budget Isolation Resolution Proposing a Local Law, Amendment 14 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Deadline for legislative referral
Court: Alabama 15th Judicial Circuit Court
Ruling: The deadline is not a constitutional requirement nor a state statute, rather a procedural guideline; the measure must be placed on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Chilton County Health Care Authority| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Merrill
Plaintiff argument:
Secretary of state was misapplying the law; deadline was 74 days prior to the election| Defendant argument:
There was no misapplication of the law and the deadline was 76 days prior to the election

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Overturning of judge's previous ruling
Court: Montgomery Circuit Court
Ruling: Official ruling not found; Amendment 14 remained on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Bob Friedman| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Merrill, six state legislators
Plaintiff arguments:
The measure could unnecessarily overturn a judge's previous ruling that stopped a Jefferson County sales tax plan| Defendant arguments:
No comment yet

Sources: Al.com

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Three New Casinos Amendment, Issue 5 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language and signature validity
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot
Plaintiff(s): The Committee to Protect Arkansas Values/Stop Casinos Now| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title misled voters to believe that gambling on sports events would be permitted, while federal law prohibited it| Defendant argument:
Language was clear and succinct, and the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case
Click here for details.

* California Proposition 57, Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Removal of initiative from the ballot due to allegedly illegal unrelated amendments to initiative text
Court: Filed in Sacramento County Superior Court; appealed to California Supreme Court
Ruling: Ultimately ruled in favor of defendants, allowing the initiative to stay on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): California District Attorneys Association| Defendant(s): Initiative petitioners
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners made amendments to their initiative that were substantive and unrelated to the original initiative text after filing it with the attorney general, which is prohibited by law.| Defendant argument:
The amendments were "reasonably germane" to the subject and purpose of the original initiative text filed with the attorney general, as required by law.
Click here for details.

* Oklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, State Question 779 (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Violation of single-subject rule.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative did not violate the single-subject rule.
Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact| Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative addressed two subjects, teacher salaries and taxes, not one subject.| Defendant argument:
The different parts of the measure relate to a single scheme, which was how previous rulings defined "single-subject."

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Petition summary; The lawsuit claimed that the petition summary was misleading.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The initiative remained on the ballot, but the ballot title was rewritten.
Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact| Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future
Plaintiff arguments:
The ballot summary lacked pertinent information.| Defendant arguments:
The plaintiffs were using criticisms about the ballot language to attempt to stop the measure from going to the ballot.

Sources: The Oklahoman and The Oklahoman

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment, Issue 6 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot title misinformation
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Toni Rose and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title omitted pertinent information, including ability for dispensaries to sell food and drinks that contain marijuana and legalization's potential effects on local social institutions| Defendant argument:
Ballot title was succinctly and accurately worded

Source: Arkansas Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act, Issue 7 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Alleged biased ballot title language
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping measure on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Melanie Conway and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title contains biased and misleading language and omits facts about the measure| Defendant argument:
Ballot title is unbiased and objective

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Deficient petitions
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff, removing the measure on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Kara Benca| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff arguments:
Missing information about canvassers and irregularities with signers of the petitions| Defendant arguments:
Petitions were certified as valid

Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court (Conway v. Martin) and Arkansas Supreme Court (Benca v. Martin)

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Cap on Medical Malpractice Attorney Fees, Issue 4 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Ballot language; ballot title was allegedly misleading
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Fairness for Arkansans| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title did not inform voters of various components of the measure| Defendant argument:
Ballot title adequately explained the measure

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Signatures; allegation that not all signatures validated were collected lawfully
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed due to ruling in Fairness for Arkansans v. Martin
Plaintiff(s): Committee to Protect AR Families| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff arguments:
Health Care Access for Arkansans did not comply with mandatory canvasser certification laws and mandatory filing requirements| Defendant arguments:
The secretary of state already found that Health Care Access for Arkansans complied with the circulation process

Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### Post-election[edit]

* Arizona Minimum Wage and Paid Time Off, Proposition 206 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure creates new costs without providing new revenue sources (which is banned by the state's initiative law) and whether the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 206 is constitutional.
Plaintiff(s): Jane Ann Riddle, William L. Riddle, III, Valle Luna, Charlottee Chester, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, Yuma County Chamber of Commerce, Marc Community Resources, Inc., Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and Abrio Family Services and Supports, Inc.| Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Industrial Commission of Arizona, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Thomas J. Betlach, Arizona Department of Administration, Craig C. Brown, and Arizonans for Fair Wages and Health Families
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative unconstitutionally created new costs to the general fund without providing a new revenue source, and the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule since it was about the minimum wage and paid sick leave.| Defendant argument:
The measure is constitutional.

Source: The Arizona Republic

Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; petition circulators were not legally qualified
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: The litigation was filed too late.
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Restaurant Association| Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families
Plaintiff argument:
Some petition circulators were not legally qualified.| Defendant argument:
The litigation was filed too late.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Violation of contract; signature gathering company was allegedly not paid in full for services.
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling:
Plaintiff(s): Sign Here Petitions| Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families
Plaintiff arguments:
Sign Here Petitions is owed $65,000, as per the contract with supporting campaign.| Defendant arguments:
Contract required payment for valid signatures. Around 25 percent of signatures were discarded, but the campaign still paid for 90 percent of them.

Sources: Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma State Question 788, Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative (June 2018)/Full article - Approved
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]."[2] 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

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma State Question 788, Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative (June 2018) - Approved
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]."[2] 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

Click here for details.

* Arizona Education Finance Amendment, Proposition 123 (May 2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality; Whether Proposition 123 violated the federal government's law on Arizona's land trust fund
Court: Filed in United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Appealed to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Plaintiff(s): Michael Pierce| Defendant(s): Gov. Doug Ducey
Plaintiff argument:
Proposition 123 violated the federal law on the state's land trust fund because the proposition removed principal from the fund| Defendant argument:
Proposition 123 did not violate federal law because Congress no longer has oversight of the state's land trust fund

Source: United States District Court for the District of Arizona

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality; whether Prop. 66 violates provisions in the state constitution concerning the death penalty.
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposition 66 to go into effect.
Plaintiff(s): Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor| Defendant(s): Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Judicial Council of California, and Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty (Intervenor)
Plaintiff argument:
Prop. 66 unconstitutionally restricts the role of the Supreme Court and appellate court, and the time limits on death penalty cases violates the constitutional rights of death row inmates.| Defendant argument:
The will of the voters should be respected, and the initiative is constitutional.

Source: California Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana Legalization Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2
Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2.
Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana| Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden
Plaintiff argument:
Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2| Defendant argument:
Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional.

Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots
Court: Broward County Circuit Court
Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied.
Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida| Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida
Plaintiff argument:
The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted.| Defendant argument:
There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots.

Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald

Click here for details.

### Preemption[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016 regarding preemption.

### Signature validity[edit]

* Ohio Issue 2, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2017) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged violation of petition circulation laws by defendant.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, disqualifying 10,303 signatures
Plaintiff(s): Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Keith A. Lake, and Ryan R. Augsburger| Defendant(s): Ohioans for Drug Price Relief
Plaintiff argument:
Proponents broke petition circulations laws to the point of signatures falling below the legal threshold of consideration.| Defendant argument:
Signatures were valid.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged miscount of signatures by defendant.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, recovering 20,840 signatures
Plaintiff(s): Tracy L. Jones, William S. Booth, Daniel L. Darland, and Latonya D. Thurman (Ohioans for Drug Price Relief)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jon Husted
Plaintiff arguments:
Husted's office should have counted signatures on petitions containing other signatures crossed out.| Defendant arguments:
The issue had been adjudicated by a court already, and there was an unreasonable delay in filing the case.

Sources: Ohio Supreme Court and Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Michigan Marijuana Legalization and Regulation Initiative (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the state's given time frame of 180 days for collecting initiative signatures
Court: Michigan Court of Claims and Michigan Court of Appeals
Ruling: Dismissed by lower courts
Plaintiff(s): Michigan Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Committee aka MILegalize| Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, Bureau of Elections Director Chris Thomas, and the Michigan Board of Canvassers
Plaintiff argument:
The 180-day time frame is unconstitutional because it places undue burden on petitioners and is impossible to comply with.| Defendant argument:
The time frame is constitutional.

Source: MILegalize Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Click here for details.

* Maine Question 1, Casino or Slot Machines in York County Initiative (2017) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity
Court: Kennebec County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, upholding the secretary of state's signature count.
Plaintiff(s): Horseracing Jobs Fairness| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matt Dunlap
Plaintiff argument:
The secretary of state's office applied inconsistent standards to reviewing signatures.| Defendant argument:
The office was correct to deem petitions invalid that contained a circulator’s signature or notary's signature that did not match signatures on file.

Source: Bangor Daily News

Click here for details.

* Missouri 60 Cent Cigarette Tax, Constitutional Amendment 3 (2016) - Defeated
Although four lawsuits were filed against Amendment 3, only the two lawsuits most directly relevant to Amendment 3 are summarized in the chart below. For details on the other two lawsuits that concerned the ballot summary and fiscal impact statement for the amendment, click here.Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged the petition summary was inaccurate, invalidating signatures
Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents| Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary used during signature gathering was incomplete and misleading.| Defendant argument:
Removing the measure from the ballot would disenfranchise the voters who signed the petition, and state law does not require the removal of an initiative from the ballot due to ballot summary changes ordered after signature gathering is complete.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Constitutionality; argued the measure was unclear
Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court
Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot because the election was to close and consideration of the constitutionality of the amendment would have to wait until after the election
Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents| Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids
Plaintiff arguments:
Amendment 3 violates the state constitution because of a lack of clarity about the raising and expenditure of revenue and because it was designed to implement a fee on certain tobacco businesses.| Defendant arguments:
Amendment 3 complies with the constitution and it was too close to the election to decide on the constitutionality of the measure.

Sources: Education Week and St. Louis Public Radio

Click here for details.

* Maine Marijuana Legalization, Question 1 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Invalid signatures
Court: Kennebec County Superior Court
Ruling: Overturned secretary of state's decision to disqualify the measure
Plaintiff(s): Roger Birks, John Black, David Boyer, Eric Brakey, Erin Canavin, Christina Jones, Olga LaPlante, Matthew Maloney, Paul McCarrier, Tom Obear, Bethany Profaizer, Samantha Rocray, Diane Russell, and Luke Sirois| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap
Plaintiff argument:
Plaintiffs claimed that Dunlap only reviewed a portion of the notaries' signatures and then disqualified all petitions signed by that notary, rather than reviewing all notary signatures.| Defendant argument:
The defendant claimed that 17,000 signatures were invalid because the signature of the notary for those signatures did not match the signature on file with the secretary of state's office.
Click here for details.

* Arkansas Medical Cannabis Act, Issue 7 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Alleged biased ballot title language
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping measure on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Melanie Conway and Arkansans Against Legalized Marijuana| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Ballot title contains biased and misleading language and omits facts about the measure| Defendant argument:
Ballot title is unbiased and objective

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Deficient petitions
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiff, removing the measure on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Kara Benca| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff arguments:
Missing information about canvassers and irregularities with signers of the petitions| Defendant arguments:
Petitions were certified as valid

Sources: Arkansas Supreme Court (Conway v. Martin) and Arkansas Supreme Court (Benca v. Martin)

Click here for details.

### Signature deadlines[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2016 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016 regarding signature deadlines.

### Single subject[edit]

* Arizona Minimum Wage and Paid Time Off, Proposition 206 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure creates new costs without providing new revenue sources (which is banned by the state's initiative law) and whether the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 206 is constitutional.
Plaintiff(s): Jane Ann Riddle, William L. Riddle, III, Valle Luna, Charlottee Chester, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, Yuma County Chamber of Commerce, Marc Community Resources, Inc., Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and Abrio Family Services and Supports, Inc.| Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Industrial Commission of Arizona, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Thomas J. Betlach, Arizona Department of Administration, Craig C. Brown, and Arizonans for Fair Wages and Health Families
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative unconstitutionally created new costs to the general fund without providing a new revenue source, and the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule since it was about the minimum wage and paid sick leave.| Defendant argument:
The measure is constitutional.

Source: The Arizona Republic

Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; petition circulators were not legally qualified
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: The litigation was filed too late.
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Restaurant Association| Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families
Plaintiff argument:
Some petition circulators were not legally qualified.| Defendant argument:
The litigation was filed too late.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Violation of contract; signature gathering company was allegedly not paid in full for services.
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling:
Plaintiff(s): Sign Here Petitions| Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families
Plaintiff arguments:
Sign Here Petitions is owed $65,000, as per the contract with supporting campaign.| Defendant arguments:
Contract required payment for valid signatures. Around 25 percent of signatures were discarded, but the campaign still paid for 90 percent of them.

Sources: Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, State Question 779 (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Violation of single-subject rule.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The court ruled that the initiative did not violate the single-subject rule.
Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact| Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative addressed two subjects, teacher salaries and taxes, not one subject.| Defendant argument:
The different parts of the measure relate to a single scheme, which was how previous rulings defined "single-subject."

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Petition summary; The lawsuit claimed that the petition summary was misleading.
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: The initiative remained on the ballot, but the ballot title was rewritten.
Plaintiff(s): OCPA Impact| Defendant(s): Oklahoma's Children, Our Future
Plaintiff arguments:
The ballot summary lacked pertinent information.| Defendant arguments:
The plaintiffs were using criticisms about the ballot language to attempt to stop the measure from going to the ballot.

Sources: The Oklahoman and The Oklahoman

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality; whether Prop. 66 violates provisions in the state constitution concerning the death penalty.
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposition 66 to go into effect.
Plaintiff(s): Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor| Defendant(s): Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Judicial Council of California, and Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty (Intervenor)
Plaintiff argument:
Prop. 66 unconstitutionally restricts the role of the Supreme Court and appellate court, and the time limits on death penalty cases violates the constitutional rights of death row inmates.| Defendant argument:
The will of the voters should be respected, and the initiative is constitutional.

Source: California Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### Subject restriction[edit]

* Arizona Minimum Wage and Paid Time Off, Proposition 206 (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; Whether the measure creates new costs without providing new revenue sources (which is banned by the state's initiative law) and whether the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 206 is constitutional.
Plaintiff(s): Jane Ann Riddle, William L. Riddle, III, Valle Luna, Charlottee Chester, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Licensed Beverage Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, Yuma County Chamber of Commerce, Marc Community Resources, Inc., Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and Abrio Family Services and Supports, Inc.| Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Industrial Commission of Arizona, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, Thomas J. Betlach, Arizona Department of Administration, Craig C. Brown, and Arizonans for Fair Wages and Health Families
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative unconstitutionally created new costs to the general fund without providing a new revenue source, and the initiative violated the state's single-subject rule since it was about the minimum wage and paid sick leave.| Defendant argument:
The measure is constitutional.

Source: The Arizona Republic

Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; petition circulators were not legally qualified
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: The litigation was filed too late.
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Restaurant Association| Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families
Plaintiff argument:
Some petition circulators were not legally qualified.| Defendant argument:
The litigation was filed too late.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Violation of contract; signature gathering company was allegedly not paid in full for services.
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling:
Plaintiff(s): Sign Here Petitions| Defendant(s): Arizonans for Fair Wages and Healthy Families
Plaintiff arguments:
Sign Here Petitions is owed $65,000, as per the contract with supporting campaign.| Defendant arguments:
Contract required payment for valid signatures. Around 25 percent of signatures were discarded, but the campaign still paid for 90 percent of them.

Sources: Arizona Daily Star and The Arizona Republic

Click here for details.

* Nevada Solar Rate Restoration Veto Referendum, Question 5 (2016) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the use of a veto referendum; veto referendums are only allowed to be used to reject whole pieces of legislation
Court: Filed in Carson City District Court, appealed to Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Both courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, removing the measure from the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Citizens for Solar and Energy Fairness| Defendant(s): No Solar Tax PAC
Plaintiff argument:
Plaintiffs argued that the referendum sought only to reject portions of a bill and that the Nevada Constitution requires veto referendums to only be used to reject entire pieces of legislation. They also argued that the language used to describe the measure during signature collection was misleading.| Defendant argument:
Defendants contested the court's interpretation of the initiative and referendum provisions of the Nevada Constitution.

Source: Nevada Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### Substantive constitutionality[edit]

* Missouri 60 Cent Cigarette Tax, Constitutional Amendment 3 (2016) - Defeated
Although four lawsuits were filed against Amendment 3, only the two lawsuits most directly relevant to Amendment 3 are summarized in the chart below. For details on the other two lawsuits that concerned the ballot summary and fiscal impact statement for the amendment, click here.Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Signature validity; alleged the petition summary was inaccurate, invalidating signatures
Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents| Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary used during signature gathering was incomplete and misleading.| Defendant argument:
Removing the measure from the ballot would disenfranchise the voters who signed the petition, and state law does not require the removal of an initiative from the ballot due to ballot summary changes ordered after signature gathering is complete.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Constitutionality; argued the measure was unclear
Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court
Ruling: Decided in favor of defendants, leaving Amendment 3 on the ballot because the election was to close and consideration of the constitutionality of the amendment would have to wait until after the election
Plaintiff(s): Attorney Chuck Hatfield, representing Amendment 3 opponents| Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander and Raise Your Hand for Kids
Plaintiff arguments:
Amendment 3 violates the state constitution because of a lack of clarity about the raising and expenditure of revenue and because it was designed to implement a fee on certain tobacco businesses.| Defendant arguments:
Amendment 3 complies with the constitution and it was too close to the election to decide on the constitutionality of the measure.

Sources: Education Week and St. Louis Public Radio

Click here for details.

* Montana Bonds to Fund Biomedical Research Authority, I-181 (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of the measure; whether public money can be spent on private organizations
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure
Plaintiff(s): Montana Taxpayers Association| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Linda McCulloch
Plaintiff argument:
Measure is unconstitutional because the state cannot spend public revenue on private organizations| Defendant argument:
The measure is constitutional.

Source: Billings Gazette

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality; whether Prop. 66 violates provisions in the state constitution concerning the death penalty.
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing Proposition 66 to go into effect.
Plaintiff(s): Ron Briggs, a former El Dorado County supervisor| Defendant(s): Gov. Jerry Brown, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the Judicial Council of California, and Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty (Intervenor)
Plaintiff argument:
Prop. 66 unconstitutionally restricts the role of the Supreme Court and appellate court, and the time limits on death penalty cases violates the constitutional rights of death row inmates.| Defendant argument:
The will of the voters should be respected, and the initiative is constitutional.

Source: California Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana Legalization Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2
Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2.
Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana| Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden
Plaintiff argument:
Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2| Defendant argument:
Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional.

Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots
Court: Broward County Circuit Court
Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied.
Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida| Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida
Plaintiff argument:
The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted.| Defendant argument:
There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots.

Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald

Click here for details.

### Voter guide[edit]

* California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016) - Approved
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: The official opposition arguments found in the voter guide are misleading.
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed.
Plaintiff(s): Yes on 64| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and No on 64
Plaintiff argument:
There were at least four false statements about the initiative in the "arguments against" section of the voter guide.| Defendant argument:
The arguments are not misleading.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: The official support arguments found in the voter guide are misleading.
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: Some, but not all, language needs to be changed.
Plaintiff(s): No on 64| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Padilla and Yes on 64
Plaintiff arguments:
There were at least two false statements about the initiative in the "arguments in favor" section of the voter guide.| Defendant arguments:
The arguments are not misleading.
Click here for details.

* California Proposition 61, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2016) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Plaintiff alleges that legislative analyst's statement on VA drug prices was misleading
Court: Sacramento Superior Court
Ruling: The judge ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff's issue was not concerning because elsewhere the legislative analyst states that "[t]he federal government has established discount programs that place upper limits on the prices paid for prescription drugs by selected federal payers, including the VA."
Plaintiff(s): Aref Aziz| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla
Plaintiff argument:
The statement "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices" is misleading; federal law limits drug companies from raising VA drug prices above 76 percent of average manufacture price. The statement should read "drug manufacturers might choose to raise VA drug prices, subject to federal price caps on brand-name drugs."| Defendant argument:
The legislative analyst's statement is not misleading.

Source: Sacramento Superior Court

Click here for details.

# Historical measures[edit]

This tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2016 against historical statewide ballot measures. For lawsuits about measures proximate to 2016, see the By state and "By subject tabs.

Ballotpedia did not cover any state ballot measure lawsuits about historical measures in 2016.

# Local[edit]

See also: List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2016

Ballotpedia covers all local measures in California 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 2016 lawsuits about local measures can be found here.

## See also[edit]

* 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 2011
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2009
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
* List of 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
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2025

1. ↑ In many cases, multiple lawsuits were filed about each measure, which means Ballotpedia tracked more than 34 ballot measure-related lawsuits in 2016.
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 KOSU, "Two Groups Sue Oklahoma Over Last-Minute Marijuana Regulations," accessed July 16, 2017

v • e

2016 ballot measures

I&R States|

Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Maryland • Minnesota • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Texas • Vermont • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2016 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaigns • Campaign contributions • Campaign finance • Endorsements • Voter guides

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates