List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2018

2019 lawsuits →

<- 2017 lawsuits

2018 U.S. state
ballot measures

2019 »

« 2017

Overview
Scorecard
Tuesday Count
Deadlines
Requirements
Lawsuits
Readability
Voter guides
Election results
Year-end analysis
Campaigns
Polls
Media editorials
Filed initiatives
Finances
Contributions
Signature costs
Ballot Measure Monthly
Signature requirements

Have you subscribed yet?

Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
Click here to learn more.

This page lists summaries of lawsuits filed about ballot measures in 2018. Lawsuits can be filed before an election specifically to keep a measure from being put on the ballot. Such pre-election lawsuits often allege one or more of the following:

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

Pre-election lawsuits are most often filed against citizen initiatives and veto referendums.

Lawsuits alleging the invalidity or unconstitutionality of a measure independently from the presence of the measure on the ballot can also be filed. Such lawsuits are sometimes filed before the election and sometimes after the election. Sometimes these court cases extend for years after a measure has been approved.

## Contents

* 1 By state
* 1.1 Alaska
* 1.2 Arizona
* 1.3 Arkansas
* 1.4 California
* 1.5 Colorado
* 1.6 Florida
* 1.7 Hawaii
* 1.8 Idaho
* 1.9 Kentucky
* 1.10 Maine
* 1.11 Massachusetts
* 1.12 Michigan
* 1.13 Missouri
* 1.14 Montana
* 1.15 Nevada
* 1.16 North Carolina
* 1.17 Ohio
* 1.18 Oklahoma
* 1.19 Oregon
* 1.20 South Dakota
* 1.21 Utah
* 1.22 Washington
* 2 By subject
* 2.1 Ballot language
* 2.2 Campaign finance
* 2.3 Circulators
* 2.4 Legislative alteration
* 2.5 Post-certification removal
* 2.6 Post-election
* 2.7 Preemption
* 2.8 Signature validity
* 2.9 Signature deadlines
* 2.10 Single subject
* 2.11 Subject restriction
* 2.12 Substantive constitutionality
* 2.13 Voter guide
* 3 Past measures
* 4 Local
* 4.1 See also

# By state[edit]

This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2018—by state—for measures proximate to 2018. It also lists 2018 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2018 or a later year.

### Alaska

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alaska and 2018 ballot measures

* Alaska Ballot Measure 1, Salmon Habitat Protections and Permits Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative makes an appropriation of a state asset as prohibited by Section 7 of Article XI of the Alaska Constitution
Court: Filed in Alaska Third District Court; appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; appealed to the supreme court. The Supreme Court ruled that some language in the measure needed to be removed, but the remainder of the measure could appear on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Stand for Salmon| Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott and the State of Alaska
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative updates permit regulations and does not eliminate the possibility of development or make an appropriation; rather it simply ensures that development is done in a way that doesn't damage fish habitats. Moreover, the initiative was written to apply equally to all projects and permit applicants.| Defendant argument:
The initiative violates the state constitution's prohibition against initiatives that "dedicate revenues, [or] make or repeal appropriations" by preventing the state from allowing development of any waterways and, thereby, appropriating the state assets of fish and fish habitats.

Source: Alaska Department of Law Press Release

Click here for details.

### Arizona

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arizona and 2018 ballot measures

* Arizona Proposition 207, Tax on Incomes Exceeding $250,000 for Teacher Salaries and School Operations Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did the 100-word petition summary need to include information about Proposition 207's elimination of the law indexing tax brackets to inflation?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing Proposition 207 from the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Jaime Molera and Jennifer Henricks| Defendant(s): Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Plaintiff argument:
The title and summary used on petitions was inaccurate and misleading, invalidating the petition, and other laws governing the initiative process were not followed.| Defendant argument:
The initiative petition met all necessary requirements to remain eligible for the ballot and the petition language was accurate.

Source: Tucson.com

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 127, Renewable Energy Standards Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Proposition 127 violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language?
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 127 did not violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language.
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Vince Leach (R-11), Rep. John Kavanagh (R-23), Mesa Mayor John Giles, and five other individuals| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) and local election boards
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners failed to strictly follow state laws by not disclosing the actual financial backer of the initiative on petitions, firing signature gatherers based on quotas, submitting deficient petition sheets, providing a misleading title and summary on petitions| Defendant argument:
The petitioners sufficiently complied with state laws and petitions included enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot

Source: Daily Miner

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Single subject; Did Proposition 306 violate the constitution's single-subject requirement?
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, saying that the single-subject requirement applied to constitutional amendments, but not statutory measures, and keeping Proposition 306 on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Plaintiff argument:
Proposition 306 violated the state's single-subject requirement for ballot measures. Proposition 306 addressed two subjects—how candidates can spend funds and the rulemaking powers of the commission.| Defendant argument:
The single-subject requirement applied to legislative acts, which did not include statutes sent to voters, such as Proposition 306.

Source: Tucson.com

Click here for details.

### Arkansas

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arkansas and 2018 ballot measures

* Arkansas Issue 1, Cap on Attorney’s Fees and Damage Awards in Lawsuits Amendment (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative is unconstitutional since it combines separate constitutional amendments into one ballot measure, whether the initiative violates provisions regarding separation of powers in the Arkansas Constitution
Court: Filed in Circuit Court of Pulaski County, appealed to Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the judge ordered the secretary of state not to count any votes cast for the measure. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. On October 18, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling to not count any votes on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Former Judge Marion Humphrey| Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The measure is actually four different constitutional amendments disguised as one, which violates the single-subject rule. It violates the separation of powers of the legislative and judicial branches of government.| Defendant argument:
The measure is constitutional and should go on the ballot.

Source: Court Filings

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 3, State Legislative Term Limits Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the signatures are valid, whether signature gatherers properly acquired signatures
Court: Filed in Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating the measure and ordering election official to not count votes on Issue 3
Plaintiff(s): Head of Arkansans for Common-Sense Term Limits and Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce President Randy Zook| Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Signature gatherers did not have proper background checks and paperwork, signature gatherers did not have proper signature sheets showing the text of Issue 3, signatures are invalid, and the measure should be removed from the ballot| Defendant argument:
The signatures are valid and the measure should remain on the ballot

Source: Court Filings

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 5, Minimum Wage Increase Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the signatures are valid, whether signature gatherers for the initiative were properly registered as paid canvassers
Court: Filed in Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Lawsuit rejected, measure to remain on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for a Strong Economy| Defendant(s): Initiative proponents, state officials
Plaintiff argument:
Signature gatherers were not properly registered as paid canvassers with the Arkansas Secretary of State's office, signatures are invalid, and the measure should be removed from the ballot| Defendant argument:
The signatures are valid and the measure should remain on the ballot

Source: Associated Press

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 4, Casinos Authorized in Crittenden, Garland, Pope, and Jefferson Counties Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative's ballot language is unclear and misleading
Court: Filed in Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed by Supreme Court on October 11, 2018; said ballot language is clear and not misleading
Plaintiff(s): Ensuring Arkansas' Future and Citizens for Local Choice| Defendant(s): State officials, initiative proponents
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative's ballot language is unclear and misleading and should be removed from the ballot, or votes should not be counted for the measure| Defendant argument:
The ballot language is clear

Source: Arkansas Online

Click here for details.

### California

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California and 2018 ballot measures

* California Proposition 9, Three States Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 9 violate the California State Constitution's prohibition on ballot initiatives making major change to the state's constitutional framework?
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: Removed from the ballot pending a formal ruling; Draper dropped his defense of the ballot measure
Plaintiff(s): Planning and Conservation League| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Tim Draper
Plaintiff argument:
The Planning and Conservation League stated that Proposition 9 would make "sweeping changes in [the] state’s basic constitutional framework," which is a misuse of the ballot initiative process in California.| Defendant argument:
Tim Draper said Proposition 9 would not be a constitutional revision, but rather a nullification of the California Constitution.

Source: The Mercury News

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (2020) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Required number of signatures for the ballot initiative
Court: Sacramento County Superior Court
Plaintiff(s): Gov. Jerry Brown| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Nina Salarno Besselman
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot initiative should have been considered a constitutional amendment, and thus should have required 585,407 signatures, rather than 365,880 signatures, to make the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The ballot initiative met the signature requirements as required by the secretary of state.

Source: Associated Press

Click here for details.

* California Home and School Remediation Bond and Remove Status of Lead Paint as Public Nuisance Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Single subject; whether initiative violated single-subject rule and reenactment requirement
Court: California Supreme Court
Plaintiff(s): Santa Clara County, San Francisco, Miguel Márquez, Miller Ravel, and Jeffrey V. Smith| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Joseph Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters of Contra Costa County
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot initiative encompasses more than one subject and violates the requirement that statute be directly amended.| Defendant argument:
As of June 26, 2018, Ballotpedia did not find a response from the defendants.

Source: California Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 70, Vote Requirement to Use Cap-and-Trade Revenue Amendment (June 2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether ballot language written by state attorney general is false, misleading, and likely to cause prejudice against Proposition 70
Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County, California
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the attorney general to change the ballot title.
Plaintiff(s): Asm. Chad Mayes (R-42)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D)
Plaintiff argument:
Attorney General Xavier Becerra's (D) ballot language for Proposition 70 "is false, misleading, and likely to cause prejudice against Proposition 70" because (1) the measure does not limit the legislature's authority, but requires a one-time supermajority vote, and (2) the measure does not limit the legislature from using revenue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.| Defendant argument:
As of March 8, 2018, the offices of the secretary of state and attorney general had not commented on the lawsuit.

Source: Superior Court of Sacramento County

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 63, Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California)
Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra)
Plaintiff argument:
Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms| Defendant argument:
Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional

Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce?
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause; upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc.,| Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta

Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Click here for details.

### Colorado

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Colorado and 2018 ballot measures

* Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the signature gathering company acted illegally by taking signatures out of state
Court: Filed in Denver District Court
Plaintiff(s): Colorado Rising| Defendant(s): Direct Action Partners
Plaintiff argument:
The company hired to gather signatures acted illegally by taking petition sheets out of state after a contract dispute| Defendant argument:
The petitions were taken to Oregon to process them for a cheaper price

Source: New York Times

Click here for details.

### Florida

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Florida and 2018 ballot measures

* Florida Amendment 13, Ban on Wagering on Dog Races Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is inaccurate and misleading
Court: Filed in Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Leon County, Florida, moved to Florida Supreme Court
Ruling: Judge ruled the amendment be taken off the ballot. Supreme Court reversed lower court's ruling, amendment to appear on ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Florida Greyhound Association and its president, James Blanchard| Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the Florida Department of State
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment's ballot title and summary are inaccurate and misleading and do not inform voters of the true effects of the measure| Defendant argument:
The ballot language is not misleading

Source: Sun Sentinel

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 8, School Board Term Limits, Allow State to Operate Non-Board Established Schools, and Civic Literacy Amendment (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment violates the single subject rule, whether ballot language is misleading
Court: Filed in Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing Amendment 8 from the ballot. Appealed to the Supreme Court. On September 7, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling.[1]
Plaintiff(s): Filed by Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Florida League of Women Voters| Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner
Plaintiff argument:
The measure combines three separate and unrelated measures into one, so voters must either reject or approve all three; the ballot language is misleading and therefore the measure should not be placed on the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The ballot language is clear; Florida voters are entitled to vote on the amendment.

Source: SPLC Center, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 10, State and Local Government Structure Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment applies retroactively
Court: Filed in Leon County circuit court; appealed to First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; case dismissed; appeal failed
Plaintiff(s): Volusia County, Florida| Defendant(s): Governor Rick Scott (R) and Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment is misleading because it failed to make clear whether or not it applies retroactively or only prospectively. The amendment should be interpreted to only apply going forward. Volusia County should not have to restructure its government and restore constitutional offices that it had abolished.| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: Orlando Sentinel

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading
Court: Filed in Leon County Circuit Court, rejected by circuit judge James Shelfer, appealed by plaintiffs and forwarded to Florida Supreme Court
Ruling: Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and ordered the amendment to appear on the 2018 ballot
Plaintiff(s): The counties of Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Broward| Defendant(s): State officials
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language is misleading, the amendment combines more than a single subject, it would interfere with the counties' rights of self-government and control of local government structure| Defendant argument:
The amendment should appear on the ballot

Source: Miami Herald

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 11, Repeal Prohibition on Aliens' Property Ownership, Delete Obsolete Provision on High-Speed Rail, and Repeal of Criminal Statutes' Effect on Prosecution Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments
Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2]
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted.
Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas| Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner
Plaintiff argument:
Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading.| Defendant argument:
Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot.

Source: Florida Supreme Court filings

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 9, Ban Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Ban Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments
Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2]
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted.
Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas| Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner
Plaintiff argument:
Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading.| Defendant argument:
Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot.

Source: Florida Supreme Court filings

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 7, First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits, Supermajority Board Votes for College Fees, and State College System Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments
Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2]
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted.
Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas| Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner
Plaintiff argument:
Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading.| Defendant argument:
Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot.

Source: Florida Supreme Court filings

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 6, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is inaccurate and misleading
Court: Filed in Leon County, Florida. Supreme Court hearing scheduled at 4th District Court of Appeals at West Palm Beach courthouse
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, amendment removed from the ballot. State appealed to Supreme Court.
Plaintiff(s): Lee Hollander, a south Florida criminal defense attorney| Defendant(s): Unknown
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment should be removed from the ballot because Florida already has victim protections and rights, the amendment removes rights of criminal defendants, the ballot language is misleading| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: Orlando Sentinel

Click here for details.

### Hawaii

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Hawaii and 2018 ballot measures

* Hawaii Surcharge on Investment Properties to Fund Public Education Amendment (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading, unclear, and deceptive
Court: Filed in Honolulu circuit court, appealed to Hawaii Supreme Court
Ruling: Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure invalid and votes not to be counted
Plaintiff(s): The city of Honolulu and counties of Kauai, Hawaii, and Maui| Defendant(s): Hawaii state elections officials including Governor David Ige and Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment's ballot language is misleading, unclear, and deceptive. The ballot question and measure text do not clearly define investment real property and do not mention taxes or that the state legislature would have a new taxing power.| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: Honolulu Civil Beat

Click here for details.

### Idaho

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Idaho and 2018 ballot measures

* Idaho Proposition 2, Medicaid Expansion Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative unconstitutionally delegates too much power to the federal government and the state Department of Health and Welfare
Court: Filed in Idaho Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, Proposition 2 is legal
Plaintiff(s): Kootenai County Republican Central Committee chairman and head of the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s board of directors, Brent Regan| Defendant(s): Idaho Secretary of State Lawerence Denney
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative violates the constitution by delegating too much power to the federal government and the state Department of Health and Welfare| Defendant argument:
The lawsuit is unfounded because Medicaid expansion under the initiative does not remove the state's ability to opt in or out and does not cede power to the federal government

Source: Post Register

Click here for details.

### Kentucky

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Kentucky and 2018 ballot measures

* Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2018) - Overturned
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate
Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language
Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment.

Source: WFPL

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure
Court: Franklin Circuit Court
Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers| Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system.| Defendant argument:
Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years."

Source: Courier Journal

Click here for details.

### Maine

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2018 ballot measures

* Maine Question 2, Medicaid Expansion Initiative (2017) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Implementation—whether the Maine Department of Health & Human Services is required to submit a plan for Medicaid expansion
Court: Kennebec County Superior Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, requiring the state to file a plan to expand Medicaid
Plaintiff(s): Maine Equal Justice Partners, Consumers for Affordable Health Care, Maine Primary Care Association, Cassie Steimlosk, Donna Wall, Charles McDaniel, Ann Avery, Gina Zamello, and Penobscot Community Health Care| Defendant(s): Ricker Hamilton, Commissioner of Maine Department of Health & Human Services
Plaintiff argument:
The Maine Department of Health & Human Services is required, per Question 2, to submit a plan for Medicaid expansion| Defendant argument:
Courts cannot require expenditures, as that would violate the separation of powers between courts and the legislature.

Source: Kennebec County Superior Court

Click here for details.

### Massachusetts

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Massachusetts and 2018 ballot measures

* Massachusetts Income Tax for Education and Transportation Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality; whether the initiative violates Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution on three counts: (1) whether the initiative's subjects are related; (2) whether the initiative makes specific appropriations; and (3) whether the initiative takes control of the legislature's power to generate revenue.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure removed and blocked from November 2018 ballot
Plaintiff(s): Christopher Anderson, Christopher Carlozzi, Richard Lord, Eileen Mcanneny, and Daniel O’Connell| Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of State Bill Galvin
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative should not appear on the ballot in 2018. The initiative contains unrelated subjects, makes specific appropriations, and takes control of the legislature's ability to generate revenue.| Defendant argument:
The initiative was correctly certified for the ballot because provisions are mutually dependent and related.

Source: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Click here for details.

* Massachusetts Question 1, Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Single-subject rule; whether the provision requiring certain patient assignment limits and the provision prohibiting reduced staffing are unrelated.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, the initiative may appear on November ballot
Plaintiff(s): Four Massachusetts voters backed by the Steward Health Care System LLC| Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative's provision concerning nurse-patient assignment limits and the provision prohibiting reduced staffing are unrelated and violate the constitutional requirement that initiatives concern only one subject.| Defendant argument:
The initiative was designed to establish a system of related regulations and meets the constitutional requirement.

Source: Boston Herald

Click here for details.

### Michigan

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan and 2018 ballot measures

* Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Would the ballot measure violate the state's prohibition on initiatives that change the fundamental operation of state government?
Court: Michigan Supreme Court (appealed from the Michigan Court of Appeals)
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendants, keeping the measure on the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018
Plaintiff(s): Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution| Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State and Michigan Board of Canvassers
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative would change "the fundamental operation of state government," which state law prohibited.| Defendant argument:
The initiative does not violate the subject restriction on initiated constitutional amendments.

Source: Michigan Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### Missouri

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Missouri and 2018 ballot measures

* Missouri Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania| Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: St. Louis Public Raido

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process?
Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals
Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered
Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw| Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process.| Defendant argument:
Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded.

Source: The Joplin Globe

Click here for details.

* Missouri Proposition C, Medical Marijuana and Veterans Healthcare Services, Education, Drug Treatment, and Public Safety Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity; whether signatures collected from certain congressional districts are invalid
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: Plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit before the scheduled hearing
Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft and Lowell Pearson (sponsor of Proposition C)
Plaintiff argument:
Signatures collected from Congressional District 5 were determined to be valid but were invalid, making the petition insufficient| Defendant argument:
Signatures collected were valid

Source: The Joplin Globe

Click here for details.

* Missouri Proposition D, Gas Tax Increase, Olympic Prize Tax Exemption, and Traffic Reduction Fund Measure (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Single subject; Does Proposition D encompass a single subject or multiple subjects?
Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping Proposition D on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Mike Moon and Ron Calzone| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft
Plaintiff argument:
Proposition D violated the state's single-subject rule.| Defendant argument:
Proposition D did not violate the state's single-subject rule.

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Click here for details.

* Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Amendment 1 violate the state's single-subject rule?
Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals
Ruling: Cole County Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, removing Amendment 1 from the ballot for violating the single-subject rule. Judge Daniel Green said Amendment 1 addressed two issues, not one—ethics and the state legislature's organization. The Missouri Court of Appeals overturned Judge Green's decision, allowing Amendment 1 to remain on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Paul Ritter| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft
Plaintiff argument:
Amendment 1 violates the state's single-subject rule.| Defendant argument:
Amendment 1 addresses policies related to a single issue—ethics.

Source: The Kansas City Star

Click here for details.

### Montana

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Montana and 2018 ballot measures

* Montana I-185, Extend Medicaid Expansion and Increase Tobacco Taxes Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is confusing and incorrect and should be changed
Court: Filed in Montana Supreme Court
Ruling: Rejected, ballot language meets legal standards
Plaintiff(s): Montanans Against Tax Hikes (MATH)| Defendant(s): Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language is incorrect and confusing| Defendant argument:
The attorney general's legal review was sufficient, the ballot language is accurate and clear

Source: ABC News

Click here for details.

### Nevada

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2018 ballot measures

* Nevada Prevent Sanctuary Cities Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the measure violates the requirements that an initiative contains a single subject and be designed as legislative policy and that a petition describe an initiative's effects
Court: Filed in First Judicial District Court; appealed to Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Nevada Supreme Court in favor of defendants that the initiative contains a single subject, but ruled in favor of proponents that the ballot summary was misleading
Plaintiff(s): Michael Haley, Theresa Navarro, Tu Casa Latina| Defendant(s): Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC, Jeremy Hughes, and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske
Plaintiff argument:
(1) The definition of sanctuary cities violated the single-subject rule. (2) The petitions for the initiative did not describe the initiative's effects on finances and public safety. (3) The initiative was not designed as a legislative law, but rather an executive action.| Defendant argument:
The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule and addresses just one subject—immigration law.

Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court and Las Vegas Journal-Review

Click here for details.

### North Carolina

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in North Carolina and 2018 ballot measures

* North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot
Court: Wake County Superior Court
Ruling: North Carolina Supreme Court overturned previous rulings, allowing the voter ID amendment to take effect
Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina| Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Whether the amendment affects African American and Indian American voters negatively, places a cost on voting, and impedes one from exercising the right to vote
Court: Wake County Superior Court and North Carolina Supreme Court
Ruling: 2023
Plaintiff(s): Jabari Holmes, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, Shakoya Carrie Brown, and Paul Kearney, Sr.| Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore

Sources: Wake County Superior Court

Click here for details.

* North Carolina Income Tax Cap Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot?
Court: Wake County Superior Court
Ruling: The General Assembly of North Carolina acted with proper authority to refer constitutional amendments to the ballot; the voter ID and tax cap amendments stand and are enforceable.
Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina| Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore
Plaintiff argument:
Since some lawmakers were elected from districts that a federal court ruled were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the existing state legislature was a usurper legislature and could not place constitutional amendments on the ballot.| Defendant argument:
Despite the ruling concerning a gerrymander, the General Assembly of North Carolina still had the authority to enact legislation, including the referral of constitutional amendments to the ballot.

Source: Wake County Superior Court

Click here for details.

### Ohio

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2018 ballot measures

* Ohio Limits on Dialysis Clinics' Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity; whether or not required documentation for paid signature petition efforts was filed in time
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of paintiffs, invalidating the initiative petition
Plaintiff(s): Ohio Renal Association and Ian Weir| Defendant(s): Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection Amendment Committee, Anthony Caldwell, Mary Jo Ivan, Samara Knight, and Secretary of State Jon Husted
Plaintiff argument:
Signatures were invalid because documentation required for paid siganture gathering efforts was not filed prior to circulation.| Defendant argument:
The lawsuit was an abuse of the court system, the spirit of the law was followed with regard to the documentation, and it was possible that the petition management company had been operating on a volunteer basis until after the required documentation was submitted.

Source: Cleveland.org

Click here for details.

### Oklahoma

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Oklahoma and 2018 ballot measures

* Oklahoma State Question 793, Right of Optometrists and Opticians to Practice in Retail Establishments Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Single subject; whether the initiative concerns two distinct subjects—as prohibited by the constitution—because it was designed to affect both optometrists and opticians
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of initiative proponents, allowing the initiative to be circulated
Plaintiff(s): Oklahoma Association for Optometric Physicians| Defendant(s): Initiative proponents
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative violates the state constitution's requirement that an initiative concern only a single subject because it was designed to affect two professions: the professions of optometrists and opticians.| Defendant argument:
While the initiative does affect two professions, both professions relate to eye care and both professions depend on each other.

Source: News OK

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]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Green the Vote Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules
Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County
Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al.| Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health
Plaintiff argument:
The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title
Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters| Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana.| Defendant argument:
The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original.

Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court

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]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Green the Vote Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules
Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County
Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al.| Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health
Plaintiff argument:
The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title
Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters| Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana.| Defendant argument:
The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original.

Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### Oregon

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Oregon and 2018 ballot measures

Ballotpedia is not covering any 2018 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.

### South Dakota

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in South Dakota and 2018 ballot measures

* South Dakota Initiated Measure 26, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the language complies with South Dakota Code 12-13-25.1 ("... objective, clear, and simple summary to educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed initiative...").
Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit and South Dakota Supreme Court
Ruling: Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, allowing the attorney general's original ballot title and summary to remain. The plaintiffs appealed to state Supreme Court. In May 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld Jackley's ballot title and summary.
Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)| Defendant(s): Attorney General Marty Jackley
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary needs to include information about a provision giving petitioners legal standing to defend the measure in court and about potential effects.| Defendant argument:
The ballot summary is fair, clear, and simple.

Source: Capital Journal

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity; whether petition circulators falsely swore their residence address or were not South Dakota residents, and whether circulators made errors in obtaining signatures rendering them in violation of South Dakota law
Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the initiative was removed from the ballot on July 16, 2018
Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson and South Dakotans Against the Deceptive Ballot RX Issue| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shantel Krebs
Plaintiff argument:
The circulators of the petition submitted 13,871 invalid signatures, petition circulators were not residents of South Dakota, which is in violation of state law| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: Dakota War College

Click here for details.

### Utah

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Utah and 2018 ballot measures

* Utah Direct Primary Elections for Party Nominations Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the signature removal process is constitutional and whether the initiative should be included on the November 2018 ballot
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, measure not to be placed on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Count My Vote| Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox and county clerks of Washington, Utah, and Davis counties
Plaintiff argument:
The signature removal process is unconstitutional because it favors opponents of initiatives rather than proponents by making it easier to have signatures removed rather than gathering them, the initiative should be on the ballot and was wrongfully blocked when Keep My Voice persuaded enough voters to remove their signature from the petition| Defendant argument:
The Count My Vote measure is the only measure that didn't qualify even though other measures faced opposition and signature-removal campaigns, opponents are allowed to circulate signature-removal forms

Source: Utah Policy

Click here for details.

* Utah Proposition 2, Medical Marijuana Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot measure violates the constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection
Court: Filed in State Court of Utah, Third Judicial District in Salt Lake County; moved to the federal court system
Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah, Walter J. Plumb III of Truth About Prop 2| Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox, Utah Patients Coalition
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot initiative violates constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection and should be removed from the ballot| Defendant argument:
The measure is not unconstitutional, Cox has the authority to place the measure on the ballot

Source: Court filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the lieutenant governor can approve a statewide measure that would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause
Court: United States District Court, District of Utah
Ruling: Plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit[4]
Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah| Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution which makes federal law the law of the land, since marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.| Defendant argument:
The lieutenant governor is within his authority to certify the initiative for the ballot, the lawsuit should be dismissed because plaintiffs "lack standing because they have not been injured by the mere presence of the Initiative on the ballot. Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe because the voters may reject the Initiative"

Source: Fox 13 Salt Lake City

Click here for details.

### Washington

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Washington and 2018 ballot measures

* Washington Initiative 1639, Changes to Gun Ownership and Purchase Requirements Measure (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language and text on petitions comply with state requirements. Signature validity; whether the signatures were obtained legally and are valid.
Court: Filed in Thurston County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure removed from the ballot. Defendants appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling on August 24, 2018, and allowed the measure to stay on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): National Rifle Association and Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation Alan Gottlieb| Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman
Plaintiff argument:
Signatures are invalid because they were gathered using fraudulent copies of the initiative| Defendant argument:
A random sampling determined that there were enough valid signatures for the petition to qualify it for the November ballot

Source: Washington State Wire

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language and text on petitions comply with state requirements
Court: Washington State Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed
Plaintiff(s): Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms| Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman and proponent Paul Kramer, Safe Schools Safe Communities PAC (Yes on 1639)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language is too small and does not live up to readability standards, the full text of the measure was not printed on the back of petitions, the text used on petitions did not match the official ballot language text| Defendant argument:
The lawsuit is an attempt by gun ownership supporters to keep the initiative off the ballot, people signing petitions were aware of what the initiative would do

Source: Guns.com

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the language of the ballot title and summary is neutral and encompasses the key tenets of the measure
Court: Thurston County Superior Court
Ruling: On June 7, 2018, Judge Carol Murphy ruled that the ballot title and summary must be changed
Plaintiff(s): The National Rifle Association| Defendant(s): Attorney General Robert Ferguson and proponent Paul Kramer
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot title and summary are biased and don't include important parts of the measure| Defendant argument:
The ballot summary is fair, clear, and complies with statutory standards

Source: Challenge to ballot title and summary for initiative 1639

Click here for details.

# By subject[edit]

This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2018—by subject—for measures proximate to 2018. It also lists 2018 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2018 or a later year.

Subjects listed include the following:

* Ballot language \- Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on petition forms or on the ballot
* Campaign finance \- Lawsuits alleging campaign finance law violations
* Circulators \- Lawsuits concerning the qualifications or actions of petition circulators
* Legislative alteration \- Lawsuits concerning actions by legislatures to repeal or amend citizen initiatives.
* Post-certification removal \- Lawsuits seeking the removal of a measure from the ballot after it was certified
* Post-election \- Lawsuits filed concerning a measure after the election has already occurred
* Preemption \- Lawsuits alleging that a measure is preempted by a higher authority (i.e. a state measure preempted by Federal authority/law or a local measure preempted by state authority/law)
* Signature validity \- Lawsuits challenging the validity of signatures
* Signature deadlines \- Lawsuits that argue proponents of a measure did not meet the procedural deadlines required to put a measure on the ballot
* Single subject \- Lawsuits challenging an initiative according to a state's single-subject rule
* Subject restriction \- Lawsuits based on legal restrictions on the subject matter of ballot measures
* Substantive constitutionality \- Lawsuits alleging that the content of a measure violates a constitutional provision such as a right to free speech or equal protection or that constitutional language added by a ballot measure is being violated by a statute, ordinance, or administrative action
* Voter guide \- Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on state-produced voter guides

Methodological note: Since multiple lawsuits are often filed surrounding one measure, and these lawsuits provide important context for each other, information about all lawsuits surrounding a specific measure will be listed whether or not each separate lawsuit concerns the subject under which the lawsuits are listed on this tab.

### Ballot language[edit]

* South Dakota Initiated Measure 26, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the language complies with South Dakota Code 12-13-25.1 ("... objective, clear, and simple summary to educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed initiative...").
Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit and South Dakota Supreme Court
Ruling: Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, allowing the attorney general's original ballot title and summary to remain. The plaintiffs appealed to state Supreme Court. In May 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld Jackley's ballot title and summary.
Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)| Defendant(s): Attorney General Marty Jackley
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary needs to include information about a provision giving petitioners legal standing to defend the measure in court and about potential effects.| Defendant argument:
The ballot summary is fair, clear, and simple.

Source: Capital Journal

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity; whether petition circulators falsely swore their residence address or were not South Dakota residents, and whether circulators made errors in obtaining signatures rendering them in violation of South Dakota law
Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the initiative was removed from the ballot on July 16, 2018
Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson and South Dakotans Against the Deceptive Ballot RX Issue| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shantel Krebs
Plaintiff argument:
The circulators of the petition submitted 13,871 invalid signatures, petition circulators were not residents of South Dakota, which is in violation of state law| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: Dakota War College

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 13, Ban on Wagering on Dog Races Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is inaccurate and misleading
Court: Filed in Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of Leon County, Florida, moved to Florida Supreme Court
Ruling: Judge ruled the amendment be taken off the ballot. Supreme Court reversed lower court's ruling, amendment to appear on ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Florida Greyhound Association and its president, James Blanchard| Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner and the Florida Department of State
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment's ballot title and summary are inaccurate and misleading and do not inform voters of the true effects of the measure| Defendant argument:
The ballot language is not misleading

Source: Sun Sentinel

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 8, School Board Term Limits, Allow State to Operate Non-Board Established Schools, and Civic Literacy Amendment (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment violates the single subject rule, whether ballot language is misleading
Court: Filed in Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County, Florida
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing Amendment 8 from the ballot. Appealed to the Supreme Court. On September 7, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling.[1]
Plaintiff(s): Filed by Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of Florida League of Women Voters| Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner
Plaintiff argument:
The measure combines three separate and unrelated measures into one, so voters must either reject or approve all three; the ballot language is misleading and therefore the measure should not be placed on the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The ballot language is clear; Florida voters are entitled to vote on the amendment.

Source: SPLC Center, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

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]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Green the Vote Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules
Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County
Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al.| Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health
Plaintiff argument:
The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title
Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters| Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana.| Defendant argument:
The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original.

Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court

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]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Green the Vote Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules
Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County
Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al.| Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health
Plaintiff argument:
The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title
Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters| Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana.| Defendant argument:
The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original.

Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2018) - Overturned
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate
Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language
Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment.

Source: WFPL

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure
Court: Franklin Circuit Court
Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers| Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system.| Defendant argument:
Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years."

Source: Courier Journal

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 207, Tax on Incomes Exceeding $250,000 for Teacher Salaries and School Operations Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did the 100-word petition summary need to include information about Proposition 207's elimination of the law indexing tax brackets to inflation?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, removing Proposition 207 from the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Jaime Molera and Jennifer Henricks| Defendant(s): Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Plaintiff argument:
The title and summary used on petitions was inaccurate and misleading, invalidating the petition, and other laws governing the initiative process were not followed.| Defendant argument:
The initiative petition met all necessary requirements to remain eligible for the ballot and the petition language was accurate.

Source: Tucson.com

Click here for details.

* Hawaii Surcharge on Investment Properties to Fund Public Education Amendment (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading, unclear, and deceptive
Court: Filed in Honolulu circuit court, appealed to Hawaii Supreme Court
Ruling: Supreme Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure invalid and votes not to be counted
Plaintiff(s): The city of Honolulu and counties of Kauai, Hawaii, and Maui| Defendant(s): Hawaii state elections officials including Governor David Ige and Lieutenant Governor Doug Chin
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment's ballot language is misleading, unclear, and deceptive. The ballot question and measure text do not clearly define investment real property and do not mention taxes or that the state legislature would have a new taxing power.| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: Honolulu Civil Beat

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 127, Renewable Energy Standards Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Proposition 127 violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language?
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 127 did not violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language.
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Vince Leach (R-11), Rep. John Kavanagh (R-23), Mesa Mayor John Giles, and five other individuals| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) and local election boards
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners failed to strictly follow state laws by not disclosing the actual financial backer of the initiative on petitions, firing signature gatherers based on quotas, submitting deficient petition sheets, providing a misleading title and summary on petitions| Defendant argument:
The petitioners sufficiently complied with state laws and petitions included enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot

Source: Daily Miner

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 6, Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is inaccurate and misleading
Court: Filed in Leon County, Florida. Supreme Court hearing scheduled at 4th District Court of Appeals at West Palm Beach courthouse
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, amendment removed from the ballot. State appealed to Supreme Court.
Plaintiff(s): Lee Hollander, a south Florida criminal defense attorney| Defendant(s): Unknown
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment should be removed from the ballot because Florida already has victim protections and rights, the amendment removes rights of criminal defendants, the ballot language is misleading| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: Orlando Sentinel

Click here for details.

* Montana I-185, Extend Medicaid Expansion and Increase Tobacco Taxes Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is confusing and incorrect and should be changed
Court: Filed in Montana Supreme Court
Ruling: Rejected, ballot language meets legal standards
Plaintiff(s): Montanans Against Tax Hikes (MATH)| Defendant(s): Montana Attorney General Tim Fox (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language is incorrect and confusing| Defendant argument:
The attorney general's legal review was sufficient, the ballot language is accurate and clear

Source: ABC News

Click here for details.

* Washington Initiative 1639, Changes to Gun Ownership and Purchase Requirements Measure (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language and text on petitions comply with state requirements. Signature validity; whether the signatures were obtained legally and are valid.
Court: Filed in Thurston County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure removed from the ballot. Defendants appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling on August 24, 2018, and allowed the measure to stay on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): National Rifle Association and Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation Alan Gottlieb| Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman
Plaintiff argument:
Signatures are invalid because they were gathered using fraudulent copies of the initiative| Defendant argument:
A random sampling determined that there were enough valid signatures for the petition to qualify it for the November ballot

Source: Washington State Wire

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language and text on petitions comply with state requirements
Court: Washington State Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed
Plaintiff(s): Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms| Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman and proponent Paul Kramer, Safe Schools Safe Communities PAC (Yes on 1639)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language is too small and does not live up to readability standards, the full text of the measure was not printed on the back of petitions, the text used on petitions did not match the official ballot language text| Defendant argument:
The lawsuit is an attempt by gun ownership supporters to keep the initiative off the ballot, people signing petitions were aware of what the initiative would do

Source: Guns.com

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the language of the ballot title and summary is neutral and encompasses the key tenets of the measure
Court: Thurston County Superior Court
Ruling: On June 7, 2018, Judge Carol Murphy ruled that the ballot title and summary must be changed
Plaintiff(s): The National Rifle Association| Defendant(s): Attorney General Robert Ferguson and proponent Paul Kramer
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot title and summary are biased and don't include important parts of the measure| Defendant argument:
The ballot summary is fair, clear, and complies with statutory standards

Source: Challenge to ballot title and summary for initiative 1639

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 70, Vote Requirement to Use Cap-and-Trade Revenue Amendment (June 2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether ballot language written by state attorney general is false, misleading, and likely to cause prejudice against Proposition 70
Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County, California
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the attorney general to change the ballot title.
Plaintiff(s): Asm. Chad Mayes (R-42)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D)
Plaintiff argument:
Attorney General Xavier Becerra's (D) ballot language for Proposition 70 "is false, misleading, and likely to cause prejudice against Proposition 70" because (1) the measure does not limit the legislature's authority, but requires a one-time supermajority vote, and (2) the measure does not limit the legislature from using revenue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.| Defendant argument:
As of March 8, 2018, the offices of the secretary of state and attorney general had not commented on the lawsuit.

Source: Superior Court of Sacramento County

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 4, Casinos Authorized in Crittenden, Garland, Pope, and Jefferson Counties Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative's ballot language is unclear and misleading
Court: Filed in Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed by Supreme Court on October 11, 2018; said ballot language is clear and not misleading
Plaintiff(s): Ensuring Arkansas' Future and Citizens for Local Choice| Defendant(s): State officials, initiative proponents
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative's ballot language is unclear and misleading and should be removed from the ballot, or votes should not be counted for the measure| Defendant argument:
The ballot language is clear

Source: Arkansas Online

Click here for details.

### Campaign finance[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2018 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2018.

### Circulators[edit]

* Ohio Limits on Dialysis Clinics' Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity; whether or not required documentation for paid signature petition efforts was filed in time
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of paintiffs, invalidating the initiative petition
Plaintiff(s): Ohio Renal Association and Ian Weir| Defendant(s): Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection Amendment Committee, Anthony Caldwell, Mary Jo Ivan, Samara Knight, and Secretary of State Jon Husted
Plaintiff argument:
Signatures were invalid because documentation required for paid siganture gathering efforts was not filed prior to circulation.| Defendant argument:
The lawsuit was an abuse of the court system, the spirit of the law was followed with regard to the documentation, and it was possible that the petition management company had been operating on a volunteer basis until after the required documentation was submitted.

Source: Cleveland.org

Click here for details.

* Missouri Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania| Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: St. Louis Public Raido

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process?
Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals
Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered
Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw| Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process.| Defendant argument:
Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded.

Source: The Joplin Globe

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 127, Renewable Energy Standards Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Proposition 127 violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language?
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 127 did not violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language.
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Vince Leach (R-11), Rep. John Kavanagh (R-23), Mesa Mayor John Giles, and five other individuals| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) and local election boards
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners failed to strictly follow state laws by not disclosing the actual financial backer of the initiative on petitions, firing signature gatherers based on quotas, submitting deficient petition sheets, providing a misleading title and summary on petitions| Defendant argument:
The petitioners sufficiently complied with state laws and petitions included enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot

Source: Daily Miner

Click here for details.

* Colorado Proposition 112, Minimum Distance Requirements for New Oil, Gas, and Fracking Projects Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the signature gathering company acted illegally by taking signatures out of state
Court: Filed in Denver District Court
Plaintiff(s): Colorado Rising| Defendant(s): Direct Action Partners
Plaintiff argument:
The company hired to gather signatures acted illegally by taking petition sheets out of state after a contract dispute| Defendant argument:
The petitions were taken to Oregon to process them for a cheaper price

Source: New York Times

Click here for details.

### Legislative alteration[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2018 regarding legislative alteration that took place in 2018.

### Post-certification removal[edit]

* Missouri Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania| Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: St. Louis Public Raido

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process?
Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals
Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered
Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw| Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process.| Defendant argument:
Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded.

Source: The Joplin Globe

Click here for details.

* Missouri Proposition C, Medical Marijuana and Veterans Healthcare Services, Education, Drug Treatment, and Public Safety Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity; whether signatures collected from certain congressional districts are invalid
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: Plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit before the scheduled hearing
Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft and Lowell Pearson (sponsor of Proposition C)
Plaintiff argument:
Signatures collected from Congressional District 5 were determined to be valid but were invalid, making the petition insufficient| Defendant argument:
Signatures collected were valid

Source: The Joplin Globe

Click here for details.

* Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2018) - Overturned
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate
Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language
Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment.

Source: WFPL

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure
Court: Franklin Circuit Court
Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers| Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system.| Defendant argument:
Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years."

Source: Courier Journal

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 127, Renewable Energy Standards Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Proposition 127 violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language?
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 127 did not violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language.
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Vince Leach (R-11), Rep. John Kavanagh (R-23), Mesa Mayor John Giles, and five other individuals| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) and local election boards
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners failed to strictly follow state laws by not disclosing the actual financial backer of the initiative on petitions, firing signature gatherers based on quotas, submitting deficient petition sheets, providing a misleading title and summary on petitions| Defendant argument:
The petitioners sufficiently complied with state laws and petitions included enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot

Source: Daily Miner

Click here for details.

### Post-election[edit]

* Oregon Measure 91, Legalized Marijuana Initiative (2014) -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Preemption; whether or not state law can preempt local laws governing marijuana because of the conflict between state legalized marijuana and federal law (Note: This lawsuit also affects Oregon's medical marijuana initiative, Measure 67 (1998) and other state laws.)
Court: U.S. District Court of Oregon
Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2014 ballot measure
Ruling: Dismissed; the county, as a subdivision of the state, does not have standing to sue over a state law.
Plaintiff(s): Josephine County| Defendant(s): State of Oregon and Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum
Plaintiff argument:
State law should not preempt Josephine County from regulating and restricting marijuana cultivation, sales, and use because marijuana is illegal according to federal law.| Defendant argument:
An official response from the defendants was not available as of April 10, 2018.

Source: Josephine County v. State of Oregon

Click here for details.

* Maine Question 2, Medicaid Expansion Initiative (2017) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Implementation—whether the Maine Department of Health & Human Services is required to submit a plan for Medicaid expansion
Court: Kennebec County Superior Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, requiring the state to file a plan to expand Medicaid
Plaintiff(s): Maine Equal Justice Partners, Consumers for Affordable Health Care, Maine Primary Care Association, Cassie Steimlosk, Donna Wall, Charles McDaniel, Ann Avery, Gina Zamello, and Penobscot Community Health Care| Defendant(s): Ricker Hamilton, Commissioner of Maine Department of Health & Human Services
Plaintiff argument:
The Maine Department of Health & Human Services is required, per Question 2, to submit a plan for Medicaid expansion| Defendant argument:
Courts cannot require expenditures, as that would violate the separation of powers between courts and the legislature.

Source: Kennebec County Superior Court

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]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Green the Vote Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules
Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County
Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al.| Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health
Plaintiff argument:
The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title
Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters| Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana.| Defendant argument:
The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original.

Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court

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]."[3] The rules approved by Fallin are arbitrary and capricious and should be declared invalid.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Green the Vote Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether regulations on medical marijuana voted for by 5 Oklahoma Department of Health Board Members and approved by Governor Mary Fallin interfere with or threaten to interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs, whether the board members had the authority to promulgate such emergency rules
Court: Filed in the district court of Cleveland County
Plaintiff(s): Dahn Gregg, et al.| Defendant(s): The State of Oklahoma and the Oklahoma Department of Health
Plaintiff argument:
The Board of Health does not have authority to promulgate emergency rules, the rules interfere (or threaten to interfere) or impair the legal rights and privileges of the Plaintiffs. The rules should not be enacted.| Defendant argument:
Unknown as of July 16, 2018

Source: Court Filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; allegedly misleading and confusing ballot title
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, reinstating original ballot title
Plaintiff(s): Oklahomans for Health, Chip Paul, and Philip Winters| Defendant(s): Attorney General Mike Hunter (Scott Pruitt prior to federal appointment as EPA Administrator on February 17, 2017)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot title uses confusing language that could lead voters to believe they would be legalizing recreational marijuana instead of medical marijuana.| Defendant argument:
The ballot title is objective and more accurate than the original.

Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network and Oklahoma Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 10, State and Local Government Structure Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment applies retroactively
Court: Filed in Leon County circuit court; appealed to First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; case dismissed; appeal failed
Plaintiff(s): Volusia County, Florida| Defendant(s): Governor Rick Scott (R) and Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment is misleading because it failed to make clear whether or not it applies retroactively or only prospectively. The amendment should be interpreted to only apply going forward. Volusia County should not have to restructure its government and restore constitutional offices that it had abolished.| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: Orlando Sentinel

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading
Court: Filed in Leon County Circuit Court, rejected by circuit judge James Shelfer, appealed by plaintiffs and forwarded to Florida Supreme Court
Ruling: Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and ordered the amendment to appear on the 2018 ballot
Plaintiff(s): The counties of Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Broward| Defendant(s): State officials
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language is misleading, the amendment combines more than a single subject, it would interfere with the counties' rights of self-government and control of local government structure| Defendant argument:
The amendment should appear on the ballot

Source: Miami Herald

Click here for details.

* User:Josh Altic/WeeklyMonthlyReportDPLs -

Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default

Click here for details.

* North Carolina Voter ID Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot
Court: Wake County Superior Court
Ruling: North Carolina Supreme Court overturned previous rulings, allowing the voter ID amendment to take effect
Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina| Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Whether the amendment affects African American and Indian American voters negatively, places a cost on voting, and impedes one from exercising the right to vote
Court: Wake County Superior Court and North Carolina Supreme Court
Ruling: 2023
Plaintiff(s): Jabari Holmes, Fred Culp, Daniel E. Smith, Brendon Jaden Peay, Shakoya Carrie Brown, and Paul Kearney, Sr.| Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore

Sources: Wake County Superior Court

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 63, Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California)
Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra)
Plaintiff argument:
Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms| Defendant argument:
Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional

Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce?
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause; upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc.,| Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta

Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Click here for details.

* North Carolina Income Tax Cap Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the state legislature that was ruled to be an illegal racial gerrymander can refer the constitutional amendment to the ballot?
Court: Wake County Superior Court
Ruling: The General Assembly of North Carolina acted with proper authority to refer constitutional amendments to the ballot; the voter ID and tax cap amendments stand and are enforceable.
Plaintiff(s): North Carolina NAACP and Clean Air Carolina| Defendant(s): Senate President Phil Berger and House Speaker Timothy K. Moore
Plaintiff argument:
Since some lawmakers were elected from districts that a federal court ruled were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the existing state legislature was a usurper legislature and could not place constitutional amendments on the ballot.| Defendant argument:
Despite the ruling concerning a gerrymander, the General Assembly of North Carolina still had the authority to enact legislation, including the referral of constitutional amendments to the ballot.

Source: Wake County Superior Court

Click here for details.

### Preemption[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2018 regarding preemption that took place in 2018.

### Signature validity[edit]

* South Dakota Initiated Measure 26, Drug Price Standards Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the language complies with South Dakota Code 12-13-25.1 ("... objective, clear, and simple summary to educate the voters of the purpose and effect of the proposed initiative...").
Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit and South Dakota Supreme Court
Ruling: Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, allowing the attorney general's original ballot title and summary to remain. The plaintiffs appealed to state Supreme Court. In May 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge and upheld Jackley's ballot title and summary.
Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson, South Dakota Biotechnology Association, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)| Defendant(s): Attorney General Marty Jackley
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary needs to include information about a provision giving petitioners legal standing to defend the measure in court and about potential effects.| Defendant argument:
The ballot summary is fair, clear, and simple.

Source: Capital Journal

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity; whether petition circulators falsely swore their residence address or were not South Dakota residents, and whether circulators made errors in obtaining signatures rendering them in violation of South Dakota law
Court: South Dakota Sixth Judicial Circuit
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the initiative was removed from the ballot on July 16, 2018
Plaintiff(s): Joni Johnson and South Dakotans Against the Deceptive Ballot RX Issue| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shantel Krebs
Plaintiff argument:
The circulators of the petition submitted 13,871 invalid signatures, petition circulators were not residents of South Dakota, which is in violation of state law| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: Dakota War College

Click here for details.

* Utah Direct Primary Elections for Party Nominations Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the signature removal process is constitutional and whether the initiative should be included on the November 2018 ballot
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, measure not to be placed on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Count My Vote| Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox and county clerks of Washington, Utah, and Davis counties
Plaintiff argument:
The signature removal process is unconstitutional because it favors opponents of initiatives rather than proponents by making it easier to have signatures removed rather than gathering them, the initiative should be on the ballot and was wrongfully blocked when Keep My Voice persuaded enough voters to remove their signature from the petition| Defendant argument:
The Count My Vote measure is the only measure that didn't qualify even though other measures faced opposition and signature-removal campaigns, opponents are allowed to circulate signature-removal forms

Source: Utah Policy

Click here for details.

* Ohio Limits on Dialysis Clinics' Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity; whether or not required documentation for paid signature petition efforts was filed in time
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of paintiffs, invalidating the initiative petition
Plaintiff(s): Ohio Renal Association and Ian Weir| Defendant(s): Kidney Dialysis Patient Protection Amendment Committee, Anthony Caldwell, Mary Jo Ivan, Samara Knight, and Secretary of State Jon Husted
Plaintiff argument:
Signatures were invalid because documentation required for paid siganture gathering efforts was not filed prior to circulation.| Defendant argument:
The lawsuit was an abuse of the court system, the spirit of the law was followed with regard to the documentation, and it was possible that the petition management company had been operating on a volunteer basis until after the required documentation was submitted.

Source: Cleveland.org

Click here for details.

* Missouri Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania| Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: St. Louis Public Raido

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process?
Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals
Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered
Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw| Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process.| Defendant argument:
Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded.

Source: The Joplin Globe

Click here for details.

* Missouri Proposition C, Medical Marijuana and Veterans Healthcare Services, Education, Drug Treatment, and Public Safety Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Signature validity; whether signatures collected from certain congressional districts are invalid
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: Plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit before the scheduled hearing
Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft and Lowell Pearson (sponsor of Proposition C)
Plaintiff argument:
Signatures collected from Congressional District 5 were determined to be valid but were invalid, making the petition insufficient| Defendant argument:
Signatures collected were valid

Source: The Joplin Globe

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 127, Renewable Energy Standards Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Proposition 127 violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language?
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court and Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 127 did not violate the state's strict compliance standard for signature gathering and petition language.
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Vince Leach (R-11), Rep. John Kavanagh (R-23), Mesa Mayor John Giles, and five other individuals| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) and local election boards
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners failed to strictly follow state laws by not disclosing the actual financial backer of the initiative on petitions, firing signature gatherers based on quotas, submitting deficient petition sheets, providing a misleading title and summary on petitions| Defendant argument:
The petitioners sufficiently complied with state laws and petitions included enough valid signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot

Source: Daily Miner

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 3, State Legislative Term Limits Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the signatures are valid, whether signature gatherers properly acquired signatures
Court: Filed in Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating the measure and ordering election official to not count votes on Issue 3
Plaintiff(s): Head of Arkansans for Common-Sense Term Limits and Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce President Randy Zook| Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin
Plaintiff argument:
Signature gatherers did not have proper background checks and paperwork, signature gatherers did not have proper signature sheets showing the text of Issue 3, signatures are invalid, and the measure should be removed from the ballot| Defendant argument:
The signatures are valid and the measure should remain on the ballot

Source: Court Filings

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 5, Minimum Wage Increase Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the signatures are valid, whether signature gatherers for the initiative were properly registered as paid canvassers
Court: Filed in Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Lawsuit rejected, measure to remain on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for a Strong Economy| Defendant(s): Initiative proponents, state officials
Plaintiff argument:
Signature gatherers were not properly registered as paid canvassers with the Arkansas Secretary of State's office, signatures are invalid, and the measure should be removed from the ballot| Defendant argument:
The signatures are valid and the measure should remain on the ballot

Source: Associated Press

Click here for details.

* Washington Initiative 1639, Changes to Gun Ownership and Purchase Requirements Measure (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language and text on petitions comply with state requirements. Signature validity; whether the signatures were obtained legally and are valid.
Court: Filed in Thurston County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure removed from the ballot. Defendants appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling on August 24, 2018, and allowed the measure to stay on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): National Rifle Association and Founder of the Second Amendment Foundation Alan Gottlieb| Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman
Plaintiff argument:
Signatures are invalid because they were gathered using fraudulent copies of the initiative| Defendant argument:
A random sampling determined that there were enough valid signatures for the petition to qualify it for the November ballot

Source: Washington State Wire

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language and text on petitions comply with state requirements
Court: Washington State Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed
Plaintiff(s): Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms| Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman and proponent Paul Kramer, Safe Schools Safe Communities PAC (Yes on 1639)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language is too small and does not live up to readability standards, the full text of the measure was not printed on the back of petitions, the text used on petitions did not match the official ballot language text| Defendant argument:
The lawsuit is an attempt by gun ownership supporters to keep the initiative off the ballot, people signing petitions were aware of what the initiative would do

Source: Guns.com

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the language of the ballot title and summary is neutral and encompasses the key tenets of the measure
Court: Thurston County Superior Court
Ruling: On June 7, 2018, Judge Carol Murphy ruled that the ballot title and summary must be changed
Plaintiff(s): The National Rifle Association| Defendant(s): Attorney General Robert Ferguson and proponent Paul Kramer
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot title and summary are biased and don't include important parts of the measure| Defendant argument:
The ballot summary is fair, clear, and complies with statutory standards

Source: Challenge to ballot title and summary for initiative 1639

Click here for details.

### Signature deadlines[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2018 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2018.

### Single subject[edit]

* Massachusetts Income Tax for Education and Transportation Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality; whether the initiative violates Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution on three counts: (1) whether the initiative's subjects are related; (2) whether the initiative makes specific appropriations; and (3) whether the initiative takes control of the legislature's power to generate revenue.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, measure removed and blocked from November 2018 ballot
Plaintiff(s): Christopher Anderson, Christopher Carlozzi, Richard Lord, Eileen Mcanneny, and Daniel O’Connell| Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of State Bill Galvin
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative should not appear on the ballot in 2018. The initiative contains unrelated subjects, makes specific appropriations, and takes control of the legislature's ability to generate revenue.| Defendant argument:
The initiative was correctly certified for the ballot because provisions are mutually dependent and related.

Source: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma State Question 793, Right of Optometrists and Opticians to Practice in Retail Establishments Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Single subject; whether the initiative concerns two distinct subjects—as prohibited by the constitution—because it was designed to affect both optometrists and opticians
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of initiative proponents, allowing the initiative to be circulated
Plaintiff(s): Oklahoma Association for Optometric Physicians| Defendant(s): Initiative proponents
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative violates the state constitution's requirement that an initiative concern only a single subject because it was designed to affect two professions: the professions of optometrists and opticians.| Defendant argument:
While the initiative does affect two professions, both professions relate to eye care and both professions depend on each other.

Source: News OK

Click here for details.

* Massachusetts Question 1, Nurse-Patient Assignment Limits Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Single-subject rule; whether the provision requiring certain patient assignment limits and the provision prohibiting reduced staffing are unrelated.
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, the initiative may appear on November ballot
Plaintiff(s): Four Massachusetts voters backed by the Steward Health Care System LLC| Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative's provision concerning nurse-patient assignment limits and the provision prohibiting reduced staffing are unrelated and violate the constitutional requirement that initiatives concern only one subject.| Defendant argument:
The initiative was designed to establish a system of related regulations and meets the constitutional requirement.

Source: Boston Herald

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 10, State and Local Government Structure Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment applies retroactively
Court: Filed in Leon County circuit court; appealed to First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; case dismissed; appeal failed
Plaintiff(s): Volusia County, Florida| Defendant(s): Governor Rick Scott (R) and Secretary of State Ken Detzner (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment is misleading because it failed to make clear whether or not it applies retroactively or only prospectively. The amendment should be interpreted to only apply going forward. Volusia County should not have to restructure its government and restore constitutional offices that it had abolished.| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: Orlando Sentinel

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading
Court: Filed in Leon County Circuit Court, rejected by circuit judge James Shelfer, appealed by plaintiffs and forwarded to Florida Supreme Court
Ruling: Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and ordered the amendment to appear on the 2018 ballot
Plaintiff(s): The counties of Miami-Dade, Volusia, and Broward| Defendant(s): State officials
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language is misleading, the amendment combines more than a single subject, it would interfere with the counties' rights of self-government and control of local government structure| Defendant argument:
The amendment should appear on the ballot

Source: Miami Herald

Click here for details.

* Missouri Proposition D, Gas Tax Increase, Olympic Prize Tax Exemption, and Traffic Reduction Fund Measure (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Single subject; Does Proposition D encompass a single subject or multiple subjects?
Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping Proposition D on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Mike Moon and Ron Calzone| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft
Plaintiff argument:
Proposition D violated the state's single-subject rule.| Defendant argument:
Proposition D did not violate the state's single-subject rule.

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 11, Repeal Prohibition on Aliens' Property Ownership, Delete Obsolete Provision on High-Speed Rail, and Repeal of Criminal Statutes' Effect on Prosecution Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments
Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2]
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted.
Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas| Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner
Plaintiff argument:
Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading.| Defendant argument:
Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot.

Source: Florida Supreme Court filings

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 9, Ban Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Ban Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments
Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2]
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted.
Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas| Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner
Plaintiff argument:
Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading.| Defendant argument:
Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot.

Source: Florida Supreme Court filings

Click here for details.

* Missouri Amendment 1, Lobbying, Campaign Finance, and Redistricting Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Amendment 1 violate the state's single-subject rule?
Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals
Ruling: Cole County Circuit Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, removing Amendment 1 from the ballot for violating the single-subject rule. Judge Daniel Green said Amendment 1 addressed two issues, not one—ethics and the state legislature's organization. The Missouri Court of Appeals overturned Judge Green's decision, allowing Amendment 1 to remain on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Paul Ritter| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Ashcroft
Plaintiff argument:
Amendment 1 violates the state's single-subject rule.| Defendant argument:
Amendment 1 addresses policies related to a single issue—ethics.

Source: The Kansas City Star

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 306, Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Single subject; Did Proposition 306 violate the constitution's single-subject requirement?
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, saying that the single-subject requirement applied to constitutional amendments, but not statutory measures, and keeping Proposition 306 on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Michele Reagan
Plaintiff argument:
Proposition 306 violated the state's single-subject requirement for ballot measures. Proposition 306 addressed two subjects—how candidates can spend funds and the rulemaking powers of the commission.| Defendant argument:
The single-subject requirement applied to legislative acts, which did not include statutes sent to voters, such as Proposition 306.

Source: Tucson.com

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 1, Cap on Attorney’s Fees and Damage Awards in Lawsuits Amendment (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative is unconstitutional since it combines separate constitutional amendments into one ballot measure, whether the initiative violates provisions regarding separation of powers in the Arkansas Constitution
Court: Filed in Circuit Court of Pulaski County, appealed to Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, the judge ordered the secretary of state not to count any votes cast for the measure. Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. On October 18, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling to not count any votes on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Former Judge Marion Humphrey| Defendant(s): Arkansas Secretary of State Mark Martin (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The measure is actually four different constitutional amendments disguised as one, which violates the single-subject rule. It violates the separation of powers of the legislative and judicial branches of government.| Defendant argument:
The measure is constitutional and should go on the ballot.

Source: Court Filings

Click here for details.

* California Home and School Remediation Bond and Remove Status of Lead Paint as Public Nuisance Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Single subject; whether initiative violated single-subject rule and reenactment requirement
Court: California Supreme Court
Plaintiff(s): Santa Clara County, San Francisco, Miguel Márquez, Miller Ravel, and Jeffrey V. Smith| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Joseph Canciamilla, Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters of Contra Costa County
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot initiative encompasses more than one subject and violates the requirement that statute be directly amended.| Defendant argument:
As of June 26, 2018, Ballotpedia did not find a response from the defendants.

Source: California Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 7, First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits, Supermajority Board Votes for College Fees, and State College System Amendment (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether amendments put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, whether the structure of the amendments violate voters' First Amendment rights not to be required to pay a price for the right to vote for or against the proposed amendments
Court: Filed in Florida Supreme Court. Supreme Court transferred the case down to Leon County Circuit Court. Appealed to the First District Court of Appeals. Case taken up by Supreme Court on September 12, 2018.[2]
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, case moved to Supreme Court. On October 17, 2018, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling, instead ordering Amendments 7, 9, and 11 to remain on the ballot and votes on the measures to be counted.
Plaintiff(s): Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead and former Florida Elections commissioner Robert J. Barnas| Defendant(s): Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner
Plaintiff argument:
Amendment numbers 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, put on the ballot by the Florida Constitution Revision Commission combine independent and unrelated subjects into one amendment, voters cannot accurately vote on the issues bundled within each amendment, they should be removed from the ballot. Also, the ballot language for Amendment 8 is misleading.| Defendant argument:
Amendments proposed by the constitution revision commission do not need to abide by the single subject rule, only initiatives proposed by the public are bound by the single-subject rule. Detzner did not violate Florida law by certifying the measures for the ballot.

Source: Florida Supreme Court filings

Click here for details.

### Subject restriction[edit]

* Nevada Prevent Sanctuary Cities Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the measure violates the requirements that an initiative contains a single subject and be designed as legislative policy and that a petition describe an initiative's effects
Court: Filed in First Judicial District Court; appealed to Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Nevada Supreme Court in favor of defendants that the initiative contains a single subject, but ruled in favor of proponents that the ballot summary was misleading
Plaintiff(s): Michael Haley, Theresa Navarro, Tu Casa Latina| Defendant(s): Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC, Jeremy Hughes, and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske
Plaintiff argument:
(1) The definition of sanctuary cities violated the single-subject rule. (2) The petitions for the initiative did not describe the initiative's effects on finances and public safety. (3) The initiative was not designed as a legislative law, but rather an executive action.| Defendant argument:
The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule and addresses just one subject—immigration law.

Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court and Las Vegas Journal-Review

Click here for details.

* Alaska Ballot Measure 1, Salmon Habitat Protections and Permits Initiative (2018) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative makes an appropriation of a state asset as prohibited by Section 7 of Article XI of the Alaska Constitution
Court: Filed in Alaska Third District Court; appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; appealed to the supreme court. The Supreme Court ruled that some language in the measure needed to be removed, but the remainder of the measure could appear on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Stand for Salmon| Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Byron Mallott and the State of Alaska
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative updates permit regulations and does not eliminate the possibility of development or make an appropriation; rather it simply ensures that development is done in a way that doesn't damage fish habitats. Moreover, the initiative was written to apply equally to all projects and permit applicants.| Defendant argument:
The initiative violates the state constitution's prohibition against initiatives that "dedicate revenues, [or] make or repeal appropriations" by preventing the state from allowing development of any waterways and, thereby, appropriating the state assets of fish and fish habitats.

Source: Alaska Department of Law Press Release

Click here for details.

* Michigan Proposal 2, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Would the ballot measure violate the state's prohibition on initiatives that change the fundamental operation of state government?
Court: Michigan Supreme Court (appealed from the Michigan Court of Appeals)
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendants, keeping the measure on the ballot for the election on November 6, 2018
Plaintiff(s): Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution| Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State and Michigan Board of Canvassers
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative would change "the fundamental operation of state government," which state law prohibited.| Defendant argument:
The initiative does not violate the subject restriction on initiated constitutional amendments.

Source: Michigan Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Utah Proposition 2, Medical Marijuana Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot measure violates the constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection
Court: Filed in State Court of Utah, Third Judicial District in Salt Lake County; moved to the federal court system
Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah, Walter J. Plumb III of Truth About Prop 2| Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox, Utah Patients Coalition
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot initiative violates constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection and should be removed from the ballot| Defendant argument:
The measure is not unconstitutional, Cox has the authority to place the measure on the ballot

Source: Court filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the lieutenant governor can approve a statewide measure that would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause
Court: United States District Court, District of Utah
Ruling: Plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit[4]
Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah| Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution which makes federal law the law of the land, since marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.| Defendant argument:
The lieutenant governor is within his authority to certify the initiative for the ballot, the lawsuit should be dismissed because plaintiffs "lack standing because they have not been injured by the mere presence of the Initiative on the ballot. Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe because the voters may reject the Initiative"

Source: Fox 13 Salt Lake City

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 9, Three States Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 9 violate the California State Constitution's prohibition on ballot initiatives making major change to the state's constitutional framework?
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: Removed from the ballot pending a formal ruling; Draper dropped his defense of the ballot measure
Plaintiff(s): Planning and Conservation League| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Tim Draper
Plaintiff argument:
The Planning and Conservation League stated that Proposition 9 would make "sweeping changes in [the] state’s basic constitutional framework," which is a misuse of the ballot initiative process in California.| Defendant argument:
Tim Draper said Proposition 9 would not be a constitutional revision, but rather a nullification of the California Constitution.

Source: The Mercury News

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (2020) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Required number of signatures for the ballot initiative
Court: Sacramento County Superior Court
Plaintiff(s): Gov. Jerry Brown| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Nina Salarno Besselman
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot initiative should have been considered a constitutional amendment, and thus should have required 585,407 signatures, rather than 365,880 signatures, to make the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The ballot initiative met the signature requirements as required by the secretary of state.

Source: Associated Press

Click here for details.

### Substantive constitutionality[edit]

* Nevada Prevent Sanctuary Cities Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Substantive constitutionality; whether the measure violates the requirements that an initiative contains a single subject and be designed as legislative policy and that a petition describe an initiative's effects
Court: Filed in First Judicial District Court; appealed to Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Nevada Supreme Court in favor of defendants that the initiative contains a single subject, but ruled in favor of proponents that the ballot summary was misleading
Plaintiff(s): Michael Haley, Theresa Navarro, Tu Casa Latina| Defendant(s): Prevent Sanctuary Cities PAC, Jeremy Hughes, and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske
Plaintiff argument:
(1) The definition of sanctuary cities violated the single-subject rule. (2) The petitions for the initiative did not describe the initiative's effects on finances and public safety. (3) The initiative was not designed as a legislative law, but rather an executive action.| Defendant argument:
The initiative does not violate the single-subject rule and addresses just one subject—immigration law.

Source: Nevada First Judicial District Court and Las Vegas Journal-Review

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 9, Three States Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 9 violate the California State Constitution's prohibition on ballot initiatives making major change to the state's constitutional framework?
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: Removed from the ballot pending a formal ruling; Draper dropped his defense of the ballot measure
Plaintiff(s): Planning and Conservation League| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Tim Draper
Plaintiff argument:
The Planning and Conservation League stated that Proposition 9 would make "sweeping changes in [the] state’s basic constitutional framework," which is a misuse of the ballot initiative process in California.| Defendant argument:
Tim Draper said Proposition 9 would not be a constitutional revision, but rather a nullification of the California Constitution.

Source: The Mercury News

Click here for details.

* Kentucky Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2018) - Overturned
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment fairly and fully informed the electorate
Court: Franklin County Circuit Court and Kentucky Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the constitutional amendment was invalid due to issues with the ballot language
Plaintiff(s): Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes and Kentucky State Board of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature is authorized to write the ballot language for an amendment.

Source: WFPL

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether or not the ballot language sufficiently explains the measure
Court: Franklin Circuit Court
Plaintiff(s): The Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers| Defendant(s): The secretary of state and the Kentucky State Board of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language does not adequately explain the amendment and the amendment radically changes the state's criminal justice system.| Defendant argument:
Official response from defendants unavailable; supporters of the Marsy's Law amendment responded to the lawsuit by saying that the proposal has been "fully vetted and debated in Kentucky for years."

Source: Courier Journal

Click here for details.

* Utah Proposition 2, Medical Marijuana Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot measure violates the constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection
Court: Filed in State Court of Utah, Third Judicial District in Salt Lake County; moved to the federal court system
Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah, Walter J. Plumb III of Truth About Prop 2| Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox, Utah Patients Coalition
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot initiative violates constitutional principles of property rights, due process, and equal protection and should be removed from the ballot| Defendant argument:
The measure is not unconstitutional, Cox has the authority to place the measure on the ballot

Source: Court filings

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the lieutenant governor can approve a statewide measure that would be in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause
Court: United States District Court, District of Utah
Ruling: Plaintiffs dropped the lawsuit[4]
Plaintiff(s): Drug Safe Utah| Defendant(s): Lieutenant Governor Spencer J. Cox
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative would violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution which makes federal law the law of the land, since marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.| Defendant argument:
The lieutenant governor is within his authority to certify the initiative for the ballot, the lawsuit should be dismissed because plaintiffs "lack standing because they have not been injured by the mere presence of the Initiative on the ballot. Plaintiffs' claims are not ripe because the voters may reject the Initiative"

Source: Fox 13 Salt Lake City

Click here for details.

* User:Josh Altic/WeeklyMonthlyReportDPLs -

Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default

Click here for details.

* Missouri Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana and Veteran Healthcare Services Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the one-year residency requirement for owners of dispensaries violates nonresidents' rights secured under the dormant commerce clause of the United States Constitution
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Plaintiff(s): Mark Toigo, a marijuana investor from Pennsylvania| Defendant(s): Randall Williams, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment violates nonresidents' rights to operate in the state under the dormant commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.| Defendant argument:
Unknown

Source: St. Louis Public Raido

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Amendment 2's petitioners violate the legal requirements of the signature gathering process?
Court: Cole County Circuit Court and Missouri Court of Appeals
Ruling: Courts dismissed the case, saying Bradshaw did not have standing to challenge how signatures were gathered
Plaintiff(s): Brad Bradshaw| Defendant(s): New Approach Missouri
Plaintiff argument:
Petitioners for Amendment 2 violated the legal requirements of the signature gathering process.| Defendant argument:
Plaintiffs' argument is unfounded.

Source: The Joplin Globe

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 63, Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California)
Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra)
Plaintiff argument:
Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms| Defendant argument:
Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional

Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce?
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause; upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc.,| Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta

Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Click here for details.

### Voter guide[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2018 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2018 regarding voter guides that took place in 2018.

# Past measures[edit]

Note: This section shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2018 against past ballot measures.

* Oregon Measure 91, Legalized Marijuana Initiative (2014) -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Preemption; whether or not state law can preempt local laws governing marijuana because of the conflict between state legalized marijuana and federal law (Note: This lawsuit also affects Oregon's medical marijuana initiative, Measure 67 (1998) and other state laws.)
Court: U.S. District Court of Oregon
Timeline: Filed in 2018 about a 2014 ballot measure
Ruling: Dismissed; the county, as a subdivision of the state, does not have standing to sue over a state law.
Plaintiff(s): Josephine County| Defendant(s): State of Oregon and Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum
Plaintiff argument:
State law should not preempt Josephine County from regulating and restricting marijuana cultivation, sales, and use because marijuana is illegal according to federal law.| Defendant argument:
An official response from the defendants was not available as of April 10, 2018.

Source: Josephine County v. State of Oregon

Click here for details.

# Local[edit]

See also: List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2018

Ballotpedia covers all local measures in California, measures on the ballot for voters within the top 100 largest cities in the United States, and select measures that are notable because of their topic or because of the jurisdiction in which they are on the ballot.

A compiled list of 2018 lawsuits about local measures can be found here.

## See also[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 2016
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2011
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2009
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
* 2008 ballot measure lawsuits
* 2009 ballot measure litigation
* 2010 ballot measure litigation
* 2011 ballot measure litigation
* 2008 single-subject rule challenges
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 1999
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2024
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2024
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2025

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `struck`
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Florida Supreme Court, "Online docket search for case number 1513," accessed October 3, 2018
3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 KOSU, "Two Groups Sue Oklahoma Over Last-Minute Marijuana Regulations," accessed July 16, 2017
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `kuer`

v • e

2018 ballot measures

I&R States|

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

Non I&R States|

• Alabama • Connecticut • Georgia • Hawaii • Indiana • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Hampshire • New Jersey • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Virginia • West Virginia • Wisconsin

Political topics|

• Abortion‎ • Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Civil service‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Definition of a corporation‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Environment‎ • Federal constitutional issues‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Gambling‎ • Government accountability‎ • Healthcare‎ • Housing‎ • Hunting and fishing‎ • Labor and unions‎ • Law enforcement‎ • LGBT issues‎ • Marijuana‎ • Natural resources‎ • Pension‎ • Property‎ • Redistricting measures‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Statehood‎ • Suffrage‎ • Supermajority requirements‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Tort law‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎ • Welfare‎

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Readability analysis • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaign finance • Media editorial endorsements • Voter guides • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2018 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives