List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2024

2025 →

<- 2023

2024 U.S. state
ballot measures

2025 »

« 2023

Overview
Scorecard
Tuesday Count
Deadlines
Requirements
Lawsuits
Readability
Voter guides
Election results
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 provides summaries of legal cases related to state ballot measures in 2024. Lawsuits can be initiated before an election to prevent a measure from appearing on the ballot. Lawsuits can also be initiated after an election to void a ballot measure or otherwise declare the measure unconstitutional.

The pre-election lawsuits are often legal complaints regarding petition language and requirements, ballot initiative signature gatherers, and whether signatures are valid or invalid. Courts can issue rulings that enjoin a measure from taking effect or order officials to remove the measure from the ballot. Lawsuits, in particular those filed post-election, can take several years to resolve.

## Contents

* 1 States
* 1.1 Arizona
* 1.2 Arkansas
* 1.3 California
* 1.4 Florida
* 1.5 Michigan
* 1.6 Missouri
* 1.7 Montana
* 1.8 Nebraska
* 1.9 Nevada
* 1.10 New York
* 1.11 Ohio
* 1.12 Utah
* 1.13 Washington
* 2 Subjects
* 2.1 Alterations
* 2.2 Campaigns
* 2.3 Circulators
* 2.4 Constitutionality
* 2.5 Deadlines
* 2.6 Guides
* 2.7 Language
* 2.8 Preemption
* 2.9 Signatures
* 2.10 Subjects
* 2.11 Lawsuits filed post-certification
* 2.12 Lawsuits filed post-election
* 3 Local
* 3.1 See also

# States[edit]

This section provides a list of lawsuits about state ballot measures that were filed or resolved in 2024.

### Arizona

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arizona and 2024 ballot measures

* Arizona Proposition 314, Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the ballot measure violate the single subject requirement?
Court: Arizona Superior Court of Maricopa County
Ruling: The measure complies with the single subject requirement
Plaintiff(s): Living United for Change in Arizona| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Adrian Fontes

Source: Courthouse News

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 139, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the phrase "fetus" replace the phrase "unborn human" in the ballot pamphlet?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Plaintiff(s): Arizona for Abortion Access| Defendant(s): Ben Toma, et al.

Source: Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0167-AP/EL

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot language of the initiative confusing or misleading to voters?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: The ballot description was accurate and complied with state law.
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Right to Life| Defendant(s): Arizona for Abortion Access

Source: Arizona Mirror

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 140, Single Primary for All Candidates and Possible RCV General Election Initiative (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Were a number of signatures verified that should have been rejected?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Appealed from Maricopa County Superior Court)
Plaintiff(s): April Smith, Nira Lee, and Joshua Davidian| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Make Elections Fair PAC

Source: Maricopa Superior Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 140 violate the Arizona Constitution's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Appealed from Maricopa County Superior Court)
Ruling: Proposition 140 does not violate the separate-vote requirement because "provisions of the Act are topically related, sufficiently interrelated, involve matters that have historically been treated as one subject and are qualitatively similar in their effect on the law."
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Susan Garvey, Kathleen Liles, and John Shadegg| Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and Make Elections Fair PAC

Source: Maricopa Superior Court

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 212, $18 Minimum Wage Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether signatures collected by the campaign are valid
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Ruling: Ruled against the initiative through a consent decree agreed to by the Arizona Restaurant Association and One Fair Wage
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Restaurant Association| Defendant(s): Raise the Wage AZ

Source: AZ Mirror

Click here for details.

### Arkansas

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arkansas and 2024 ballot measures

* Arkansas Right to Abortion Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the campaign provide statements identifying paid canvassers by name and confirming that canvassers were informed about the rules for gathering signatures; whether signatures collected by those canvassers are valid
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; signatures invalid
Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for Limited Government| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston
Plaintiff argument:
The campaign provided necessary documentation and signatures should be counted| Defendant argument:
The campaign failed to provide statements identifying paid canvassers by name and confirming that canvassers were informed about the rules for gathering signatures, therefore those signatures are not valid

Source: AP News

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 2, Countywide Voter Approval for New Casino Licenses and Repeal Casino Licenses in Pope County Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether Local Voters in Charge violated state law when collecting signatures and the signatures should be invalidated; whether the ballot language is sufficient
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants
Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston

Source: Arkansas Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution
Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Central Division
Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses| Defendant(s): State of Arkansas

Source: Arkansas Advocate

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 3, Medical Marijuana Expansion Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative is sufficient to have votes cast; whether the ballot language is inaccurate or misleading
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for Patient Access| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston (R)

Source: Arkansas Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### California

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California and 2024 ballot measures

* California Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for New or Increased Taxes Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton| Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment.

Source: California Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton| Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment.

Source: Cal Cities

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 5, Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot label accurately describes what the amendment would do
Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County, California
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, without any changes to the ballot language.
Plaintiff(s): Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association| Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot label does not state that the amendment would lower the existing vote threshold from 66.67% to 55%.| Defendant argument:
The vote threshold information is described in the ballot title and summary.

Source: Courthouse News Service

Click here for details.

### Florida

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Florida and 2024 ballot measures

* Florida Amendment 4, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the measure is valid or not; whether signatures submitted were valid
Court: Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial District, Orange County
Plaintiff(s): St. Lucie County residents Hope Hoffman and Terri Kellogg, and Taylor County residents Chelsey Davis and Lorien Hershberger| Defendant(s): County Supervisors of Elections, Secretary of State Cord Byrd, the Florida Department of State, the Elections Canvassing Commission, and Floridians Protecting Freedom

Source: Document Cloud

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the financial impact statement is accurate
Court: 1st District Court of Appeal, Florida Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants
Plaintiff(s): Floridians Protecting Freedom| Defendant(s): State elections officials
Plaintiff argument:
The financial impact statement is inaccurate and was written in a biased way that is confusing to voters| Defendant argument:
The financial impact statement is accurate

Source: WMNF

Click here for details.

### Michigan

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan and 2024 ballot measures

* Michigan $15 Minimum Wage Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the Supreme Court approve the signatures after the Board of State Canvassers previously approved the form of the petition used to collect them?
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Ruling: The appeal was denied. The petition language used to gain approval for the summary was not the same petition language submission to the Board of State Canvassers, so the Board was able to not approve the signatures
Plaintiff(s): One Fair Wage| Defendant(s): Michigan Board of State Canvassers

Source: Michigan Courts

Click here for details.

### Missouri

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Missouri and 2024 ballot measures

* Missouri Amendment 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative?
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives.
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al.
Plaintiff argument:
The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State.| Defendant argument:
The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved.

Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate?
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R)| Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor

Source: Missouri Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading?
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading
Plaintiff(s): ACLU| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: The Kansas City Star

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the fair ballot language of the measure argumentative and confusing for voters?
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: The fair ballot language was misleading to voters.
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: Missouri Independent

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the amendment be removed from the ballot because it does not inform voters of laws and regulations that will be overturned?
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: Amendment 3 was certified on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Rep. Hannah Kelly, Peggy Forrest, et. al.| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: U.S. News & World Report

Click here for details.

* Missouri Amendment 7, Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot question is accurate
Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court
Ruling: Ballot language is accurate and fair.
Plaintiff(s): Elizabeth de Laperouse and Eric Bronner| Defendant(s): Rep. Dean Plocher (R), Sen. Caleb Rowden (R), Sen. Ben Brown (R), and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R)

Source: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court

Click here for details.

### Montana

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Montana and 2024 ballot measures

* Montana CI-128, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the Secretary of State's office improperly altered the signature verification process and improperly rejected signatures from inactive (but registered) voters
Court: Lewis and Clark County District Court
Ruling: 2024
Plaintiff(s): Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The campaigns argued that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions.| Defendant argument:
The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted.

Source: NBC Montana

Click here for details.

* Montana CI-126, Top-Four Primary Initiative (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the Secretary of State's office improperly altered the signature verification process and improperly rejected signatures from inactive (but registered) voters
Court: Lewis and Clark County District Court
Ruling: 2024
Plaintiff(s): Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The campaigns argued that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions.| Defendant argument:
The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted.

Source: NBC Montana

Click here for details.

* Montana CI-127, Majority Vote Required to Win Elections Initiative (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the Secretary of State's office improperly altered the signature verification process and improperly rejected signatures from inactive (but registered) voters
Court: Lewis and Clark County District Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs
Plaintiff(s): Montanans for Securing Reproductive Rights and Montanans for Election Reform| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The campaigns argued that Jacobsen improperly changed signature verification processes that automatically rejected the signatures of inactive (but registered) voters. The campaigns argued that registered voters, despite their active or inactive status, are qualified electors able to sign petitions.| Defendant argument:
The Secretary of State's office argued that registered voters who are considered inactive are not eligible to have their signatures counted.

Source: NBC Montana

Click here for details.

### Nebraska

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nebraska and 2024 ballot measures

* Nebraska Initiative 439, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment violates the state's single subject rule
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Plaintiff(s): Carolyn I. LaGreca| Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R)

Source: Nebraska Examiner

Click here for details.

* Nebraska Referendum 435, Private Education Scholarship Program Referendum (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the referendum is constitutional because it relates to a state appropriation
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Ruling: The referendum does not illegally target the state's power to appropriate funds and, therefore, can appear on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Latasha Collar| Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The partial referendum is unconstitutional because the state constitution prohibits veto referendums from targeting state appropriations.| Defendant argument:
Unknown.

Source: WFLA

Click here for details.

* Nebraska Initiative 437, Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot
Court: Nebraska Third District Court
Ruling:
Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) and campaign sponsors, Crista Eggers, State Sen. Anna Wishart (D), and former State Sen. Adam Morfeld (D)
Plaintiff argument:
The petition contains thousands of fraudulent signatures and therefore should be removed from the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Whether the laws violate the state and federal constitutions
Court: Nebraska Third District Court
Ruling: Dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing.
Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R)
Plaintiff arguments:
The laws delegate too much power to the regulatory commissions governing medical marijuana and they violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.| Defendant arguments:
Unknown

Sources: The Pinnacle Gazette and 1011 Now

Click here for details.

* Nebraska Initiative 438, Medical Marijuana Regulation Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot
Court: Nebraska Third District Court
Ruling: The petitions contained the required number of valid signatures.
Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) and campaign sponsors, Crista Eggers, State Sen. Anna Wishart (D), and former State Sen. Adam Morfeld (D)
Plaintiff argument:
The petition contains thousands of fraudulent signatures and therefore should be removed from the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot.

Source: 1011 Now

Click here for details.

### Nevada

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2024 ballot measures

* Nevada Limit Contingency Fees in Civil Cases Initiative (2026) -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was the "description of effect" insufficient or misleading?
Court: Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Description of effect was misleading
Plaintiff(s): Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and Nevada Justice Association| Defendant(s): Uber Technologies Inc, et. al.

Source: Nevada Supreme Court Ruling

Click here for details.

### New York

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in New York and 2024 ballot measures

* New York Proposal 1, Equal Protection of Law Amendment (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did failing to give the attorney general 20 days to review the amendment before the state legislature voted on it disqualify the amendment from the ballot?
Court: New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department court
Ruling: Plaintiffs should have filed their challenge through an Article 78 proceeding, and not a challenge of constitutionality of defendants' actions
Plaintiff(s): State Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes (R)| Defendant(s): New York State Senate

Source: NYCourts

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was the ballot language written in plain language no higher than an eighth-grade reading level, and was the language too technical and confusing for voters?
Court: New York Supreme Court, County of Albany
Ruling: Ballot language was rewritten to ensure it complies with state law
Plaintiff(s): Victoria Fernandez, Katherine Hauser| Defendant(s): New York State Board of Elections, et al.

Source: NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61

Click here for details.

### Ohio

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2024 ballot measures

* Ohio Issue 1, Establish the Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the board-approved ballot language for Issue 1 violate the state constitution's requirement that the language "properly and lawfully describes the Amendment" and not "mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters?"
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: The Ohio Supreme Court ordered two changes to the ballot language. However, most of the challenges were rejected.
Plaintiff(s): Citizens Not Politicians, Cara Dillon, and Annette Tucker Sutherland| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board and Secretary of State Frank LaRose

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### Utah

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Utah and 2024 ballot measures

* Utah Restore Previous State Flag and Require Voter Approval for Changes to State Flag Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether Utah's initiative signature deadlines are constitutional
Court: United States District Court, District of Utah
Plaintiff(s): Are You Listening Yet PAC, Tracie Halvorsen| Defendant(s): Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson

Source: Court Listener

Click here for details.

* Utah Amendment A, Constitutional Requirements for Education Funding Amendment (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language for Amendment A is misleading; whether the measure is valid since it was not published in a newspaper 60 days prior to the election as required by the state constitution
Court: Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County
Plaintiff(s): Utah Education Association| Defendant(s): Gov. Spencer Cox

Source: KSLTV

Click here for details.

* Utah Amendment D, Provide for Legislative Alteration of Ballot Initiatives and Ban Foreign Contributions Measure (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment is misleading and inaccurate
Court: Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake City, Utah Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs
Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters| Defendant(s): Utah State Legislature, Sen. Stuart Adams (R-7), Rep. Mike Schultz (R-12), Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson (R)

Source: Fox 13 Now

Click here for details.

### Washington

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Washington and 2024 ballot measures

Ballotpedia is not covering any 2024 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.

# Subjects[edit]

This section provides a list of lawsuits about state ballot measures, based on legal subjects, that were filed or resolved in 2024. The following are common subjects addressed in ballot measure lawsuits:

* Alterations: Legislatures can amend ballot initiatives after an election; however, some states have rules limiting or otherwise regulating changes. When changes are made, lawsuits can be filed alleging that those changes violated state law.

* Campaigns: The committees that support or oppose ballot measures have specific state legal requirements. Lawsuits can be filed against PACs regarding alleged violations.

* Circulators: States have rules that govern signature gatherers. Lawsuits can be filed for alleged violations in the signature-gathering process.

* Constitutionality \- Lawsuits are sometimes filed claiming that the content of a ballot measure violates a constitutional right, such as free speech or equal protection, or another federal or state constitutional provision.

* Deadlines \- There are specific deadlines for ballot initiative petitions. Lawsuits can be filed for alleged violations of these deadlines or against the deadlines themselves as violating the law.

* Guides \- Lawsuits can challenge the language used in state-produced voter guides regarding form, accuracy, and neutrality.

* Language: The ballot title or petition language can be challenged regarding form, accuracy, and neutrality. States often have specific standards for ballot language.

* Preemption \- Lawsuits can allege that a ballot measure is preempted, such as a federal law that preempts state or local law.

* Signatures \- Lawsuits can challenge whether signatures are valid or invalid.

* Subjects \- States can have subject restrictions for ballot initiatives and single-subject rules. Measures can be challenged for alleged violations of these laws.

The following list also divides lawsuits into two additional categories, whether the lawsuits were filed to remove a measure from the ballot post-certification and whether the lawsuits were filed post-election.

### Alterations[edit]

There were no lawsuits regarding legislative alterations of voter-approved ballot initiatives in 2024.

### Campaigns[edit]

There were no lawsuits regarding ballot measure campaign finance in 2024.

### Circulators[edit]

There were no lawsuits regarding ballot initiative signature gathering in 2024.

### Constitutionality[edit]

* California Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for New or Increased Taxes Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton| Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment.

Source: California Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton| Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment.

Source: Cal Cities

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 140, Single Primary for All Candidates and Possible RCV General Election Initiative (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Were a number of signatures verified that should have been rejected?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Appealed from Maricopa County Superior Court)
Plaintiff(s): April Smith, Nira Lee, and Joshua Davidian| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Make Elections Fair PAC

Source: Maricopa Superior Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 140 violate the Arizona Constitution's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Appealed from Maricopa County Superior Court)
Ruling: Proposition 140 does not violate the separate-vote requirement because "provisions of the Act are topically related, sufficiently interrelated, involve matters that have historically been treated as one subject and are qualitatively similar in their effect on the law."
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Susan Garvey, Kathleen Liles, and John Shadegg| Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and Make Elections Fair PAC

Source: Maricopa Superior Court

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 2, Countywide Voter Approval for New Casino Licenses and Repeal Casino Licenses in Pope County Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether Local Voters in Charge violated state law when collecting signatures and the signatures should be invalidated; whether the ballot language is sufficient
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants
Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston

Source: Arkansas Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution
Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Central Division
Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses| Defendant(s): State of Arkansas

Source: Arkansas Advocate

Click here for details.

* Nebraska Initiative 437, Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuits overview

First lawsuit
Issue: Whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot
Court: Nebraska Third District Court
Ruling:
Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) and campaign sponsors, Crista Eggers, State Sen. Anna Wishart (D), and former State Sen. Adam Morfeld (D)
Plaintiff argument:
The petition contains thousands of fraudulent signatures and therefore should be removed from the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot.

* * *

Second lawsuit
Issue: Whether the laws violate the state and federal constitutions
Court: Nebraska Third District Court
Ruling: Dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing.
Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R)
Plaintiff arguments:
The laws delegate too much power to the regulatory commissions governing medical marijuana and they violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.| Defendant arguments:
Unknown

Sources: The Pinnacle Gazette and 1011 Now

Click here for details.

### Deadlines[edit]

* Utah Restore Previous State Flag and Require Voter Approval for Changes to State Flag Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether Utah's initiative signature deadlines are constitutional
Court: United States District Court, District of Utah
Plaintiff(s): Are You Listening Yet PAC, Tracie Halvorsen| Defendant(s): Utah Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson

Source: Court Listener

Click here for details.

### Guides[edit]

* Template:Washington initiative lawsuit 2024 -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether a fiscal impact statement for the initiatives must be included in the voter pamphlet
Court: Thurston County Superior Court
Plaintiff(s): Initiative sponsor Rep. Jim Walsh (R) and Deanna Martinez, chair of Mainstream Republicans of Washington| Defendant(s): Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs (D)
Plaintiff argument:
The fiscal impact statements prepared for the three initiatives on the 2024 ballot are partisan and should not be included in the voter pamphlet| Defendant argument:
Voters should be given a fiscal impact statement from the Office of Financial Management according to state law, which requires it

Source: The Center Square

Click here for details.

### Language[edit]

* Florida Amendment 4, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the measure is valid or not; whether signatures submitted were valid
Court: Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial District, Orange County
Plaintiff(s): St. Lucie County residents Hope Hoffman and Terri Kellogg, and Taylor County residents Chelsey Davis and Lorien Hershberger| Defendant(s): County Supervisors of Elections, Secretary of State Cord Byrd, the Florida Department of State, the Elections Canvassing Commission, and Floridians Protecting Freedom

Source: Document Cloud

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the financial impact statement is accurate
Court: 1st District Court of Appeal, Florida Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants
Plaintiff(s): Floridians Protecting Freedom| Defendant(s): State elections officials
Plaintiff argument:
The financial impact statement is inaccurate and was written in a biased way that is confusing to voters| Defendant argument:
The financial impact statement is accurate

Source: WMNF

Click here for details.

* Arizona Proposition 139, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the phrase "fetus" replace the phrase "unborn human" in the ballot pamphlet?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Plaintiff(s): Arizona for Abortion Access| Defendant(s): Ben Toma, et al.

Source: Arizona Supreme Court No. CV-24-0167-AP/EL

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot language of the initiative confusing or misleading to voters?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Ruling: The ballot description was accurate and complied with state law.
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Right to Life| Defendant(s): Arizona for Abortion Access

Source: Arizona Mirror

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 2, Countywide Voter Approval for New Casino Licenses and Repeal Casino Licenses in Pope County Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether Local Voters in Charge violated state law when collecting signatures and the signatures should be invalidated; whether the ballot language is sufficient
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants
Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston

Source: Arkansas Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution
Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Central Division
Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses| Defendant(s): State of Arkansas

Source: Arkansas Advocate

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 5, Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot label accurately describes what the amendment would do
Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County, California
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, without any changes to the ballot language.
Plaintiff(s): Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association| Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot label does not state that the amendment would lower the existing vote threshold from 66.67% to 55%.| Defendant argument:
The vote threshold information is described in the ballot title and summary.

Source: Courthouse News Service

Click here for details.

* Missouri Amendment 7, Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot question is accurate
Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court
Ruling: Ballot language is accurate and fair.
Plaintiff(s): Elizabeth de Laperouse and Eric Bronner| Defendant(s): Rep. Dean Plocher (R), Sen. Caleb Rowden (R), Sen. Ben Brown (R), and Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R)

Source: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court

Click here for details.

* Ohio Issue 1, Establish the Citizens Redistricting Commission Initiative (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the board-approved ballot language for Issue 1 violate the state constitution's requirement that the language "properly and lawfully describes the Amendment" and not "mislead, deceive, or defraud the voters?"
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: The Ohio Supreme Court ordered two changes to the ballot language. However, most of the challenges were rejected.
Plaintiff(s): Citizens Not Politicians, Cara Dillon, and Annette Tucker Sutherland| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board and Secretary of State Frank LaRose

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Missouri Amendment 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative?
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives.
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al.
Plaintiff argument:
The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State.| Defendant argument:
The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved.

Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate?
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R)| Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor

Source: Missouri Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading?
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading
Plaintiff(s): ACLU| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: The Kansas City Star

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the fair ballot language of the measure argumentative and confusing for voters?
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: The fair ballot language was misleading to voters.
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: Missouri Independent

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the amendment be removed from the ballot because it does not inform voters of laws and regulations that will be overturned?
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: Amendment 3 was certified on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Rep. Hannah Kelly, Peggy Forrest, et. al.| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: U.S. News & World Report

Click here for details.

* New York Proposal 1, Equal Protection of Law Amendment (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did failing to give the attorney general 20 days to review the amendment before the state legislature voted on it disqualify the amendment from the ballot?
Court: New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department court
Ruling: Plaintiffs should have filed their challenge through an Article 78 proceeding, and not a challenge of constitutionality of defendants' actions
Plaintiff(s): State Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes (R)| Defendant(s): New York State Senate

Source: NYCourts

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was the ballot language written in plain language no higher than an eighth-grade reading level, and was the language too technical and confusing for voters?
Court: New York Supreme Court, County of Albany
Ruling: Ballot language was rewritten to ensure it complies with state law
Plaintiff(s): Victoria Fernandez, Katherine Hauser| Defendant(s): New York State Board of Elections, et al.

Source: NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61

Click here for details.

* Utah Amendment A, Constitutional Requirements for Education Funding Amendment (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language for Amendment A is misleading; whether the measure is valid since it was not published in a newspaper 60 days prior to the election as required by the state constitution
Court: Third Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County
Plaintiff(s): Utah Education Association| Defendant(s): Gov. Spencer Cox

Source: KSLTV

Click here for details.

* Arkansas Issue 3, Medical Marijuana Expansion Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative is sufficient to have votes cast; whether the ballot language is inaccurate or misleading
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Plaintiff(s): Arkansans for Patient Access| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston (R)

Source: Arkansas Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Nevada Limit Contingency Fees in Civil Cases Initiative (2026) -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was the "description of effect" insufficient or misleading?
Court: Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Description of effect was misleading
Plaintiff(s): Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and Nevada Justice Association| Defendant(s): Uber Technologies Inc, et. al.

Source: Nevada Supreme Court Ruling

Click here for details.

* Utah Amendment D, Provide for Legislative Alteration of Ballot Initiatives and Ban Foreign Contributions Measure (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment is misleading and inaccurate
Court: Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake City, Utah Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs
Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters| Defendant(s): Utah State Legislature, Sen. Stuart Adams (R-7), Rep. Mike Schultz (R-12), Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson (R)

Source: Fox 13 Now

Click here for details.

### Preemption[edit]

* Missouri Amendment 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative?
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives.
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al.
Plaintiff argument:
The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State.| Defendant argument:
The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved.

Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate?
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R)| Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor

Source: Missouri Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading?
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading
Plaintiff(s): ACLU| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: The Kansas City Star

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the fair ballot language of the measure argumentative and confusing for voters?
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: The fair ballot language was misleading to voters.
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: Missouri Independent

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the amendment be removed from the ballot because it does not inform voters of laws and regulations that will be overturned?
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: Amendment 3 was certified on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Rep. Hannah Kelly, Peggy Forrest, et. al.| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: U.S. News & World Report

Click here for details.

* Michigan $15 Minimum Wage Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the Supreme Court approve the signatures after the Board of State Canvassers previously approved the form of the petition used to collect them?
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Ruling: The appeal was denied. The petition language used to gain approval for the summary was not the same petition language submission to the Board of State Canvassers, so the Board was able to not approve the signatures
Plaintiff(s): One Fair Wage| Defendant(s): Michigan Board of State Canvassers

Source: Michigan Courts

Click here for details.

* New York Proposal 1, Equal Protection of Law Amendment (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did failing to give the attorney general 20 days to review the amendment before the state legislature voted on it disqualify the amendment from the ballot?
Court: New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department court
Ruling: Plaintiffs should have filed their challenge through an Article 78 proceeding, and not a challenge of constitutionality of defendants' actions
Plaintiff(s): State Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes (R)| Defendant(s): New York State Senate

Source: NYCourts

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was the ballot language written in plain language no higher than an eighth-grade reading level, and was the language too technical and confusing for voters?
Court: New York Supreme Court, County of Albany
Ruling: Ballot language was rewritten to ensure it complies with state law
Plaintiff(s): Victoria Fernandez, Katherine Hauser| Defendant(s): New York State Board of Elections, et al.

Source: NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61

Click here for details.

* Nevada Limit Contingency Fees in Civil Cases Initiative (2026) -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was the "description of effect" insufficient or misleading?
Court: Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Description of effect was misleading
Plaintiff(s): Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and Nevada Justice Association| Defendant(s): Uber Technologies Inc, et. al.

Source: Nevada Supreme Court Ruling

Click here for details.

### Signatures[edit]

* Missouri Amendment 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative?
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives.
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al.
Plaintiff argument:
The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State.| Defendant argument:
The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved.

Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate?
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R)| Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor

Source: Missouri Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading?
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading
Plaintiff(s): ACLU| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: The Kansas City Star

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the fair ballot language of the measure argumentative and confusing for voters?
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: The fair ballot language was misleading to voters.
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: Missouri Independent

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the amendment be removed from the ballot because it does not inform voters of laws and regulations that will be overturned?
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: Amendment 3 was certified on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Rep. Hannah Kelly, Peggy Forrest, et. al.| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: U.S. News & World Report

Click here for details.

* Michigan $15 Minimum Wage Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the Supreme Court approve the signatures after the Board of State Canvassers previously approved the form of the petition used to collect them?
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Ruling: The appeal was denied. The petition language used to gain approval for the summary was not the same petition language submission to the Board of State Canvassers, so the Board was able to not approve the signatures
Plaintiff(s): One Fair Wage| Defendant(s): Michigan Board of State Canvassers

Source: Michigan Courts

Click here for details.

* New York Proposal 1, Equal Protection of Law Amendment (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did failing to give the attorney general 20 days to review the amendment before the state legislature voted on it disqualify the amendment from the ballot?
Court: New York Appellate Division, Fourth Department court
Ruling: Plaintiffs should have filed their challenge through an Article 78 proceeding, and not a challenge of constitutionality of defendants' actions
Plaintiff(s): State Assemblywoman Marjorie Byrnes (R)| Defendant(s): New York State Senate

Source: NYCourts

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was the ballot language written in plain language no higher than an eighth-grade reading level, and was the language too technical and confusing for voters?
Court: New York Supreme Court, County of Albany
Ruling: Ballot language was rewritten to ensure it complies with state law
Plaintiff(s): Victoria Fernandez, Katherine Hauser| Defendant(s): New York State Board of Elections, et al.

Source: NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61

Click here for details.

* Nevada Limit Contingency Fees in Civil Cases Initiative (2026) -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was the "description of effect" insufficient or misleading?
Court: Nevada Supreme Court
Ruling: Description of effect was misleading
Plaintiff(s): Uber Sexual Assault Survivors for Legal Accountability and Nevada Justice Association| Defendant(s): Uber Technologies Inc, et. al.

Source: Nevada Supreme Court Ruling

Click here for details.

### Subjects[edit]

There were no lawsuits regarding ballot measure subjects in 2024.

### Lawsuits filed post-certification[edit]

* California Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for New or Increased Taxes Initiative (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton| Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment.

Source: California Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the initiative revises rather than amends the state constitution
Court: California Supreme Court
Ruling: The initiative revises the state constitution and is therefore unconstitutional and cannot be placed on the November ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) and John Burton| Defendant(s): Thomas W. Hiltachk
Plaintiff argument:
The initiative unconstitutionally revises the state constitution and therefore should not be on the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The initiative is a valid initiated constitutional amendment.

Source: Cal Cities

Click here for details.

* Missouri Amendment 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative?
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives.
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al.
Plaintiff argument:
The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State.| Defendant argument:
The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved.

Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate?
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient
Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R)| Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor

Source: Missouri Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading?
Court: Missouri Supreme Court
Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading
Plaintiff(s): ACLU| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: The Kansas City Star

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the fair ballot language of the measure argumentative and confusing for voters?
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: The fair ballot language was misleading to voters.
Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, Missourians for Constitutional Freedom| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: Missouri Independent

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the amendment be removed from the ballot because it does not inform voters of laws and regulations that will be overturned?
Court: Cole County Court
Ruling: Amendment 3 was certified on the ballot
Plaintiff(s): Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, Rep. Hannah Kelly, Peggy Forrest, et. al.| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft

Source: U.S. News & World Report

Click here for details.

* Nebraska Referendum 435, Private Education Scholarship Program Referendum (2024) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the referendum is constitutional because it relates to a state appropriation
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Ruling: The referendum does not illegally target the state's power to appropriate funds and, therefore, can appear on the ballot.
Plaintiff(s): Latasha Collar| Defendant(s): Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R)
Plaintiff argument:
The partial referendum is unconstitutional because the state constitution prohibits veto referendums from targeting state appropriations.| Defendant argument:
Unknown.

Source: WFLA

Click here for details.

* Nebraska Initiative 438, Medical Marijuana Regulation Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot
Court: Nebraska Third District Court
Ruling: The petitions contained the required number of valid signatures.
Plaintiff(s): Former Sen. John Kuehn (R)| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Bob Evnen (R) and campaign sponsors, Crista Eggers, State Sen. Anna Wishart (D), and former State Sen. Adam Morfeld (D)
Plaintiff argument:
The petition contains thousands of fraudulent signatures and therefore should be removed from the ballot.| Defendant argument:
The petition contains a sufficient number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot.

Source: 1011 Now

Click here for details.

### Lawsuits filed post-election[edit]

* Arkansas Issue 2, Countywide Voter Approval for New Casino Licenses and Repeal Casino Licenses in Pope County Initiative (2024) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether Local Voters in Charge violated state law when collecting signatures and the signatures should be invalidated; whether the ballot language is sufficient
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants
Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses| Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston

Source: Arkansas Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment violates the U.S. Constitution
Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas Central Division
Plaintiff(s): Cherokee Nation Businesses| Defendant(s): State of Arkansas

Source: Arkansas Advocate

Click here for details.

# Local[edit]

See also: List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2024

In 2024, Ballotpedia covered local ballot measures that appeared on the ballot for voters within the 100 largest cities in the U.S., within state capitals, and throughout California. You can review the coverage scope of the local ballot measures project here.

Ballotpedia covered electoral system-related ballot measures, like ranked-choice voting, and policing-related ballot measures outside of the largest cities.

See also: Local ballot measure elections in 2024

## See also[edit]

* 2024 ballot measures
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020

v • e

2024 ballot measures

I&R States|

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

Non I&R States|

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

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 2024 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives