List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014

## Contents

* 1 By state
* 1.1 Alaska
* 1.1.1 Alaska Bristol Bay Mining Ban, Ballot Measure 4 (2014)
* 1.1.1.1 Hughes vs. Treadwell et al.
* 1.2 Arkansas
* 1.2.1 Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency and Financial Reform Amendment, Issue 3 (2014)
* 1.2.2 Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Initiative, Issue 4 (2014)
* 1.2.3 Arkansas Minimum Wage Initiative, Issue 5 (2014)
* 1.3 California
* 1.3.1 California Proposition 48, American Indian Gaming Compacts Referendum (2014)
* 1.3.1.1 North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians lawsuit
* 1.3.2 California Proposition 49, Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question (2014)
* 1.3.2.1 HJTA lawsuit
* 1.3.3 California Referendum on AB 1266, Transgender Student Participation Based on Gender Identity (2014)
* 1.3.3.1 Gina Gleason vs. Debra Bowen
* 1.3.4 California Pension Reform Initiative (2014)
* 1.3.4.1 Chuck Reed vs. Kamala Harris
* 1.4 Colorado
* 1.4.1 Colorado Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative, Proposition 105 (2014)
* 1.5 Illinois
* 1.5.1 Illinois Term Limits for Legislators Amendment (2014)
* 1.5.1.1 Unconstitutionality Lawsuit
* 1.5.2 Illinois Independent Redistricting Amendment (2014)
* 1.5.2.1 Unconstitutionality Lawsuit
* 1.6 Maine
* 1.6.1 Maine Bear Hunting Ban Initiative, Question 1 (2014):
* 1.7 Michigan
* 1.7.1 Michigan Use Tax and Community Stabilization Share, Proposal 1 (August 2014)
* 1.7.1.1 Fouts lawsuit
* 1.7.2 Michigan Natural Resources Commission Referendum (2014)
* 1.7.2.1 Humane Society v. Johnson et al.
* 1.8 Missouri
* 1.8.1 Missouri Right to Bear Arms, Amendment 5 (August 2014)
* 1.8.2 Missouri Temporary Sales and Use Tax Increase for Transportation, Amendment 7 (August 2014)
* 1.8.3 Missouri Campaign Contributions Cap Amendment (2014)
* 1.8.3.1 Rex Sinquefield v. Jason Kander
* 1.9 Montana
* 1.9.1 Montana Late Voter Registration Revision Measure, LR-126 (2014)
* 1.9.1.1 MEA-MFT, et al. v. Fox
* 1.9.2 Montana Primary Election Revision Measure, LR-127 (2014)
* 1.9.2.1 MEA-MFT, et al. v. Fox
* 1.9.3 Montana Cable Company Property Tax Initiative (2014)
* 1.9.3.1 MEA-MFT v. Fox
* 1.10 Nebraska
* 1.10.1 Nebraska Horse Race Wagering Amendment (2014)
* 1.10.1.1 Gambling with the Good Life lawsuit
* 1.11 New York
* 1.11.1 New York Independent Redistricting Amendment, Proposal 1 (2014)
* 1.11.1.1 Common Cause lawsuit
* 1.12 Rhode Island
* 1.12.1 Rhode Island Gaming at Newport Grand, Question 1 (2014)
* 2 By topic
* 2.1 Ballot text
* 2.1.1 Arkansas
* 2.1.1.1 Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency and Financial Reform Amendment, Issue 3 (2014)
* 2.1.1.1.1 Rich et al. lawsuit
* 2.1.2 California
* 2.1.2.1 California Pension Reform Initiative (2014)
* 2.1.2.1.1 Chuck Reed vs. Kamala Harris
* 2.1.3 Colorado
* 2.1.3.1 Colorado Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative, Proposition 105 (2014)
* 2.1.4 Michigan
* 2.1.4.1 Michigan Use Tax and Community Stabilization Share, Proposal 1 (August 2014)
* 2.1.4.1.1 Fouts lawsuit
* 2.1.5 Missouri
* 2.1.5.1 Missouri Right to Bear Arms, Amendment 5 (August 2014)
* 2.1.5.2 Missouri Temporary Sales and Use Tax Increase for Transportation, Amendment 7 (August 2014)
* 2.1.6 Montana
* 2.1.6.1 Montana Late Voter Registration Revision Measure, LR-126 (2014)
* 2.1.6.1.1 MEA-MFT, et al. v. Fox
* 2.1.6.2 Montana Primary Election Revision Measure, LR-127 (2014)
* 2.1.6.2.1 MEA-MFT, et al. v. Fox
* 2.1.6.3 Montana Cable Company Property Tax Initiative (2014)
* 2.1.6.3.1 MEA-MFT v. Fox
* 2.1.7 New York
* 2.1.7.1 New York Independent Redistricting Amendment, Proposal 1 (2014)
* 2.1.7.1.1 Common Cause lawsuit
* 2.2 Campaign contributions
* 2.3 Constitutionality
* 2.3.1 Alaska
* 2.3.1.1 Alaska Bristol Bay Mining Ban, Ballot Measure 4 (2014)
* 2.3.1.1.1 Hughes vs. Treadwell et al.
* 2.3.2 California
* 2.3.2.1 California Proposition 48, American Indian Gaming Compacts Referendum (2014)
* 2.3.2.1.1 North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians lawsuit
* 2.3.2.2 California Proposition 49, Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question (2014)
* 2.3.2.2.1 HJTA lawsuit
* 2.3.3 Illinois
* 2.3.3.1 Illinois Term Limits for Legislators Amendment (2014)
* 2.3.3.1.1 Unconstitutionality Lawsuit
* 2.3.3.2 Illinois Independent Redistricting Amendment (2014)
* 2.3.3.2.1 Unconstitutionality Lawsuit
* 2.3.4 Nebraska
* 2.3.4.1 Nebraska Horse Race Wagering Amendment (2014)
* 2.3.4.1.1 Gambling with the Good Life lawsuit
* 2.3.5 Rhode Island
* 2.3.5.1 Rhode Island Gaming at Newport Grand, Question 1 (2014)
* 2.3.5.1.1 Arnold et al. v. Mollis
* 2.4 Circulators
* 2.4.1 Michigan
* 2.4.1.1 Michigan Natural Resources Commission Referendum (2014)
* 2.4.1.1.1 Humane Society v. Johnson et al.
* 2.5 Deadlines
* 2.5.1 Arkansas
* 2.5.1.1 Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Initiative, Issue 4 (2014)
* 2.5.1.1.1 Deadline lawsuit
* 2.5.1.2 Arkansas Minimum Wage Initiative, Issue 5 (2014)
* 2.5.1.2.1 Deadline lawsuit
* 2.5.2 California
* 2.5.2.1 California Referendum on AB 1266, Transgender Student Participation Based on Gender Identity (2014)
* 2.5.2.1.1 Gina Gleason vs. Debra Bowen
* 2.6 Fiscal summary
* 2.6.1 Missouri
* 2.6.1.1 Missouri Campaign Contributions Cap Amendment (2014)
* 2.6.1.1.1 Rex Sinquefield v. Jason Kander
* 2.7 Labor practices
* 2.8 Motivation of sponsors
* 2.9 Post-certification removal
* 2.10 Redistricting
* 2.11 Single-subject rule
* 2.12 Signature challenges
* 2.13 Voter guide
* 3 Past measures
* 3.1 Statewide
* 3.1.1 Colorado
* 3.1.1.1 Colorado Definition of Marriage, Initiative 43 (2006)
* 3.1.2 Florida
* 3.1.2.1 Florida Definition of Marriage, Amendment 2 (2008)
* 3.1.3 Kansas
* 3.1.3.1 Kansas Marriage Amendment (2005)
* 3.1.4 Wisconsin
* 3.1.4.1 Wisconsin Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (2006)
* 3.2 Local
* 3.2.1 California
* 3.2.2 Measure B (condoms)
* 3.2.3 Measure L (parcel tax)
* 4 Local
* 4.1 Denton, Texas, Fracking Ban Initiative
* 4.2 House Bill 40
* 4.3 Land Office lawsuit
* 4.4 Oil and Gas Association lawsuit
* 4.5 Pre-House Bill 40 Responses
* 4.6 Maui County, Hawaii, Genetically Modified Organism Ban
* 4.6.1 Ruling
* 4.7 Ventura County, California, Pension Reform Initiative
* 4.7.1 Lawsuit filed
* 4.7.2 1937 Act
* 4.7.3 Lawsuit effects
* 4.8 City of Loveland Two Year Fracking Suspension Initiative, Question 1 (June 2014)
* 4.9 See also
* 4.10 Footnotes

# By state[edit]

NOTE: The following tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed against statewide ballot measures aiming for the 2014 ballot. Click the "show" link to read about specifics of a particular lawsuit.

## Alaska[edit]

### Alaska Bristol Bay Mining Ban, Ballot Measure 4 (2014)[edit]

#### Hughes vs. Treadwell et al.[edit]

In January 2013, Richard Hughes, a mining engineer, filed a lawsuit against the initiative's certification by Lt. Gov Mead Treadwell (R) in the Alaska Fourth Judicial District. The Alaska Miners Association and the Council of Alaska Producers joined as plaintiffs. Hughes and plaintiffs argued that the initiative would, according to the court's summary, "(1) enact local or special legislation in violation of article XI, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution; (2) violate separation of powers under article XII, section 11 of the Alaska Constitution; and (3) appropriate state assets in violation of article XI, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution." Judge Paul Lyle ruled against all three points made by Hughes. However, Hughes appealed the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.[1]

The Supreme Court issued their order on June 23, 2014. The court affirmed the superior court ruling made by Judge Paul Lyle.[1]

Matt Singer, a lawyer for Hughes, said they were disappointed. He noted, "[T]he decision reflects the court's evolving preference for refraining from pre-election review."[2]

## Arkansas[edit]

### Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency and Financial Reform Amendment, Issue 3 (2014)[edit]

Rich et al. lawsuit
On August 1, 2014, Yvonne Rich, Frederick Scott and Kathleen Wikstrom filed a lawsuit against Issue 3 arguing the measure was misleading by telling voters it would set term limits when it would actually be extending already existing limits. Secretary of State Mark Martin's office stated its attorneys would review the case.[3] The lawsuit asked the court not to allow the secretary of state's office to count or certify any votes on the issue. It also alleged that mixing the term limits issue with the ethics measures of Issue 3 was "manifest fraud."[4]

### Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Initiative, Issue 4 (2014)[edit]

Opponents of the measure filed a lawsuit over the petition signature deadline controversy, hoping to have the measure thrown off the ballot. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Citizens for Local Rights on September 5, 2014. The plaintiffs claimed the state's petition deadline of July 7 was three days too late in order to be submitted at least four months before the election, as required by state law. Four months to the day before the November election was the Fourth of July, a national holiday. The plaintiffs also argued that the ballot title was insufficient.[5]

David Couch, an attorney who assisted Let Arkansas Decide in placing Issue 4 on the ballot, said, “In addition it has been the Secretary of State's standard practice since Amendment 7 went into effect in 1925 to roll the deadline for accepting petitions to the following business day. The Sponsor and the people of the state of Arkansas had a right to rely upon the Election Calendar and the nearly 100 year history of the Secretary of State's office in rolling the deadline until the next business day when the deadline was on a holiday.” However, opponents of the measure argued the deadline delay in light of holidays "is statutory law, not constitutional law."[6][5] The Arkansas Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the issue on October 9, 2014. The court ultimately ruled that the measure should appear on the ballot. Since the deadline occurred on a federal holiday, the Fourth of July, the court agreed that, based on election law, the deadline must be "the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday."[7][8][9]

### Arkansas Minimum Wage Initiative, Issue 5 (2014)[edit]

Opponents of the measure filed a lawsuit over the petition signature deadline controversy, hoping to have the measure thrown off the ballot. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jackson Thomas Stevens Jr. of Pulaski County. The plaintiff claimed the state's petition deadline of July 7 was three days too late in order to be submitted at least four months before the election, as required by state law. Four months to the day before the November election was the Fourth of July, a national holiday.[10][11]

The Arkansas Supreme Court court ultimately ruled that the measure should appear on the ballot. Since the deadline occurred on a federal holiday, the Fourth of July, the court agreed that, based on election law, the deadline must be "the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday."[7][8][12][11]

## California[edit]

### California Proposition 48, American Indian Gaming Compacts Referendum (2014)[edit]

#### North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians lawsuit[edit]

In March 2013, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians filed a lawsuit in the Madera County Superior Court challenging the veto referendum. The petitioners put forward two legal arguments against the measure: (1) AB 277 is final because federal law allows tribes to own and operate casinos, as long as state law does not prohibit casino gambling. However, a compact, like AB 277, must be signed by the Governor and approved by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Thus, they argued, a ratified compact cannot be challenged via veto referendum because the compact has been approved by the federal government pursuant to federal law; (2) A contract between a state and a tribe may not be subject to the initiative and referendum process.[13]

### California Proposition 49, Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question (2014)[edit]

#### HJTA lawsuit[edit]

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) filed a lawsuit against the referendum's placement on the ballot on July 23, 2014. A legislatively referred advisory question is an illegitimate use of the ballot since the ballot is used for law making, according to the HJTA. Jon Coupal, president of the association, said, "Legislative power can be exercised in numerous ways but this is not one of those."[14] He also equated the referendum to a public opinion poll. Coupal cited American Federation of Labor v. Eu as the basis for the lawsuit, noting, "If the people can’t do it, certainly the Legislature can’t do it, either."[15]

Derek Cressman, director of Yes on 49, responded, saying, "They are worried they can’t win this debate on substance so they are trying to prevent this debate from happening. It frankly looks like censorship."[14]

Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) called for a judicial decision to be made before August 11, the day voter information guides go into print.[16]

On July 31, 2014, the California Third District Court of Appeal tossed out the lawsuit in a 2 to 1 vote without comment.[17]

Michele Sutter, chairperson of Yes on 49, issued a response to the ruling. She said, "We’re delighted that voters will have a chance to collectively speak out against big money in politics with their votes. How ironic it would have been for courts to tell us that billionaire campaign spending is free speech but that Californians can’t even speak back with our votes."[17]

On August 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court ordered Bowen to remove the proposition from the ballot pending court review. Bowen asked staff to remove the measure from voter information guides and the measure was not featured on the 2014 ballot.[18]

### California Referendum on AB 1266, Transgender Student Participation Based on Gender Identity (2014)[edit]

#### Gina Gleason vs. Debra Bowen[edit]

Debra Bowen, the California Secretary of State, said that about 5,000 signatures submitted in Mono County and Tulare County on Tuesday, November 12 were filed after the November 10 deadline. Those attempting to qualify the referendum for the ballot filed a lawsuit against that decision by Bowen. In early January 2014, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge, Allen Sumner, ruled against Bowen and said that the signatures must be accepted. The reason for this is that November 10 was a Sunday, and November 11 was Veteran's Day, a holiday, and the election offices in the two counties were closed. The judge wrote, "Ever since the voters enacted the referendum power in 1911, courts have liberally construed its provisions to protect the voters' power. The fact that the deadline for submitting petitions falls on a weekend preceding a holiday, or the county registrar closes a noon on Friday, should not prevent Petitioner from having her petition signatures accepted."[19]

### California Pension Reform Initiative (2014)[edit]

#### Chuck Reed vs. Kamala Harris[edit]

Chuck Reed (D) announced that he will challenge the ballot summary, specifically the first line, as inaccurate and misleading in the Sacramento Superior Court.[20]

Reed argued, “Most people reading [the ballot summary] would believe that we're eliminating vested rights protections and benefits that workers have accrued, and the measure clearly doesn't do that. But using the word 'eliminate,' according to the union polling, apparently is a nice negative term to have in there. It shows a clear bias.” He also described using "nurses, teachers and peace workers" to describe public employees as "loaded and unfair." A statement from the Attorney General’s office disagreed, noting, “The Attorney General has issued an accurate title and summary, and we stand by it.”[21][22]

On March 13, 2014, Judge Allen H. Sumner ruled that Reed failed to provide sufficient evidence that Harris' ballot title and summary were false or misleading.[23] Judge Sumner's ruling can be summarized into the following statements:[24]

* “Petitioners argue the word “eliminates” implies the initiative is deleting a provision of the Constitution. In fact, the summary states the initiative eliminates “constitutional protections,” not that it eliminates “Constitutional provisions.” There is nothing false or misleading here.” Petitioners also argue the word “eliminates” is likely to create prejudice because it “fosters a visceral negative response from voters.” Petitioners cite a public opinion poll. This poll is irrelevant. The Attorney General is charged with preparing a summary that is true and impartial; not a summary that polls well… Petitioners argue the fact voters have a negative response to the word “eliminates” proves the summary is not impartial. It does not. Voters may have negative responses to many words and phrases, for example “raises taxes” or “sex-offender.”

* “Petitioners argue the phrase “constitutional protections” is similarly false and misleading. They maintain the California Rule is not constitutionally based, but rather a common law rule created by “language in certain appellate court decisions” suggesting state statutes governing public pensions create a contract between government agencies and their employees. Who are these unnamed appellate courts, with their imprecise language creating misleading suggestions? The California Supreme Court. Petitioners believe the California Rule is flawed and the California Supreme Court got it wrong. Petitioners are free to disagree with the California Supreme Court. They may ask the voters to change the law. The voters may agree. However, Supreme Court has the last word on what California law is. If the California Supreme Court says the California Rule’s protections are constitutionally based, they are. There is nothing false or misleading about the Attorney General’s summary of current California law.”

* “Petitioners argue the word “vested” is false and misleading. Petitioners use the word to mean only benefits that have already been earned through past service -- not benefits yet to be earned through future service. Petitioners argue the Attorney General’s use of the term “vested” will mislead voters into believing the initiative would interfere with benefits already earned. The Attorney General’s summary does not. The summary twice informs voters the initiative deals with benefits “for future work.” This is accurate.”

* “Petitioners challenge the Attorney General’s use of the phrase “including teachers, nurses, and peace officers” to describe who the initiative will effect. Petitioners object the description is not impartial because it singles out three very popular groups of public employees. The summary states the initiative applies to “current public employees.” It is certainly true that teachers, nurses and peace officers are public employees. Is it argumentative to cite these professions? The Attorney General responds teachers, nurses and peace officers make up close to half of all public employees. Her summary thus accurately and concisely identifies for the voters the employees affected.”

## Colorado[edit]

### Colorado Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative, Proposition 105 (2014)[edit]

Biotech, pesticide and grocery corporations challenged the measure; however, the Colorado Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Colorado Right to Know, allowing supporters to move forward in their attempts to land the initiative on the November 2014 ballot.[25]

## Illinois[edit]

### Illinois Term Limits for Legislators Amendment (2014)[edit]

#### Unconstitutionality Lawsuit[edit]

On April 29, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court seeking to prevent the term limits measure, as well as the Illinois Independent Redistricting Amendment, from being placed on the ballot. The suit was filed by a group of business and nonprofit leaders. It alleged that placing term limits on legislators is unconstitutional. In 1994, the state supreme court struck down a term limits measure in a 4-3 decision. Supporters of the 2014 measures were anticipating legal challenges but felt confident that their respective measures would make the ballot. Mark Campbell of the Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits said, "Illinois citizens across all spectrums are demanding change in Springfield and want a return to real public service by citizen legislators and an end to the era of career politicians in Springfield." According to the lawsuit, the formal complaint by the plaintiffs states the following:[26]

“  | This taxpayer action seeks to restrain the expenditure of public funds to consider the propriety of two petitions proposing multiple amendments to the Legislative Article of the Illinois Constitution which should be enjoined because each of these proposed petitions fails to comply with the constitutional requirements of Section 3 of Article XIV of the Illinois Constitution for such amendments. One of the petitions (the "Term Limits Initiative") proposes amendments that are invalid for several reasons, most obvious that it imposes term limits on members of the Illinois General Assembly, which the Illinois Supreme Court already held to be an improper subject for amendments to Article IV.[27] | ”

|
|

—Plaintiffs, [28]

On June 27, 2014, Judge Mary Mikva threw both the term limits amendment and the redistricting amendment off the ballot, saying they were unconstitutional. However, unlike supporters of the redistricting measure, those promoting the term limits amendment vowed to appeal Mikva's ruling, saying her decision was politically motivated. "These court decisions are really about whether the voters of Illinois live in the state of Illinois or the ‘People’s Republic of Illinois'. There is no legitimate legal reason to keep the term limits initiative off the ballot. At this level we think it’s strictly been done for political reasons. You can’t find a judge in Cook County that’s not connected to that political organization....We think she’s a fine judge, but we just don’t think that based in this environment that we were going to get anything other than the ruling that we got," said Campbell.[29]

On August 20, 2014, the Illinois First District Appellate Court upheld the lower court's ruling that the term limits amendment was unconstitutional. Rauner filed an immediate appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. He said, "The Illinois Supreme Court should not ignore the people of Illinois. We are hopeful that the Illinois Supreme Court will find in favor of the citizens of Illinois." Two decades ago, the supreme court ruled against legislative term limits. The appeals court cited this in its decision, with Judge Maureen Connors saying, "The (Supreme) Court characterized term limits as a matter of eligibility or qualifications of an individual legislator, which ‘do not involve the structure or the legislature as an institution.’"[30]

The Illinois Supreme Court rejected Rauner's request that it quickly consider the issue. The State Board of Elections went ahead and issued the official November ballot without the amendment.[31]

### Illinois Independent Redistricting Amendment (2014)[edit]

#### Unconstitutionality Lawsuit[edit]

On April 29, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court seeking to prevent the redistricting measure, as well as the Illinois Term Limits for Legislators Amendment, from being placed on the ballot. The suit, which many thought would go all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, was filed by a group of business and nonprofit leaders. Supporters of the measures were anticipating legal challenges and felt confident that their respective measures would make the 2014 ballot. Michael Kolenc, of "Yes for Independent Maps," said, "Our coalition is confident that the independent maps proposal meets the structural and procedural requirements to amend the Illinois Constitution. Legal experts across the state agree with our position." According to the lawsuit, the formal complaint by the plaintiffs stated the following:[26]

“  | This taxpayer action seeks to restrain the expenditure of public funds to consider the propriety of two petitions proposing multiple amendments to the Legislative Article of the Illinois Constitution which should be enjoined because each of these proposed petitions fails to comply with the constitutional requirements of Section 3 of Article XIV of the Illinois Constitution for such amendments. [...] The other petition (the "Redistricting Initiative") is likewise invalid for several reasons, including that it contains not a single structural or procedural change to Article IV, and in fact reaches far beyond Article IV to impose new eligibility requirements on all legislative, executive and judicial branch officeholders.[27] | ”

|
|

—Plaintiffs, [32]

## Maine[edit]

### Maine Bear Hunting Ban Initiative, Question 1 (2014):[edit]

Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting filed a lawsuit against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W) over its role in ads in opposition of Question 1. The lawsuit was filed in Superior Court in Portland and challenged the legality of the ads, claiming that IF&W misused public funds and taxpayer money to advocate for one side of the issue.[33]

A spokesperson for the Maine Attorney General's Office released a written statement saying:

“  | We will defend the right of members of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and other public officials to speak out on issues of public interest within their regulatory authority and expertise, as permitted by recent case law.

[27]

| ”

|
|

In addition to the ads, the lawsuit highlighted private fundraisers attended by IF&W employees where Commissioner Chandler Woodcock urged the defeat of Question 1. The lawsuit also challenged IF&W's withholding of government records around its own campaign activities.[34]

Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting filed an emergency injunction against IF&W on October 8, 2014, to prevent employees of IF&W from using taxpayer resources to oppose Question 1. The group said the request was necessary because the state bear biologists and game wardens had not ended their campaign against the measure and had not responded to a Freedom of Access request about their campaign activities. As of October 9, 2014, a hearing on the injunction had not been scheduled.[35]

In response to the emergency injunction, IF&W announced that it would expend no "additional funds or resources" to create new videos or visual media projects relating to the measure. The organization also admitted that while "biologists and game wardens shown in the advertisements may have appeared during work hours...no further expenditures on the part of (DIF&W) would be incurred."[36]

On October 22, 2014, Justice Joyce Wheeler refused to issue the requested emergency injunction, saying that Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting did not demonstrate that the opposition expressed by IF&W caused "irreparable injury" and that the views of the department's employees were protected under the First Amendment. While Justice Wheeler ruled in their favor, she ordered IF&W to disclose records concerning its political activities. No appeal was filed.[37][38]

## Michigan[edit]

### Michigan Use Tax and Community Stabilization Share, Proposal 1 (August 2014)[edit]

#### Fouts lawsuit[edit]

Warren Mayor Jim Fouts (I) filed a lawsuit against Proposal 1 on August 8, 2014, three days after the proposal was approved by voters. Fouts said he would use his own money to overturn the measure. He claimed the ballot language was "blatantly unlawful and fraudulent," "confusing," "one-sided" and "prejudiced."[39] According to Fouts, Proposal 1 proponents used a "sales pitch" to garner votes. He took issue with phrases like, "helping small business grow and create jobs,” “modernize the tax system,” “police safety, fire protection and ambulance emergency services” and “aid to local school districts.” He said the proposal itself used positive phrases, rather than negative phrases, such as, "tax cuts for large manufacturers."[40] He continued, "I am defending the taxpayers from being hoodwinked. I think the overall, larger issue here is to protect the honesty and integrity of the ballot process by not allowing misleading or confusing language."[39]

Kelly Rossman-McKinney, a spokesperson for Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, replied, "I would say the mayor has the prerogative to take any action he feels is appropriate, but the majority of his own constituents did vote in favor of Proposal 1 on Tuesday."[39]

Mayor Fouts, in return, argued voters did not understand Proposal 1. He said, "[Voters] thought they were voting for police and fire. They did not know they were voting for a new tier of government. They did not know they were voting for a new tax. They did not know they were voting to take money away from their local government."[39]

On December 11, 2014, Judge Deborah Servitto of the Michigan Second District Court of Appeals tossed out the lawsuit, arguing:

“  | Plaintiff takes issue with the proposal’s references to business growth, job creation and support for public safety and for school districts. However, this Court concludes that these references do not create prejudice and are not defects that would (be) likely to mislead the voters such that the outcome of the election should be nullified.[27] | ”

|
|

—Judge Deborah Servitto[41]

### Michigan Natural Resources Commission Referendum (2014)[edit]

#### Humane Society v. Johnson et al.[edit]

The Humane Society Legislative Fund and Keep Michigan Wolves Protected filed a federal lawsuit with Judge Robert Cleland of the Eastern Michigan District Court. The groups asked the court to strike down a state statute requiring petition circulators to be residents of Michigan. Sherri Ferrell, a resident of Florida, desired to help circulate a petition for the referendum, but could not. She alleged, as did the appealing organizations, that her legal inability to do so infringed upon her free speech. The lawsuit stated, "Michigan’s state residency requirement for petition circulators severely restricts the abilities of non-Michigan-residents – including volunteer members of HSLF and Sherri Ferrell – to engage in core political speech in Michigan and to associate with the organizations and Michigan residents who support the initiatives." The lawsuit named Secretary of State Ruth Johnson (R), Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) and Colleen Pero, chairperson of the Board of State Canvassers, as defendants.[42]

The ACLU deemed circulator residency requirements to be unconstitutional. They noted that similar laws have been struck down by federal judges.[43] The Local Initiative and Referendum Initiative, which was circulated in Michigan, but did not make the ballot, would have eliminated residency requirements.

Judge Cleland dismissed the lawsuit on March 31, 2014, because the legislature passed a law, known as House Bill 5152, that permitted out-of-state circulators on March 27, 2014. Cleland said, "It appears to the court that, upon the Governor’s anticipated approval, the Plaintiffs’ case will become moot. In view of this impending change in the law, the parties have agreed to dismiss this matter."[44]

## Missouri[edit]

### Missouri Right to Bear Arms, Amendment 5 (August 2014)[edit]

The ballot language of Amendment 5 was challenged in court by opponents who argued the wording was insufficient and unfair. In the case, the opponents asked the judge to rewrite the ballot language. The defense, a gun-control activist and the St. Louis police chief represented by Chuck Hatfield, argued that for the judge to do so would be a violation of the separation of powers. They asked, instead, for the judge to send the measure back to the legislature for a rewrite of the summary, if it was found to be lacking.[45] On July 1, 2014, Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the lawsuit by ruling the ballot summary of this measure and another regarding a temporary tax increase to fund transportation were sufficient and fair.[46]

Judge Beetem dismissed the case due to a state law that provided courts no authority to order issues to be placed on the ballot less than six weeks before an election. Legal representatives challenging Amendment 5 said that the law does not apply in this case because the measure was already on the ballot, and appealed the ruling. The case was scheduled to go before the Missouri Supreme Court on July 14.[47] On July 18, 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed the case citing the same state law which forbids courts from changing ballot language within six weeks of an election.[48]

### Missouri Temporary Sales and Use Tax Increase for Transportation, Amendment 7 (August 2014)[edit]

On June 12, 2014, the Missouri Association for Social Welfare filed a lawsuit challenging the ballot language for Amendment 7. The group was represented by Gaylin Rich Carver, an attorney with Carver & Michael, LLC in Jefferson City. Gov. Nixon's wife, Georganne Wheeler Nixon, was listed on the Carver & Michael law firm's website as their PC of Counsel. The lawsuit contended that the cost estimate provided was insufficient. It also claimed that the summary failed to include that the measure would also raise the state use tax. It further posited that the ballot language should note the current sales tax rate of 4.225 percent.[49] Supporters of the measure claimed that the lawsuit was an effort to confuse voters. According to the Associated Press, using lawsuits to challenge ballot measure language has been common in Missouri over the last 10 years. While some have been successful in forcing ballot language changes, "many have not."[49]

On July 1, 2014, Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the lawsuit by ruling the ballot summary of this measure and another regarding the right to bear arms sufficient and fair.[50]

### Missouri Campaign Contributions Cap Amendment (2014)[edit]

#### Rex Sinquefield v. Jason Kander[edit]

Rex Sinquefield, a retired financier and frequent contributor to campaigns and candidates in Missouri, filed a lawsuit to block the Campaign Contributions Cap Amendment from appearing on the 2014 ballot.[51]

Sinquefield and lobbyist Travis Brown were both listed as plaintiffs. They claimed that "the initiative doesn’t adequately measure the financial impact of the amendment, unfairly restricts free speech and freedom of association and contains unfair language that could manipulate voters." Brown told the Missouri Times, "This ultimately is about freedom of expression and speech. An individual should have the right to express themselves by support or opposition to a candidate or committee." Sec. of State Jason Kander responded, saying he believed the language of the measure would be upheld in court. Courts have historically struck down attempts to limit campaign contributions, saying that the ability to donate money to campaigns and candidates is a form of free expression, which is protected by the first amendment.[51]

## Montana[edit]

### Montana Late Voter Registration Revision Measure, LR-126 (2014)[edit]

#### MEA-MFT, et al. v. Fox[edit]

On December 3, 2013, the MEA-MFT, AFL-CIO, Montana Public Employees Association, Montana Human Rights Network, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers, Montana Women Vote and Western Native Voice filed a lawsuit with the Montana Supreme Court in an attempt to remove LR-126 from the ballot. The petitioners claimed LR-126’s title language to be false, as one line read, “ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT [NVRA].” They noted, “Nothing in LR-126 is required in any way by the NVRA.” The “inaccurate language” was returned by the Attorney General to the Secretary of State without proper review, according to the petitioners. Therefore, the measure “is legally insufficient as a ballot measure.”[52] The ACLU, League of Women Voters, AARP and the Montana Conservation Voters all filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the petitioners.[53] The Attorney General, the respondent, stated, “Petitioners’ argument fails because LR-126 does contain language regarding the NVRA that is accurately summarized in the referendum’s title and addresses a concern raised by legislative staffers.”[54]

On February 5, 2014, the Montana Supreme Court ruled in a 5-1 decision that LR-126 would stay on the ballot. Justice Michael Wheat was the lone dissenter. He said, "It is undeniable that same-day voter registration has absolutely nothing to do with compliance with the NVRA (National Voter Registration Act). Thus, the statement in the title of LR-126 to the contrary is a fatal defect that cannot be cured." Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing for the majority, said, "[W]e are reluctant to take the extraordinary step of nullifying its placement on the ballot. [Supreme Court precedents] counsel in favor of allowing the measure to proceed to a vote."[55] The court did, however, declare the contested sentence in the ballot statement to be incorrect and ordered it to be rewritten. The original statement said that the referendum's approval was necessary to ensure compliance with a federal law, the National Voter Registration Act. According to the court, LR-126's intent is not required by the NVRA.[56]

### Montana Primary Election Revision Measure, LR-127 (2014)[edit]

#### MEA-MFT, et al. v. Fox[edit]

On November 27, 2013, the MEA-MFT, AFL-CIO, Montana Public Employees Association, Montana Human Rights Network and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers filed a lawsuit with the Montana Supreme Court in an attempt to remove LR-127 from the ballot. The petitioners claimed that LR-127’s title language was too long, as Montana statute limits the titles of referred statutes to 100 words. The measure’s title was 196 words long. Furthermore, they argued that LR-127 contained more than one subject as the measure would have both adopted an open primary system and a top two primary system. Therefore, the measure was “legally insufficient as a ballot measure.”[57] The Attorney General, the respondent, stated, “Since Petitioners have failed to allege untruth, partiality, argumentation, or prejudice in the ballot statement, and because they did not provide an alternate ballot statement pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 13-27-316(3)(b), the Court should reject their arguments regarding the statement of purpose and implication.”[58]

On March 24, 2014, the Montana Supreme Court ruled, in a 6 to 1 decision, to remove LR-127 from the ballot. They ruled that the title "does not comply with the plain meaning of the Legislature’s 100-word limit." Chief Justice Mike McGrath said, "The Legislature chose to place the 100-word limitation into the statute and must comply with its own law when referring a matter to the people for the vote. Furthermore, the title of LR-127 is not a mere technical violation of the statute, but is substantially in excess of the 100-word limit imposed by the Legislature." The Supreme Court also found the measure's title "complicated and confusing." Attorney General Tim Fox's spokesperson, John Barnes, stated, "Based on this new guidance from the Montana Supreme Court, the Legislature will need to revisit its rules governing the submission of referendums to voters."[59]

### Montana Cable Company Property Tax Initiative (2014)[edit]

#### MEA-MFT v. Fox[edit]

The MEA-MFT, a union representing educators and government employees, filed a lawsuit with the Montana Supreme Court asking the court to invalidate the ballot summary for the Cable Company Property Tax Initiative. The MEA-MFT argues that Attorney General Tim Fox (R) should not have approved the initiative for petition circulation. The union deemed the ballot summary as "systematically untrue and argumentative." MEA-MFT President Eric Feaver said, "Bottom line, we will do what we can to prevent Charter from assaulting Montana’s tax code for its exclusive self-interest."

Big Sky Broadband Coalition for Lower Taxes, who supports the amendment, called the lawsuit a "standard political tactic."[60] Attorney General Fox responded, "Since petitioner (MEA-MFT) has failed to show untruth, partiality, argumentation or prejudice in the ballot statement, the court should reject their arguments, regarding the statement of purpose and implication."[61]

In a 5 to 0 decision, the Montana Supreme Court dismissed the case. The court stated, "We have made clear in several recent opinions that the attorney general’s legal sufficiency review does not authorize him to withhold a proposed ballot measure from the ballot for an alleged substantive constitutional infirmity. We conclude these principles clearly apply here. Therefore, we decline to disturb the attorney general’s legal sufficiency determination on the grounds that the initiative is unconstitutional."[62]

## Nebraska[edit]

### Nebraska Horse Race Wagering Amendment (2014)[edit]

#### Gambling with the Good Life lawsuit[edit]

Patricia Loontjer, Director of Gambling with the Good Life, filed a lawsuit against the measure in the Nebraska Supreme Court on July 28, 2014. Gambling with the Good Life argued that the ballot measure effectively asked two questions:[63]

1. Should wagering or gambling on live, delayed or replayed horse races at licensed racetracks be legalized?
2. Should revenue from taxes on gambling be spent on education, property tax relief, and for the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund?

As of 2014, the Nebraska Constitution contains a provision against asking constituents to answer two questions in just one vote.[64]

The Nebraska Supreme Court heard the case on August 27, 2014.[65] On September 5, 2014, the court ruled in favor of Gambling with the Good Life. The court agreed that the measure asked more than one question, and it was removed from the ballot.[66]

## New York[edit]

### New York Independent Redistricting Amendment, Proposal 1 (2014)[edit]

#### Common Cause lawsuit[edit]

On August 19, 2014, Common Cause New York initiated a lawsuit against the measure's wording. The group asked a judge to order the proposal's language be rewritten. Common Cause argued that the word "independent" did not accurately describe the proposed redistricting committee.[39]

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause-New York, said, "This is a commission that is independent in name only... Too many people will walk into the polling place, they'll get their ballot and it will be the first they've heard about this. That's why the language needs to be neutral, so voters have a reasonable opportunity to make up their own minds."[39]

The case was heard by the New York Supreme Court on September 12, 2014.[67]

On September 17, 2014, Judge Patrick McGrath ruled that the word "independent" must be struck from the measure's text. He said, "[T]he commission cannot be described as 'independent' when eight of 10 members are the handpicked appointees of the legislative leaders and the two additional members are essentially political appointees by proxy."[68]

Neil Steiner, the lawyer for Common Cause New York, responded, "To exercise the right to vote – the very core of our democracy – voters must be given fair and accurate information. We're pleased that the court recognized that describing the proposed commission as "independent", when it so clearly is not, unfairly tilted the playing field, and stopped the Board of Elections from doing so."

## Rhode Island[edit]

### Rhode Island Gaming at Newport Grand, Question 1 (2014)[edit]

Arnold et al. v. Mollis Deborah Arnold, Elizabeth P. de Ramel and Charles Weishar, all residents of Newport, Rhode Island, filed a lawsuit against Question 1 in the Rhode Island Superior Court. They asked the court to remove the measure from the ballot.[39]

Arnold, de Ramel and Weishar called the question’s approval process an “unconstitutional procedure.” In 2012, Question 2, which authorized casino games at Newport Grand, was approved. Following, Newport constituents rejected the proposal in a separate vote. Question 1 of 2014 followed a different process. Rather than having one statewide measure and one local measure, the measure was simultaneously posed as a statewide and local question. The Newport Canvassing Authority was responsible for counting local results. The three residents argued that the process would confuse voters and “dilute their vote and unlawfully tilt the election in favor of approval."[39]

Furthermore, Section 22 of Article VI of the Rhode Island Constitution reads:

“  | No act expanding the types of gambling which are permitted within the state or within any city or town therein or expanding the municipalities in which a particular form of gambling is authorized shall take effect until it has been approved by the majority of those electors voting in a statewide referendum and by the majority of those electors voting in a referendum in the municipality in which the proposed gambling would be allowed.[27] | ”

|
|

The lawsuit largely revolved around how to interpret the constitution: does Section 22 of Article VI permit one measure to be both a statewide and local measure, or does it call for two separate ballot measures, one statewide and one local?[39]

The petitioners argued that having one versus two measures had a practical effect as well. Their document stated, "Clearly, there is a material number of Newport electors who voted only on the local referendum and passed on voting on the statewide question. The most obvious explanation is that there are Newport voters who simply do not vote on statewide ballots and restrict their attention to local candidates and issues."[39]

# By topic[edit]

NOTE: Each lawsuit against proposed 2014 ballot measures includes a basis, or reason, as to why plaintiffs filed the lawsuit. For example, a reason for a filed lawsuit, or "topic," could include arguments that a measure's ballot text is insufficient.

## Ballot text[edit]

### Arkansas[edit]

#### Arkansas Elected Officials Ethics, Transparency and Financial Reform Amendment, Issue 3 (2014)[edit]

##### Rich et al. lawsuit[edit]

On August 1, 2014, Yvonne Rich, Frederick Scott and Kathleen Wikstrom filed a lawsuit against Issue 3 arguing the measure was misleading by telling voters it would set term limits when it would actually be extending already existing limits. Secretary of State Mark Martin's office stated its attorneys would review the case.[69] The lawsuit asked the court not to allow the secretary of state's office to count or certify any votes on the issue. It also alleged that mixing the term limits issue with the ethics measures of Issue 3 was "manifest fraud."[70]

### California[edit]

#### California Pension Reform Initiative (2014)[edit]

##### Chuck Reed vs. Kamala Harris[edit]

Chuck Reed (D) announced that he will challenge the ballot summary, specifically the first line, as inaccurate and misleading in the Sacramento Superior Court.[71]

Reed argued, “Most people reading [the ballot summary] would believe that we're eliminating vested rights protections and benefits that workers have accrued, and the measure clearly doesn't do that. But using the word 'eliminate,' according to the union polling, apparently is a nice negative term to have in there. It shows a clear bias.” He also described using "nurses, teachers and peace workers" to describe public employees as "loaded and unfair." A statement from the Attorney General’s office disagreed, noting, “The Attorney General has issued an accurate title and summary, and we stand by it.”[72][73]

On March 13, 2014, Judge Allen H. Sumner ruled that Reed failed to provide sufficient evidence that Harris' ballot title and summary were false or misleading.[74] Judge Sumner's ruling can be summarized into the following statements:[75]

* “Petitioners argue the word “eliminates” implies the initiative is deleting a provision of the Constitution. In fact, the summary states the initiative eliminates “constitutional protections,” not that it eliminates “Constitutional provisions.” There is nothing false or misleading here.” Petitioners also argue the word “eliminates” is likely to create prejudice because it “fosters a visceral negative response from voters.” Petitioners cite a public opinion poll. This poll is irrelevant. The Attorney General is charged with preparing a summary that is true and impartial; not a summary that polls well… Petitioners argue the fact voters have a negative response to the word “eliminates” proves the summary is not impartial. It does not. Voters may have negative responses to many words and phrases, for example “raises taxes” or “sex-offender.”

* “Petitioners argue the phrase “constitutional protections” is similarly false and misleading. They maintain the California Rule is not constitutionally based, but rather a common law rule created by “language in certain appellate court decisions” suggesting state statutes governing public pensions create a contract between government agencies and their employees. Who are these unnamed appellate courts, with their imprecise language creating misleading suggestions? The California Supreme Court. Petitioners believe the California Rule is flawed and the California Supreme Court got it wrong. Petitioners are free to disagree with the California Supreme Court. They may ask the voters to change the law. The voters may agree. However, Supreme Court has the last word on what California law is. If the California Supreme Court says the California Rule’s protections are constitutionally based, they are. There is nothing false or misleading about the Attorney General’s summary of current California law.”

* “Petitioners argue the word “vested” is false and misleading. Petitioners use the word to mean only benefits that have already been earned through past service -- not benefits yet to be earned through future service. Petitioners argue the Attorney General’s use of the term “vested” will mislead voters into believing the initiative would interfere with benefits already earned. The Attorney General’s summary does not. The summary twice informs voters the initiative deals with benefits “for future work.” This is accurate.”

* “Petitioners challenge the Attorney General’s use of the phrase “including teachers, nurses, and peace officers” to describe who the initiative will effect. Petitioners object the description is not impartial because it singles out three very popular groups of public employees. The summary states the initiative applies to “current public employees.” It is certainly true that teachers, nurses and peace officers are public employees. Is it argumentative to cite these professions? The Attorney General responds teachers, nurses and peace officers make up close to half of all public employees. Her summary thus accurately and concisely identifies for the voters the employees affected.”

### Colorado[edit]

#### Colorado Mandatory Labeling of GMOs Initiative, Proposition 105 (2014)[edit]

Biotech, pesticide and grocery corporations challenged the measure; however, the Colorado Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Colorado Right to Know, allowing supporters to move forward in their attempts to land the initiative on the November 2014 ballot.[25]

### Michigan[edit]

#### Michigan Use Tax and Community Stabilization Share, Proposal 1 (August 2014)[edit]

##### Fouts lawsuit[edit]

Warren Mayor Jim Fouts (I) filed a lawsuit against Proposal 1 on August 8, 2014, three days after the proposal was approved by voters. Fouts said he would use his own money to overturn the measure. He claimed the ballot language was "blatantly unlawful and fraudulent," "confusing," "one-sided" and "prejudiced."[39] According to Fouts, Proposal 1 proponents used a "sales pitch" to garner votes. He took issue with phrases like, "helping small business grow and create jobs,” “modernize the tax system,” “police safety, fire protection and ambulance emergency services” and “aid to local school districts.” He said the proposal itself used positive phrases, rather than negative phrases, such as, "tax cuts for large manufacturers."[76] He continued, "I am defending the taxpayers from being hoodwinked. I think the overall, larger issue here is to protect the honesty and integrity of the ballot process by not allowing misleading or confusing language."[39]

Kelly Rossman-McKinney, a spokesperson for Citizens for Strong and Safe Communities, replied, "I would say the mayor has the prerogative to take any action he feels is appropriate, but the majority of his own constituents did vote in favor of Proposal 1 on Tuesday."[39]

Mayor Fouts, in return, argued voters did not understand Proposal 1. He said, "[Voters] thought they were voting for police and fire. They did not know they were voting for a new tier of government. They did not know they were voting for a new tax. They did not know they were voting to take money away from their local government."[39]

On December 11, 2014, Judge Deborah Servitto of the Michigan Second District Court of Appeals tossed out the lawsuit, arguing:

“  | Plaintiff takes issue with the proposal’s references to business growth, job creation and support for public safety and for school districts. However, this Court concludes that these references do not create prejudice and are not defects that would (be) likely to mislead the voters such that the outcome of the election should be nullified.[27] | ”

|
|

—Judge Deborah Servitto[77]

### Missouri[edit]

#### Missouri Right to Bear Arms, Amendment 5 (August 2014)[edit]

The ballot language of Amendment 5 was challenged in court by opponents who argued the wording was insufficient and unfair. In the case, the opponents asked the judge to rewrite the ballot language. The defense, a gun-control activist and the St. Louis police chief represented by Chuck Hatfield, argued that for the judge to do so would be a violation of the separation of powers. They asked, instead, for the judge to send the measure back to the legislature for a rewrite of the summary, if it was found to be lacking.[78] On July 1, 2014, Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the lawsuit by ruling the ballot summary of this measure and another regarding a temporary tax increase to fund transportation were sufficient and fair.[79]

Judge Beetem dismissed the case due to a state law that provided courts no authority to order issues to be placed on the ballot less than six weeks before an election. Legal representatives challenging Amendment 5 said that the law does not apply in this case because the measure was already on the ballot, and appealed the ruling. The case was scheduled to go before the Missouri Supreme Court on July 14.[80] On July 18, 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed the case citing the same state law which forbids courts from changing ballot language within six weeks of an election.[81]

#### Missouri Temporary Sales and Use Tax Increase for Transportation, Amendment 7 (August 2014)[edit]

On June 12, 2014, the Missouri Association for Social Welfare filed a lawsuit challenging the ballot language for Amendment 7. The group was represented by Gaylin Rich Carver, an attorney with Carver & Michael, LLC in Jefferson City. Gov. Nixon's wife, Georganne Wheeler Nixon, was listed on the Carver & Michael law firm's website as their PC of Counsel. The lawsuit contended that the cost estimate provided was insufficient. It also claimed that the summary failed to include that the measure would also raise the state use tax. It further posited that the ballot language should note the current sales tax rate of 4.225 percent.[49] Supporters of the measure claimed that the lawsuit was an effort to confuse voters. According to the Associated Press, using lawsuits to challenge ballot measure language has been common in Missouri over the last 10 years. While some have been successful in forcing ballot language changes, "many have not."[49]

On July 1, 2014, Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem dismissed the lawsuit by ruling the ballot summary of this measure and another regarding the right to bear arms sufficient and fair.[82]

### Montana[edit]

#### Montana Late Voter Registration Revision Measure, LR-126 (2014)[edit]

##### MEA-MFT, et al. v. Fox[edit]

On December 3, 2013, the MEA-MFT, AFL-CIO, Montana Public Employees Association, Montana Human Rights Network, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers, Montana Women Vote and Western Native Voice filed a lawsuit with the Montana Supreme Court in an attempt to remove LR-126 from the ballot. The petitioners claimed LR-126’s title language to be false, as one line read, “ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL VOTER REGISTRATION ACT [NVRA].” They noted, “Nothing in LR-126 is required in any way by the NVRA.” The “inaccurate language” was returned by the Attorney General to the Secretary of State without proper review, according to the petitioners. Therefore, the measure “is legally insufficient as a ballot measure.”[83] The ACLU, League of Women Voters, AARP and the Montana Conservation Voters all filed amicus curiae briefs in support of the petitioners.[84] The Attorney General, the respondent, stated, “Petitioners’ argument fails because LR-126 does contain language regarding the NVRA that is accurately summarized in the referendum’s title and addresses a concern raised by legislative staffers.”[85]

On February 5, 2014, the Montana Supreme Court ruled in a 5-1 decision that LR-126 would stay on the ballot. Justice Michael Wheat was the lone dissenter. He said, "It is undeniable that same-day voter registration has absolutely nothing to do with compliance with the NVRA (National Voter Registration Act). Thus, the statement in the title of LR-126 to the contrary is a fatal defect that cannot be cured." Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing for the majority, said, "[W]e are reluctant to take the extraordinary step of nullifying its placement on the ballot. [Supreme Court precedents] counsel in favor of allowing the measure to proceed to a vote."[86] The court did, however, declare the contested sentence in the ballot statement to be incorrect and ordered it to be rewritten. The original statement said that the referendum's approval was necessary to ensure compliance with a federal law, the National Voter Registration Act. According to the court, LR-126's intent is not required by the NVRA.[87]

#### Montana Primary Election Revision Measure, LR-127 (2014)[edit]

##### MEA-MFT, et al. v. Fox[edit]

On November 27, 2013, the MEA-MFT, AFL-CIO, Montana Public Employees Association, Montana Human Rights Network and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers filed a lawsuit with the Montana Supreme Court in an attempt to remove LR-127 from the ballot. The petitioners claimed that LR-127’s title language was too long, as Montana statute limits the titles of referred statutes to 100 words. The measure’s title was 196 words long. Furthermore, they argued that LR-127 contained more than one subject as the measure would have both adopted an open primary system and a top two primary system. Therefore, the measure was “legally insufficient as a ballot measure.”[88] The Attorney General, the respondent, stated, “Since Petitioners have failed to allege untruth, partiality, argumentation, or prejudice in the ballot statement, and because they did not provide an alternate ballot statement pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 13-27-316(3)(b), the Court should reject their arguments regarding the statement of purpose and implication.”[89]

On March 24, 2014, the Montana Supreme Court ruled, in a 6 to 1 decision, to remove LR-127 from the ballot. They ruled that the title "does not comply with the plain meaning of the Legislature’s 100-word limit." Chief Justice Mike McGrath said, "The Legislature chose to place the 100-word limitation into the statute and must comply with its own law when referring a matter to the people for the vote. Furthermore, the title of LR-127 is not a mere technical violation of the statute, but is substantially in excess of the 100-word limit imposed by the Legislature." The Supreme Court also found the measure's title "complicated and confusing." Attorney General Tim Fox's spokesperson, John Barnes, stated, "Based on this new guidance from the Montana Supreme Court, the Legislature will need to revisit its rules governing the submission of referendums to voters."[59]

#### Montana Cable Company Property Tax Initiative (2014)[edit]

##### MEA-MFT v. Fox[edit]

The MEA-MFT, a union representing educators and government employees, filed a lawsuit with the Montana Supreme Court asking the court to invalidate the ballot summary for the Cable Company Property Tax Initiative. The MEA-MFT argues that Attorney General Tim Fox (R) should not have approved the initiative for petition circulation. The union deemed the ballot summary as "systematically untrue and argumentative." MEA-MFT President Eric Feaver said, "Bottom line, we will do what we can to prevent Charter from assaulting Montana’s tax code for its exclusive self-interest."

Big Sky Broadband Coalition for Lower Taxes, who supports the amendment, called the lawsuit a "standard political tactic."[90] Attorney General Fox responded, "Since petitioner (MEA-MFT) has failed to show untruth, partiality, argumentation or prejudice in the ballot statement, the court should reject their arguments, regarding the statement of purpose and implication."[91]

In a 5 to 0 decision, the Montana Supreme Court dismissed the case. The court stated, "We have made clear in several recent opinions that the attorney general’s legal sufficiency review does not authorize him to withhold a proposed ballot measure from the ballot for an alleged substantive constitutional infirmity. We conclude these principles clearly apply here. Therefore, we decline to disturb the attorney general’s legal sufficiency determination on the grounds that the initiative is unconstitutional."[92]

### New York[edit]

#### New York Independent Redistricting Amendment, Proposal 1 (2014)[edit]

##### Common Cause lawsuit[edit]

On August 19, 2014, Common Cause New York initiated a lawsuit against the measure's wording. The group asked a judge to order the proposal's language be rewritten. Common Cause argued that the word "independent" did not accurately describe the proposed redistricting committee.[39]

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause-New York, said, "This is a commission that is independent in name only... Too many people will walk into the polling place, they'll get their ballot and it will be the first they've heard about this. That's why the language needs to be neutral, so voters have a reasonable opportunity to make up their own minds."[39]

The case was heard by the New York Supreme Court on September 12, 2014.[93]

On September 17, 2014, Judge Patrick McGrath ruled that the word "independent" must be struck from the measure's text. He said, "[T]he commission cannot be described as 'independent' when eight of 10 members are the handpicked appointees of the legislative leaders and the two additional members are essentially political appointees by proxy."[68]

Neil Steiner, the lawyer for Common Cause New York, responded, "To exercise the right to vote – the very core of our democracy – voters must be given fair and accurate information. We're pleased that the court recognized that describing the proposed commission as "independent", when it so clearly is not, unfairly tilted the playing field, and stopped the Board of Elections from doing so."

## Campaign contributions[edit]

## Constitutionality[edit]

### Alaska[edit]

#### Alaska Bristol Bay Mining Ban, Ballot Measure 4 (2014)[edit]

##### Hughes vs. Treadwell et al.[edit]

In January 2013, Richard Hughes, a mining engineer, filed a lawsuit against the initiative's certification by Lt. Gov Mead Treadwell (R) in the Alaska Fourth Judicial District. The Alaska Miners Association and the Council of Alaska Producers joined as plaintiffs. Hughes and plaintiffs argued that the initiative would, according to the court's summary, "(1) enact local or special legislation in violation of article XI, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution; (2) violate separation of powers under article XII, section 11 of the Alaska Constitution; and (3) appropriate state assets in violation of article XI, section 7 of the Alaska Constitution." Judge Paul Lyle ruled against all three points made by Hughes. However, Hughes appealed the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.[1]

The Supreme Court issued their order on June 23, 2014. The court affirmed the superior court ruling made by Judge Paul Lyle.[1]

Matt Singer, a lawyer for Hughes, said they were disappointed. He noted, "[T]he decision reflects the court's evolving preference for refraining from pre-election review."[94]

### California[edit]

#### California Proposition 48, American Indian Gaming Compacts Referendum (2014)[edit]

##### North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians lawsuit[edit]

In March 2013, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians filed a lawsuit in the Madera County Superior Court challenging the veto referendum. The petitioners put forward two legal arguments against the measure: (1) AB 277 is final because federal law allows tribes to own and operate casinos, as long as state law does not prohibit casino gambling. However, a compact, like AB 277, must be signed by the Governor and approved by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. Thus, they argued, a ratified compact cannot be challenged via veto referendum because the compact has been approved by the federal government pursuant to federal law; (2) A contract between a state and a tribe may not be subject to the initiative and referendum process.[95]

#### California Proposition 49, Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question (2014)[edit]

##### HJTA lawsuit[edit]

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) filed a lawsuit against the referendum's placement on the ballot on July 23, 2014. A legislatively referred advisory question is an illegitimate use of the ballot since the ballot is used for law making, according to the HJTA. Jon Coupal, president of the association, said, "Legislative power can be exercised in numerous ways but this is not one of those."[14] He also equated the referendum to a public opinion poll. Coupal cited American Federation of Labor v. Eu as the basis for the lawsuit, noting, "If the people can’t do it, certainly the Legislature can’t do it, either."[96]

Derek Cressman, director of Yes on 49, responded, saying, "They are worried they can’t win this debate on substance so they are trying to prevent this debate from happening. It frankly looks like censorship."[14]

Secretary of State Debra Bowen (D) called for a judicial decision to be made before August 11, the day voter information guides go into print.[97]

On July 31, 2014, the California Third District Court of Appeal tossed out the lawsuit in a 2 to 1 vote without comment.[17]

Michele Sutter, chairperson of Yes on 49, issued a response to the ruling. She said, "We’re delighted that voters will have a chance to collectively speak out against big money in politics with their votes. How ironic it would have been for courts to tell us that billionaire campaign spending is free speech but that Californians can’t even speak back with our votes."[17]

On August 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court ordered Bowen to remove the proposition from the ballot pending court review. Bowen asked staff to remove the measure from voter information guides and the measure was not featured on the 2014 ballot.[98]

### Illinois[edit]

#### Illinois Term Limits for Legislators Amendment (2014)[edit]

##### Unconstitutionality Lawsuit[edit]

On April 29, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court seeking to prevent the term limits measure, as well as the Illinois Independent Redistricting Amendment, from being placed on the ballot. The suit was filed by a group of business and nonprofit leaders. It alleged that placing term limits on legislators is unconstitutional. In 1994, the state supreme court struck down a term limits measure in a 4-3 decision. Supporters of the 2014 measures were anticipating legal challenges but felt confident that their respective measures would make the ballot. Mark Campbell of the Committee for Legislative Reform and Term Limits said, "Illinois citizens across all spectrums are demanding change in Springfield and want a return to real public service by citizen legislators and an end to the era of career politicians in Springfield." According to the lawsuit, the formal complaint by the plaintiffs states the following:[26]

“  | This taxpayer action seeks to restrain the expenditure of public funds to consider the propriety of two petitions proposing multiple amendments to the Legislative Article of the Illinois Constitution which should be enjoined because each of these proposed petitions fails to comply with the constitutional requirements of Section 3 of Article XIV of the Illinois Constitution for such amendments. One of the petitions (the "Term Limits Initiative") proposes amendments that are invalid for several reasons, most obvious that it imposes term limits on members of the Illinois General Assembly, which the Illinois Supreme Court already held to be an improper subject for amendments to Article IV.[27] | ”

|
|

—Plaintiffs, [99]

On June 27, 2014, Judge Mary Mikva threw both the term limits amendment and the redistricting amendment off the ballot, saying they were unconstitutional. However, unlike supporters of the redistricting measure, those promoting the term limits amendment vowed to appeal Mikva's ruling, saying her decision was politically motivated. "These court decisions are really about whether the voters of Illinois live in the state of Illinois or the ‘People’s Republic of Illinois'. There is no legitimate legal reason to keep the term limits initiative off the ballot. At this level we think it’s strictly been done for political reasons. You can’t find a judge in Cook County that’s not connected to that political organization....We think she’s a fine judge, but we just don’t think that based in this environment that we were going to get anything other than the ruling that we got," said Campbell.[29]

On August 20, 2014, the Illinois First District Appellate Court upheld the lower court's ruling that the term limits amendment was unconstitutional. Rauner filed an immediate appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. He said, "The Illinois Supreme Court should not ignore the people of Illinois. We are hopeful that the Illinois Supreme Court will find in favor of the citizens of Illinois." Two decades ago, the supreme court ruled against legislative term limits. The appeals court cited this in its decision, with Judge Maureen Connors saying, "The (Supreme) Court characterized term limits as a matter of eligibility or qualifications of an individual legislator, which ‘do not involve the structure or the legislature as an institution.’"[100]

The Illinois Supreme Court rejected Rauner's request that it quickly consider the issue. The State Board of Elections went ahead and issued the official November ballot without the amendment.[31]

#### Illinois Independent Redistricting Amendment (2014)[edit]

##### Unconstitutionality Lawsuit[edit]

On April 29, 2014, a lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court seeking to prevent the redistricting measure, as well as the Illinois Term Limits for Legislators Amendment, from being placed on the ballot. The suit, which many thought would go all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, was filed by a group of business and nonprofit leaders. Supporters of the measures were anticipating legal challenges and felt confident that their respective measures would make the 2014 ballot. Michael Kolenc, of "Yes for Independent Maps," said, "Our coalition is confident that the independent maps proposal meets the structural and procedural requirements to amend the Illinois Constitution. Legal experts across the state agree with our position." According to the lawsuit, the formal complaint by the plaintiffs stated the following:[26]

“  | This taxpayer action seeks to restrain the expenditure of public funds to consider the propriety of two petitions proposing multiple amendments to the Legislative Article of the Illinois Constitution which should be enjoined because each of these proposed petitions fails to comply with the constitutional requirements of Section 3 of Article XIV of the Illinois Constitution for such amendments. [...] The other petition (the "Redistricting Initiative") is likewise invalid for several reasons, including that it contains not a single structural or procedural change to Article IV, and in fact reaches far beyond Article IV to impose new eligibility requirements on all legislative, executive and judicial branch officeholders.[27] | ”

|
|

—Plaintiffs, [101]

### Nebraska[edit]

#### Nebraska Horse Race Wagering Amendment (2014)[edit]

##### Gambling with the Good Life lawsuit[edit]

Patricia Loontjer, Director of Gambling with the Good Life, filed a lawsuit against the measure in the Nebraska Supreme Court on July 28, 2014. Gambling with the Good Life argued that the ballot measure effectively asked two questions:[102]

1. Should wagering or gambling on live, delayed or replayed horse races at licensed racetracks be legalized?
2. Should revenue from taxes on gambling be spent on education, property tax relief, and for the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund?

As of 2014, the Nebraska Constitution contains a provision against asking constituents to answer two questions in just one vote.[103]

The Nebraska Supreme Court heard the case on August 27, 2014.[104] On September 5, 2014, the court ruled in favor of Gambling with the Good Life. The court agreed that the measure asked more than one question, and it was removed from the ballot.[105]

### Rhode Island[edit]

#### Rhode Island Gaming at Newport Grand, Question 1 (2014)[edit]

##### Arnold et al. v. Mollis[edit]

Deborah Arnold, Elizabeth P. de Ramel and Charles Weishar, all residents of Newport, Rhode Island, filed a lawsuit against Question 1 in the Rhode Island Superior Court. They asked the court to remove the measure from the ballot.[39]

Arnold, de Ramel and Weishar called the question’s approval process an “unconstitutional procedure.” In 2012, Question 2, which authorized casino games at Newport Grand, was approved. Following, Newport constituents rejected the proposal in a separate vote. Question 1 of 2014 followed a different process. Rather than having one statewide measure and one local measure, the measure was simultaneously posed as a statewide and local question. The Newport Canvassing Authority was responsible for counting local results. The three residents argued that the process would confuse voters and “dilute their vote and unlawfully tilt the election in favor of approval."[39]

Furthermore, Section 22 of Article VI of the Rhode Island Constitution reads:

“  | No act expanding the types of gambling which are permitted within the state or within any city or town therein or expanding the municipalities in which a particular form of gambling is authorized shall take effect until it has been approved by the majority of those electors voting in a statewide referendum and by the majority of those electors voting in a referendum in the municipality in which the proposed gambling would be allowed.[27] | ”

|
|

The lawsuit largely revolved around how to interpret the constitution: does Section 22 of Article VI permit one measure to be both a statewide and local measure, or does it call for two separate ballot measures, one statewide and one local?[39]

The petitioners argued that having one versus two measures had a practical effect as well. Their document stated, "Clearly, there is a material number of Newport electors who voted only on the local referendum and passed on voting on the statewide question. The most obvious explanation is that there are Newport voters who simply do not vote on statewide ballots and restrict their attention to local candidates and issues."[39]

## Circulators[edit]

### Michigan[edit]

#### Michigan Natural Resources Commission Referendum (2014)[edit]

##### Humane Society v. Johnson et al.[edit]

The Humane Society Legislative Fund and Keep Michigan Wolves Protected filed a federal lawsuit with Judge Robert Cleland of the Eastern Michigan District Court. The groups asked the court to strike down a state statute requiring petition circulators to be residents of Michigan. Sherri Ferrell, a resident of Florida, desired to help circulate a petition for the referendum, but could not. She alleged, as did the appealing organizations, that her legal inability to do so infringed upon her free speech. The lawsuit stated, "Michigan’s state residency requirement for petition circulators severely restricts the abilities of non-Michigan-residents – including volunteer members of HSLF and Sherri Ferrell – to engage in core political speech in Michigan and to associate with the organizations and Michigan residents who support the initiatives." The lawsuit named Secretary of State Ruth Johnson (R), Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) and Colleen Pero, chairperson of the Board of State Canvassers, as defendants.[106]

The ACLU deemed circulator residency requirements to be unconstitutional. They noted that similar laws have been struck down by federal judges.[107] The Local Initiative and Referendum Initiative, which was circulated in Michigan, but did not make the ballot, would have eliminated residency requirements.

Judge Cleland dismissed the lawsuit on March 31, 2014, because the legislature passed a law, known as House Bill 5152, that permitted out-of-state circulators on March 27, 2014. Cleland said, "It appears to the court that, upon the Governor’s anticipated approval, the Plaintiffs’ case will become moot. In view of this impending change in the law, the parties have agreed to dismiss this matter."[108]

## Deadlines[edit]

### Arkansas[edit]

#### Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Initiative, Issue 4 (2014)[edit]

##### Deadline lawsuit[edit]

Opponents of the measure filed a lawsuit over the petition signature deadline controversy, hoping to have the measure thrown off the ballot. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Citizens for Local Rights on September 5, 2014. The plaintiffs claimed the state's petition deadline of July 7 was three days too late in order to be submitted at least four months before the election, as required by state law. Four months to the day before the November election was the Fourth of July, a national holiday. The plaintiffs also argued that the ballot title was insufficient.[5]

David Couch, an attorney who assisted Let Arkansas Decide in placing Issue 4 on the ballot, said, “In addition it has been the Secretary of State's standard practice since Amendment 7 went into effect in 1925 to roll the deadline for accepting petitions to the following business day. The Sponsor and the people of the state of Arkansas had a right to rely upon the Election Calendar and the nearly 100 year history of the Secretary of State's office in rolling the deadline until the next business day when the deadline was on a holiday.” However, opponents of the measure argued the deadline delay in light of holidays "is statutory law, not constitutional law."[6][5] The Arkansas Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the issue on October 9, 2014. The court ultimately ruled that the measure should appear on the ballot. Since the deadline occurred on a federal holiday, the Fourth of July, the court agreed that, based on election law, the deadline must be "the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday."[7][8][109]

#### Arkansas Minimum Wage Initiative, Issue 5 (2014)[edit]

##### Deadline lawsuit[edit]

Opponents of the measure filed a lawsuit over the petition signature deadline controversy, hoping to have the measure thrown off the ballot. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jackson Thomas Stevens Jr. of Pulaski County. The plaintiff claimed the state's petition deadline of July 7 was three days too late in order to be submitted at least four months before the election, as required by state law. Four months to the day before the November election was the Fourth of July, a national holiday.[110][11]

The Arkansas Supreme Court court ultimately ruled that the measure should appear on the ballot. Since the deadline occurred on a federal holiday, the Fourth of July, the court agreed that, based on election law, the deadline must be "the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday."[7][8][111][11]

### California[edit]

#### California Referendum on AB 1266, Transgender Student Participation Based on Gender Identity (2014)[edit]

##### Gina Gleason vs. Debra Bowen[edit]

Debra Bowen, the California Secretary of State, said that about 5,000 signatures submitted in Mono County and Tulare County on Tuesday, November 12 were filed after the November 10 deadline. Those attempting to qualify the referendum for the ballot filed a lawsuit against that decision by Bowen. In early January 2014, a Sacramento County Superior Court judge, Allen Sumner, ruled against Bowen and said that the signatures must be accepted. The reason for this is that November 10 was a Sunday, and November 11 was Veteran's Day, a holiday, and the election offices in the two counties were closed. The judge wrote, "Ever since the voters enacted the referendum power in 1911, courts have liberally construed its provisions to protect the voters' power. The fact that the deadline for submitting petitions falls on a weekend preceding a holiday, or the county registrar closes a noon on Friday, should not prevent Petitioner from having her petition signatures accepted."[19]

## Fiscal summary[edit]

### Missouri[edit]

#### Missouri Campaign Contributions Cap Amendment (2014)[edit]

##### Rex Sinquefield v. Jason Kander[edit]

Rex Sinquefield, a retired financier and frequent contributor to campaigns and candidates in Missouri, filed a lawsuit to block the Campaign Contributions Cap Amendment from appearing on the 2014 ballot.[51]

Sinquefield and lobbyist Travis Brown were both listed as plaintiffs. They claimed that "the initiative doesn’t adequately measure the financial impact of the amendment, unfairly restricts free speech and freedom of association and contains unfair language that could manipulate voters." Brown told the Missouri Times, "This ultimately is about freedom of expression and speech. An individual should have the right to express themselves by support or opposition to a candidate or committee." Sec. of State Jason Kander responded, saying he believed the language of the measure would be upheld in court. Courts have historically struck down attempts to limit campaign contributions, saying that the ability to donate money to campaigns and candidates is a form of free expression, which is protected by the first amendment.[51]

## Labor practices[edit]

## Motivation of sponsors[edit]

## Post-certification removal[edit]

## Redistricting[edit]

## Single-subject rule[edit]

## Signature challenges[edit]

## Voter guide[edit]

# Past measures[edit]

NOTE: The following tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed in 2014 against past ballot measures.

## Statewide[edit]

### Colorado[edit]

#### Colorado Definition of Marriage, Initiative 43 (2006)[edit]

On June 25, 2014, a three member panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down bans on gay marriage in the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. This was the first ruling made by a federal appeals court on this issue, which sets a historic precedent that voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process.[112]

The court stated:[113]

“  |

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm. [27]

| ”

|
|

A recording of the decision can be heard here

Following the ruling by the circuit court, Colorado judge C. Scott Crabtree struck down the marriage ban in Colorado, saying it violates both the state and federal constitutions.[114]

Implementation of the decision was immediately stayed pending anticipated appeals to either the full appeals panel or the United States Supreme Court. Despite the stay, the Boulder County Clerk began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples immediately, and stated that she planned to continue to do so. However, Attorney General John Suthers said that for the time being, the ban on gay marriage remained in effect and that any licenses issued during the stay would be invalid.[115][116]

On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case appealing the decision of the federal circuit court, thus allowing the ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court to stand and making same-sex marriage "presumptively legal" in Colorado.[117]

### Florida[edit]

#### Florida Definition of Marriage, Amendment 2 (2008)[edit]

On July 17, 2014, Judge Luis Garcia of Florida's Sixteenth Circuit Court overturned Amendment 2 ruling that it effectively made same-sex couples second-class citizens. The ruling only applies to Monroe County, but Garcia said that marriage licenses could start being issued there on July 22, 2014.[118] However, due to an appeal filed just shortly after the ruling, a stay has been placed upon Garcia's ruling. This means that licenses will not be available to same-sex couples unless a higher court upholds his ruling.[119]

On July 25, 2014, Judge Sarah I. Zabel of the Florida 11th Circuit Court ruled similarly to overturn the ban in Miami-Dade County. Zabel immediately stayed the ruling until appeals are heard, and Attorney General of Florida Pam Bondi (R) filed an appeal on the same day.[120]

On August 5, 2014, a third judge, Judge Dale Cohen of the Broward County Circuit Court, ruled the ban was unconstitutional, as well. Similar to the prior two rulings, this ruling only applies to Broward County, and Cohen placed an immediate stay on his ruling.[121]

Also on August 5, 2014, a fourth judge, Judge Diana Lewis of the Palm Beach County Circuit Court, ruled against the ban in a probate case. This ruling applies only to this specific case which allowed a widower to be the personal representative of the deceased's estate.[122]

On August 21, 2014, Judge Robert Hinkle of the  U.S. District Court of Northern Florida ruled the marriage ban unconstitutional, making him the first federal judge to rule on the issue in Florida. The judge claimed that the ban violated the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees of equal protection and due process and also compared it to laws against interracial marriages. Judge Hinkle stayed his decision, meaning no same-sex marriage licenses could be given, and out of state same-sex marriages were not yet recognized. Attorney General of Florida Pam Bondi (R), who appealed the decisions by the previous four judges, challenged this order.[123][124]

The issue moved on to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.[120]

### Kansas[edit]

#### Kansas Marriage Amendment (2005)[edit]

On June 25, 2014, a three member panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down bans on gay marriage in the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. This was the first ruling made by a federal appeals court on this issue, which sets a historic precedent that voter-approved bans on same-sex marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples to equal protection and due process.[125]

The court states:[126]

“  |

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm. [27]

| ”

|
|

A recording of the decision can be heard here

Implementation of the decision was immediately stayed pending anticipated appeals to either the full appeals panel or the United States Supreme Court.[127]

On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case appealing the decision of the federal circuit court, thus allowing the ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court to stand and making same-sex marriage "presumptively legal" in Kansas.[128]

On November 4, 2014, United States District Court Judge Daniel D. Crabtree ruled that the state of Kansas cannot prohibit same-sex marriage. Judge Crabtree delayed the ruling from taking effect for a week, allowing state officials to appeal the decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Attorney General Derek Schmidt sought initial en banc review of the case with the Tenth Circuit and asked for a stay of decision while the appeal goes forward.[129] On November 12, 2014, the stay was vacated.[130]

### Wisconsin[edit]

#### Wisconsin Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (2006)[edit]

In February 2014, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit challenging this constitutional amendment. The lead plaintiffs were Virginia Wolf and Carol Schumacher, who were married in Minnesota. The lawsuit alleged that the ban on same-sex marriage violated due process protections by limiting the right to marry and equal protection based on sexual orientation and gender discrimination.[131] The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin by Judge Barbara Crabb.[132]

On June 6, 2014, Judge Crabb ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and overturned the ban put in place by Question 1.[133] In her opinion, Judge Crabb refuted the state's argument regarding the history of "traditional marriages," saying,

“  | As an initial matter, defendants and amici have overstated their argument. Throughout history, the most 'traditional' form of marriage has not been between one man and one woman, but between one man and multiple women, which presumably is not a tradition that defendants and amici would like to continue.[134][27] | ”

|
|

—Judge Barbara Crabb

Judge Crabb refused a state request made by Attorney General of Wisconsin J.B. Van Hollen to halt marriages from taking place until after an appeal is heard on June 10, 2014.[135]

On September 4, 2014, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declared the marriage ban unconstitutional. The three-judge panel unanimously voted to uphold lower court decisions that reversed marriage restrictions. The decision was stayed, pending action by the United States Supreme Court, as state officials appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.[136]

On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case, thus allowing the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court to stand and legalizing same-sex marriage in Wisconsin.[137]

## Local[edit]

### California[edit]

### Measure B (condoms)[edit]

Kayden Kross, a co-plaintiff in the federal lawsuit to overturn Measure B

A federal lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court for the Central District of California on January 11, 2014 that seeks to have the federal court overturn Measure B, the Los Angeles Porn Actors Required to Wear Condoms Act. The lawsuit was filed by porn production company Vivid Entertainment. Porn stars Kayden Kross and Logan Pierce joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs.[39]

Paul Cambria is the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. He said, "You don’t have to win an Oscar to be protected by the First Amendment."

The lawsuit says that Measure B should be overturned for several reasons. Those reasons include:

* It violates the First Amendment by imposing an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression.
* It attempts to regulate an area (public health) which should exclusively be regulated by state law.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which sponsored Measure B, expressed confidence that the lawsuit would fail. Tom Myers, an attorney for the group, said, "Despite what the adult industry’s lawyers are claiming in this lawsuit, Measure B is not directed at speech and as such their First Amendment claims will likely ring hollow with the court."[39]

### Measure L (parcel tax)[edit]

A lawsuit was filed against Measure L, the San Leandro Unified School District parcel tax enacted in November 2012 in January 2014 on grounds similar to those in Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District.[138]

Lawsuits were also filed in January 2014 against:

* West Contra Costa Unified, Measure G (November 2012)
* Davis Joint Unified, Measure E (November 2012)
* A consortium of five districts in Los Angeles County, Measure CL (November 2012)[139]

All the lawsuits were filed by David Brillant, the Walnut Creek attorney who successfully argued Borikas.[139]

# Local[edit]

NOTE: This tab includes lawsuits filed against proposed notable 2014 local ballot measures. To inform Ballotpedia of an important local lawsuit near you, contact editor@ballotpedia.org.

### Denton, Texas, Fracking Ban Initiative[edit]

Less than 12 hours after the initiative was certain to pass on November 4, 2014, two lawsuits were filed against this measure. One was filed by the Texas Land Office, and a separate suit was filed by the Texas Oil and Gas Association. These were just the first of many lawsuits expected against the contentious fracking ban, with threats of more litigation coming from multiple state lawmakers.[140]

The court cases boiled down to questions of local autonomy and property rights. While state law gives authority and jurisdiction over oil and gas wells to the state's Railroad Commission, it, under previous law, gave local governments such as Denton the power to impose reasonable health and safety regulations. So the court battles revolved around where fracking belonged with regard to these two powers and whether the initiative eliminates all options for profit from oil and gas drilling, thus violating property rights. Ultimately, when House Bill 40 was approved giving authority over the industry to the state, the plaintiffs in both court cases amended their lawsuits to argue against the initiative based on the new law.[141]

### House Bill 40

See also: Texas House Bill 40 (2015) and Changes in 2015 to laws governing ballot measures

After approval by Texas lawmakers, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed House Bill 40 into law. The bill gave exclusive jurisdiction over the oil and gas industry to the state government, prohibiting local oil and gas-related ordinances, initiatives and regulations, including anti-fracking initiatives like the one approved in Denton on November 4, 2014.[140]

On June 17, 2015, the Denton City Council voted 7-1 to repeal the anti-fracking initiative in light of House Bill 40, which seemingly made it illegal. Council Member Kathleen Wazny said, “While we would like to drive the bus ... right now House Bill 40 is the law of the land."[141][142]

Representing a contingent of disappointed citizens, Denton resident Jim McKinney told the council at the open meeting held early in June on the issue that the city should enforce the citizen initiative and force the state to bring the city to court over House Bill 40.[142]

Adam Briggle, president of the Denton Drilling Awareness Group and an associate professor at the University of North Texas, said the city's inability to enforce the voter-approved initiative “is disheartening and confusing.” He admitted, however, that the DAG's own lawyers did not think that a good legal situation would result from trying to defend the initiative in court. Briggle was arrested on June 1, 2015, for blocking the entrance to an active drilling site in the city.[142]

### Land Office lawsuit

The Texas General Land Office filed a suit in Travis County court claiming the initiative was unconstitutional, and the confident Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said, “This ban on hydraulic fracturing is not constitutional and it won’t stand.” When House Bill 40 was approved, the Land Office amended its lawsuit to argue against the initiative based on the new law.[141][140]

### Oil and Gas Association lawsuit

Lawyers from the Texas Oil and Gas Association (TXOGA) filed a lawsuit in Denton County court claiming that the initiative would shut down all oil and gas operations because of the condition of shale economics, and they argued that this would amount to an unconstitutional violation of property rights for mineral owners. When House Bill 40 was approved, the Texas Oil and Gas Association amended its lawsuit to argue against the initiative based on the new law.[141][140]

Tom Phillips, a lawyer with the firm Baker Botts, which represented the petroleum group, said, “While home-rule cities like Denton may certainly regulate some aspects of exploration and drilling, TXOGA does not believe that they may enact ordinances that outlaw conduct, like hydraulic fracturing, that has been approved and regulated by state agencies."[140]

### Pre-House Bill 40 Responses

When the lawsuits were first filed, before House Bill 40 was approved, Frack Free Denton responded by pointing to the 59 percent voter approval, saying, “They have apparently learned nothing from last night’s landslide vote. Industry could have taken this moment to address why the ban was passed. Instead they’re going to try to squash it.”[140]

Although Texas courts historically tended to side with energy interests, Terrence Welch, a lawyer who had helped write drilling ordinances in several Texas cities, said the outcome of these lawsuits was still very much up in the air. Speaking before the passage of House Bill 40, Welch said, “To say that this is a slam dunk [for oil and gas interests] ... I think that’s painting with an overly broad brush. The property — the mineral estate isn’t left valueless. You can drill, but you just can’t frack.” House Bill 40, however, made any argument for the legality of this initiative very difficult.[140]

### Maui County, Hawaii, Genetically Modified Organism Ban[edit]

Immediately after the initiative was approved, Monsanto and Dow Chemical, two of the most active opponents of the initiative, filed a lawsuit against it in federal court. The suit claims that the initiative conflicts with state and federal law. This lawsuit was expected, especially as the pro-GMO side was encouraged by a recent court case over a GMO and agricultural regulation law in Kauai County was ruled in favor of agro-chemical companies. That case claimed that Kauai County had no authority to regulate agriculture and GMOs since state and federal law already did so. A similar argument will be made against this Maui County initiative. John Purcell, Monsanto Hawaii's business and technology lead, said, "This local referendum interferes with and conflicts with long-established state and federal laws that support both the safety and lawful cultivation of GMO plants." The Shaka Movement, the group behind the initiative, successfully petitioned the courts to allow it to join the county as a co-defendant against the suit from Monsanto and Dow Chemical.[143][144]

Another suit was filed by initiative proponents against the county in the Maui District of state court in an effort to force the county to enforce the initiative. Proponents have requested federal court to put off ruling until the state court court case has been decided.[143]

A hearing on this initiative was set for March 31, 2015, in federal court.[145]

A preliminary ruling in district court allowed the county to continue to postpone enforcement of the initiative. On April 30, 2015, initiative proponents filed an appeal of this ruling in Ninth Circuit Appellate Court, arguing that the SHAKA Movement should have been allowed an evidentiary hearing before district court allowed the county to continue to put off enforcement of the voter-approved initiative.[146]

Mark Sheehan, a supporter of the initiative and a representative of the SHAKA Movement in the lawsuit, said, “The ordinance we enacted needs to be enforced immediately. We hope the Ninth Circuit will uphold Hawaii voting rights and respect our need for a healthy environment.”[146]

John Purcell, Monsanto's technology and business lead in Hawaii said, “We respect SHAKA’s right to appeal the injunction, however we are confident our legal arguments are formidable and will prevail since they are based on established legal precedent.”[146]

#### Ruling

Judge Susan Oki Mollway

On June 30, 2015, Federal District Court Judge Susan Oki Mollway ruled that this initiative was preempted by state and federal law. She ruled that the county overstepped its authority by banning GMOs. County officials agreed to abide by the ruling. Mark Sheehan, a member of the Shaka Movement\--the group behind the initiative--said initiative proponents would appeal the ruling.[147]

Judge Mollway emphasized that her ruling only concerned the legality of the county initiative ordinance and did not touch on the question of whether or not restrictions on genetically engineered products should be more strict. Mollway wrote, "No portion of this ruling says anything about whether GE organisms are good or bad or about whether the court thinks the substance of the ordinance would be beneficial to the county."[147]

Sheehan said that the initiative was specifically designed to move around existing state and federal laws and that the judge did not take into consideration that the county is legally responsible for the health of the environment and the county residents, implying that her ruling was incomplete if it did not consider the actual effects of GMOs on the county. Sheehan said, "That was lost on the judge, so we will have to move along and have to find justice for the constitutional rights of the people of Maui at another level." Carroll, an attorney for the Shaka Movement said Mollway's ruling was overreaching.[147]

Monsanto, one of the most active GMO proponents and producers in Maui County, seemed to understand that the legal debate over GMOs was far from over. In a statement responding to the ruling, Monsanto representatives said that the company welcomed "the opportunity to continue to have conversations" with county residents about GMOs. John Purcell, who runs Monsanto's business and technology department in Hawaii, said, "We're listening and we've heard the concerns some people have about GMOs and today's farming practices. Our commitment to ongoing dialogue with our neighbors doesn't stop today."[147]

### Ventura County, California, Pension Reform Initiative[edit]

#### Lawsuit filed

Status: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, calling for the removal of the initiative from the ballot. Defending proponents decided against appealing the decision.

Immediately after the county supervisors voted to put the initiative on the ballot, the Citizens for Retirement Security filed a lawsuit against the county, making a judge the ultimate arbiter of the legality of the initiative before voters even saw the measure on the ballot.[148]

Deborah Caplan, a lawyer representing initiative opponents, said, “The most significant defect in the initiative is that once the county has opted into the state’s county retirement program, as Ventura County has, it’s subject to continued regulation by the state. Changes require state authorization." Caplan, in this statement, refers to an act from 1937 called the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, which dictates the county retirement system and the laws that accompany it. This law was accepted by Ventura County voters in 1946.[149]

County Counsel Leroy Smith wrote a 21-page memo announcing that he agreed with opponents of the initiative and did not believe it would pass legal muster. Smith said that because the county had joined the state system, only state legislation could alter the county's pension plan. In the memo, Leroy Smith wrote, “Because the measure proposes only a local ordinance, which cannot by law disestablish the 1937 act plan in the county, the measure is illegal and of no effect. Once accepted, the 1937 act provides no procedure by which a county can disestablish the retirement system or unaccept the retirement law by any subsequent local action, either by the voters or by the board of supervisors." This left the county forced to defend an initiative in court even though the county's attorney did not believe the initiative was legal.[149][150]

The Committee for Pension Fairness, however, was confident in its initiative and was eager to defend it. Jonathan Wilcox, a spokesman for the committee, said, "Their legal challenge is not going to be awarded. They’ve given up trying to persuade people; now they’re going to try to persuade a judge. I think it’s pitiful.” David Grau, chairman of the Ventura County Taxpayers Association, said, "We got a legal opinion first. That was the basic question: Can the voters change the system.” Attorneys for the committee argued that because County Ordinance Number 401, which accepted the 1937 law, was approved by a vote of the people, it can be altered or repealed by a vote of the people as well. Kenneth Lounsbery and James Lough, attorneys representing the committee, wrote, “This measure amends Ventura County Ordinance Number 401 which established the pension program in 1946 by a vote of the people. The power of the people to adopt a measure carries with it the power to repeal by the same means.”[150][149]

Wilcox stated that the committee was dedicated to proving the legality of its initiative in court and putting it before voters. Wilcox said, “They can throw their lawyers at us, and it’s not going to stop it. This is going to go on the ballot. And it’s going to go to the people.”[149]

Ultimately, however, the case was ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and the measure was removed from the ballot.[151]

#### 1937 Act

The suit filed by the Citizens for Retirement Security claimed the county-and therefore the county voters-have no power to alter its own pension plan. To understand the full implications of the argument and the importance of this lawsuit, some background on county pensions in California must be understood. According to state law, California counties have three options when it comes to pension plans for public employees:[152]

1.) The county may provide its own, independent pension fund and system; two counties use this option.[153]

2.) The county may contract directly with CalPERS; 37 counties use this option.

3.) The county may accept and enter into a pension plan created and regulated by the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937; 20 counties accepted the 1937 act.

Ventura County voters ratified the 1937 Act in 1947, making it one of the counties that chose the third option. According to plaintiffs in the Ventura County court case, the act had no provision allowing for a county to withdraw, which means that, once a county accepts the state law and the accompanying system, it cannot alter that system without authorization from state legislators. On the other side, attorneys defending the pension-altering initiative argued that because ratification of the act was accomplished by a county vote, county voters have the authority to repeal the decision.[152]

#### Lawsuit effects

Because the arguments presented by both sides of this battle between state control and local control affect any county that has joined the state system, its outcome could affect the lives of millions of Californians. Below is a list of the 20 counties that accepted the 1937 Act and will be affected by the ruling:[152]

* Alameda
* Contra Costa
* Fresno
* Imperial
* Kern
* Los Angeles
* Marin
* Mendocino
* Merced
* Orange
* Sacramento
* San Bernardino
* San Diego
* San Joaquin
* San Mateo
* Santa Barbara
* Sonoma
* Stanislaus
* Tulare
* Ventura

These counties range in population from 87,000 to 10,000,000 residents, and, together, they contain roughly 75 percent of California's total inhabitants.[154]

### City of Loveland Two Year Fracking Suspension Initiative, Question 1 (June 2014)[edit]

One case against the initiative was rendered irrelevant by the defeat of Question 1. The case brought against the city by proponents for keeping the initiative off the ballot was ruled in favor of plaintiffs, forcing the June election.

The group Protect Our Loveland tried to get the initiative on the November 5, 2013 ballot. The activists collected valid signatures in numbers exceeding the 2,253 required threshold to put their initiative on the ballot. When a lawsuit against the initiative petition was filed, however, the city council voted to postpone the ballot question until the resolution of the lawsuit. On December 17, 2013, during the last council meeting of the year, Councilor Phil Farley made a motion to bring the ballot question back to the table and possibly give it an election date. Judy Freeman, of Protect Our Loveland, had this to say to the city councilors about the fracking ban initiative and the ongoing lawsuit: "Only you have the authority to put the moratorium on a special election. You would save us and the taxpayers a lot of money by doing that tonight." But Farley's motion died without being seconded, leaving the issue to be settled the following year.[155]

The city council of Loveland originally decided not to put the measure on the ballot because Larry Sarner, a candidate for Colorado's 2nd Congressional District of the U.S. House, challenged the validity of the initiative petition in court, claiming an inaccurate count of registered voters. The city council could have put the measure on the ballot, subsequently invalidating it or removing it if the court ruled against the petitioners and in favor of Larry Sarner. Instead the council decided to keep the measure off the ballot until the court case was decided, leaving the possibility of a special election in the future. Ultimately the court ruled against Sarner and in favor of the clerk's certification of the initiative. Sarner announced plans to file an appeal to the court decision, which he ultimately dropped in a settlement with the city council.[155]

Protect Our Loveland sued the city for keeping the initiative off the ballot, claiming that the law states that once a petition is approved by the city clerk, as the "Loveland Public Health, Safety and Wellness Act" was, the city council had two options: adopt the proposed ordinance outright or hold an election "not less than 60 days and not more than 150 days after the final determination of petition sufficiency." Protect Our Loveland claimed that, no matter what the outcome of the Larry Sarner court case, it was illegal for the city not to hold an election. Even though Sarner filed an appeal in his case, and the end of the legal proceedings over the initiative had no clear end in sight, a court order on March 27, 2014, sided with initiative proponents, forcing the city council to move forward with deciding on an election date.[156][157]

Some city council members were afraid that, despite striving to avoid litigation at every step, they would face an expensive lawsuit over the measure. Many city council members described the city as being "between a rock and a hard place." Council member Krenning said, "We're not in a rock and a hard place, we're in the ozone. It doesn't matter what we do, we're going to get sued."[157]

* * *

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

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Alaska Public Media, "Ruling on Hughes vs. Treadwell et al.," June 23, 2014
2. ↑ Anchorage Daily News, "Supreme Court rules in favor of Bristol Bay ballot measure," June 24, 2014
3. ↑ Associated Press, "Lawsuit asks to toss proposed amendment off ballot," August 2, 2014
4. ↑ Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "3 sue over term-limit amendment," August 2, 2014
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Chron, "Lawsuit seeks to toss Arkansas alcohol proposal," September 5, 2014
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Hope Star, "Liquor suit draws intervenors," September 11, 2014
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Arkansas Online, "Oral arguments set over alcohol sales measure," September 11, 2014
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `c`
9. ↑ ABC 7 KATV, "Ark. Supreme Court denies challenge to statewide alcohol ballot initiative," accessed October 16, 2014
10. ↑ Arkansas Money & Politics, "Lawsuit filed over Arkansas minimum wage measure," September 2014
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 Arkansas Business, "Judge: Signatures OK in Arkansas Minimum Wage Case," October 10, 2014 (dead link)
12. ↑ ABC 7 KATV, "Ark. Supreme Court denies challenge to statewide alcohol ballot initiative," accessed October 16, 2014
13. ↑ Mondaq, "Tribe Files Suit To Block California Compact Referendum," March 11, 2014
14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 The Sacramento Bee, "Lawsuit: Citizens United measure should be tossed off ballot," July 22, 2014
15. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Anti-tax group sues to kick Citizens United advisory measure off ballot," July 22, 2014
16. ↑ The Fresno Bee, "Anti-tax group sues over Citizens United measure," July 22, 2014
17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 The Sacramento Bee, "Calif. appeals court says Citizens United measure should stay on ballot," July 31, 2014
18. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California Supreme Court blocks Citizens United measure from ballot," August 11, 2014
19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `jan`
20. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, “Public pension measure likely off the 2014 ballot,” January 30, 2014
21. ↑ San Jose Mercury News, “California pensions: San Jose mayor's initiative may not make November ballot,” January 30, 2014
22. ↑ Reuters, "Democrats feud over California pension reform measure," February 3, 2014
23. ↑ San Jose Mercury, "San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed loses statewide pension reform ballot challenge," March 14, 2014
24. ↑ Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, "Charles R. "Chuck" Reed, et al. v. Debra Brown, et al.," accessed March 18, 2014
25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Natural Products Insider, "Colorado Supreme Court OKs Ballot Title on GMO Labeling Initiative," March 19, 2014
26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 Crain's Chicago Business, "Lawsuit fights Illinois term limits, remap moves," April 30, 2014
27. ↑ 27.00 27.01 27.02 27.03 27.04 27.05 27.06 27.07 27.08 27.09 27.10 27.11 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
28. ↑ Scribd.com, "Remap, term limits lawsuit," accessed May 14, 2014
29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 The Chicago Tribune, "Remap group pulls plug after judge's ruling," June 27, 2014
30. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Rauner loses another round in term limit referendum bid," August 20, 2014
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Merced Sun-Star, "Rauner dealt double blows over Illinois ballot," August 22, 2014 (dead link)
32. ↑ Scribd.com, "Remap, term limits lawsuit," accessed May 14, 2014
33. ↑ Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, "Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting v. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife," accessed October 20, 2014
34. ↑ MPBN News, "Group Sues over Maine Wildlife Department's Role in Bear Hunting Campaign," September 30, 2014
35. ↑ MPBN News, "Group Seeks Emergency Intervention in Bear Hunting Referendum Lawsuit," October 8, 2014
36. ↑ Bangor Daily News, "Maine wildlife department halts use of state money to campaign against Question 1," October 17, 2014
37. ↑ WABI TV, "DIW Allowed to Campaign for Question One," October 23, 2014
38. ↑ Portland Press Herald, "Judge says Maine wildlife officials allowed to oppose bear-hunt restrictions," October 22, 2014
39. ↑ 39.00 39.01 39.02 39.03 39.04 39.05 39.06 39.07 39.08 39.09 39.10 39.11 39.12 39.13 39.14 39.15 39.16 39.17 39.18 39.19 39.20 39.21 Macomb Daily, "Warren Mayor Fouts seeks to invalidate Proposal 1 vote," August 7, 2014 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "lawsuit" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "lawsuit" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "lawsuit" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "lawsuit" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "lawsuit" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "lawsuit" defined multiple times with different content
40. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Warren mayor says he'll sue to repeal newly approved Proposal 1," August 7, 2014
41. ↑ Macomb Daily, "Judge tosses out Warren Mayor Fouts’ lawsuit seeking to invalidate Proposal 1," December 11, 2014
42. ↑ MLive, "Wolf hunt opponents challenging Michigan law on collecting signatures for ballot questions," February 10, 2014
43. ↑ Washington Times, "Mich. sued over residency rule in petition drives," February 10, 2014
44. ↑ MLive, "Judge dismisses ballot proposal suit after Michigan Legislature OKs out-of-state petition circulators," April 1, 2014
45. ↑ Associated Press, "Lawsuit: Missouri lawmakers would redo gun measure," June 24, 2014
46. ↑ Associated Press, "Missouri judge rejects challenges to ballot items," July 1, 2014
47. ↑ KSPR 33, "Missouri Supreme Court will hear challenge to gun measure," July 3, 2014
48. ↑ Associated Press, "Missouri gun amendment wording will not be changed," July 18, 2014
49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 The Rolla Daily News, "Lawsuit challenges Mo. sales transportation tax," June 13, 2014
50. ↑ Associated Press, "Missouri judge rejects challenges to ballot items," July 1, 2014
51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 51.3 The Missouri Times, "Sinquefield takes fight over proposed campaign finance reform amendment to court," August 14, 2013
52. ↑ Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, “Petition Challenging the Legal Sufficiency of LR-126,” accessed January 27, 2014
53. ↑ Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, "Public View Docket," accessed January 27, 2014
54. ↑ Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, "Response/Objection - Petition for Write (Attorney General)," accessed January 27, 2014
55. ↑ Missoulian, "Montana Supreme Court OKs voter registration referendum," February 5, 2014
56. ↑ Helena Independent Reporter, "Referendum to end Election Day voter registration stays on ballot," February 6, 2014
57. ↑ Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, “Brief - Petitioners' Opening Brief”," accessed January 27, 2014
58. ↑ Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, "Attorney General's Brief Opposing the Petition Challenging the Legal Sufficiency of LR-17," accessed January 27, 2014
59. ↑ 59.0 59.1 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `removal`
60. ↑ The Montana Standard, "MT Supreme Court asked to block Charter initiative from ballot," May 14, 2014
61. ↑ Helen Independent Record, "AG: I-172 meets legal sufficiency for ballot," May 20, 2014
62. ↑ Billings Gazette, "Montana Supreme Court rejects union's attempt to block I-172," May 27, 2014
63. ↑ Omaha.com, "Group petitions Nebraska Supreme Court to remove from ballot amendment on horse race reruns," July 29, 2014
64. ↑ Beaumont Enterprise, "Lawsuit targets Nebraska horse racing measure," July 29, 2014
65. ↑ Sioux City Journal, "Nebraska high court hears arguments in horse racing challenge," August 27, 2014
66. ↑ Lincoln Journal Star, "Instant racing measure taken off ballot," September 5, 2014
67. ↑ readMedia, "Court Date! Suit Challenges Misleading Redistricting Amendment Ballot Language," September 11, 2014
68. ↑ 68.0 68.1 Rochester City Newspaper, "Judge says proposed redistricting commission could not be independent," September 17, 2014
69. ↑ Associated Press, "Lawsuit asks to toss proposed amendment off ballot," August 2, 2014
70. ↑ Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "3 sue over term-limit amendment," August 2, 2014
71. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, “Public pension measure likely off the 2014 ballot,” January 30, 2014
72. ↑ San Jose Mercury News, “California pensions: San Jose mayor's initiative may not make November ballot,” January 30, 2014
73. ↑ Reuters, "Democrats feud over California pension reform measure," February 3, 2014
74. ↑ San Jose Mercury, "San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed loses statewide pension reform ballot challenge," March 14, 2014
75. ↑ Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, "Charles R. "Chuck" Reed, et al. v. Debra Brown, et al.," accessed March 18, 2014
76. ↑ Detroit Free Press, "Warren mayor says he'll sue to repeal newly approved Proposal 1," August 7, 2014
77. ↑ Macomb Daily, "Judge tosses out Warren Mayor Fouts’ lawsuit seeking to invalidate Proposal 1," December 11, 2014
78. ↑ Associated Press, "Lawsuit: Missouri lawmakers would redo gun measure," June 24, 2014
79. ↑ Associated Press, "Missouri judge rejects challenges to ballot items," July 1, 2014
80. ↑ KSPR 33, "Missouri Supreme Court will hear challenge to gun measure," July 3, 2014
81. ↑ Associated Press, "Missouri gun amendment wording will not be changed," July 18, 2014
82. ↑ Associated Press, "Missouri judge rejects challenges to ballot items," July 1, 2014
83. ↑ Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, “Petition Challenging the Legal Sufficiency of LR-126,” accessed January 27, 2014
84. ↑ Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, "Public View Docket," accessed January 27, 2014
85. ↑ Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, "Response/Objection - Petition for Write (Attorney General)," accessed January 27, 2014
86. ↑ Missoulian, "Montana Supreme Court OKs voter registration referendum," February 5, 2014
87. ↑ Helena Independent Reporter, "Referendum to end Election Day voter registration stays on ballot," February 6, 2014
88. ↑ Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, “Brief - Petitioners' Opening Brief”," accessed January 27, 2014
89. ↑ Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, "Attorney General's Brief Opposing the Petition Challenging the Legal Sufficiency of LR-17," accessed January 27, 2014
90. ↑ The Montana Standard, "MT Supreme Court asked to block Charter initiative from ballot," May 14, 2014
91. ↑ Helen Independent Record, "AG: I-172 meets legal sufficiency for ballot," May 20, 2014
92. ↑ Billings Gazette, "Montana Supreme Court rejects union's attempt to block I-172," May 27, 2014
93. ↑ readMedia, "Court Date! Suit Challenges Misleading Redistricting Amendment Ballot Language," September 11, 2014
94. ↑ Anchorage Daily News, "Supreme Court rules in favor of Bristol Bay ballot measure," June 24, 2014
95. ↑ Mondaq, "Tribe Files Suit To Block California Compact Referendum," March 11, 2014
96. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Anti-tax group sues to kick Citizens United advisory measure off ballot," July 22, 2014
97. ↑ The Fresno Bee, "Anti-tax group sues over Citizens United measure," July 22, 2014
98. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California Supreme Court blocks Citizens United measure from ballot," August 11, 2014
99. ↑ Scribd.com, "Remap, term limits lawsuit," accessed May 14, 2014
100. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Rauner loses another round in term limit referendum bid," August 20, 2014
101. ↑ Scribd.com, "Remap, term limits lawsuit," accessed May 14, 2014
102. ↑ Omaha.com, "Group petitions Nebraska Supreme Court to remove from ballot amendment on horse race reruns," July 29, 2014
103. ↑ Beaumont Enterprise, "Lawsuit targets Nebraska horse racing measure," July 29, 2014
104. ↑ Sioux City Journal, "Nebraska high court hears arguments in horse racing challenge," August 27, 2014
105. ↑ Lincoln Journal Star, "Instant racing measure taken off ballot," September 5, 2014
106. ↑ MLive, "Wolf hunt opponents challenging Michigan law on collecting signatures for ballot questions," February 10, 2014
107. ↑ Washington Times, "Mich. sued over residency rule in petition drives," February 10, 2014
108. ↑ MLive, "Judge dismisses ballot proposal suit after Michigan Legislature OKs out-of-state petition circulators," April 1, 2014
109. ↑ ABC 7 KATV, "Ark. Supreme Court denies challenge to statewide alcohol ballot initiative," accessed October 16, 2014
110. ↑ Arkansas Money & Politics, "Lawsuit filed over Arkansas minimum wage measure," September 2014
111. ↑ ABC 7 KATV, "Ark. Supreme Court denies challenge to statewide alcohol ballot initiative," accessed October 16, 2014
112. ↑ Salt Lake Tribune, "10th Circuit Court upholds same-sex marriage," June 25, 2014
113. ↑ LA Times, "Federal appeals court overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage," June 25, 2014
114. ↑ The Guardian, "Colorado Judge rules Colorado's gay marriage ban unconstitutional," July 9, 2014
115. ↑ ABC News, "Appeals Court: States Can't Ban Gay Marriage," June 25, 2014
116. ↑ Denver Post, "Boulder County begins issuing same-sex marriage licenses; AG says no," June 25, 2014
117. ↑ The Guardian, "US supreme court decision paves way for sweeping expansion of gay rights," October 6, 2014
118. ↑ Associated Press, "Judge Overturns Gay Marriage Ban In Florida Keys," July 17, 2014
119. ↑ News Press, "Florida marriage equality activists cheer court ruling," July 18, 2014
120. ↑ 120.0 120.1 Associated Press, "Same-Sex Marriage Ban Struck Down for Miami Area," July 25, 2014
121. ↑ West Hawaii Today, "3rd Florida judge rules gay marriage ban unconstitutional," August 5, 2014
122. ↑ Florida Courier, "Another judge rules same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional," August 7, 2014
123. ↑ New York Times, "Florida: Federal Judge Strikes Down Ban on Same-Sex Marriage," August 21, 2014
124. ↑ USA Today, "U.S. judge strikes down Fla. ban on same-sex marriage," August 21, 2014
125. ↑ Salt Lake Tribune, "10th Circuit Court upholds same-sex marriage," June 25, 2014
126. ↑ LA Times, "Federal appeals court overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage," June 25, 2014
127. ↑ ABC News, "Appeals Court: States Can't Ban Gay Marriage," June 25, 2014
128. ↑ The Guardian, "US supreme court decision paves way for sweeping expansion of gay rights," October 6, 2014
129. ↑ SCOTUS Blog, "A trial judge's ruling on same-sex marriage, and more," November 4, 2014
130. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Order in Pending Case," accessed November 17, 2014
131. ↑ [ https://archive.today/JtQEZ BuzzFeed Politics, "ACLU Filing Lawsuit In Wisconsin Seeking Marriage Equality," February 3, 2014]
132. ↑ U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, "OPINION and ORDER 14-cv-64-bbc," accessed June 11, 2014
133. ↑ Huffington Post, "Wisconsin Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down By Federal Judge," June 6, 2014
134. ↑ Huffington Post, "Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?" June 6, 2014
135. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Federal judge refuses to halt gay weddings in Wisconsin," June 10, 2014
136. ↑ The New York Times, "Gay-Marriage Bans Fall in Wisconsin and Indiana," September 4, 2014
137. ↑ The Guardian, "US supreme court decision paves way for sweeping expansion of gay rights," October 6, 2014
138. ↑ San Leandro Patch, "Lawsuit Challenges Measure L, San Leandro's 'Split Roll' School Parcel Tax," January 28, 2014
139. ↑ 139.0 139.1 Contra Costa Tiimes, "San Leandro, West Contra Costa schools and others sued over parcel taxes," February 1, 2014
140. ↑ 140.0 140.1 140.2 140.3 140.4 140.5 140.6 Texas Tribune, "First Lawsuits Filed Over Denton's New Fracking Ban," November 5, 2014
141. ↑ 141.0 141.1 141.2 141.3 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `repealed`
142. ↑ 142.0 142.1 142.2 The Dallas Morning News, "Denton city council repeals voter-approved ban on fracking," June 17, 2015
143. ↑ 143.0 143.1 Star Tribune, "Monsanto, Dow Chemical unit sue Maui County to stop law passed by voters that bans GMO growing," November 13, 2014
144. ↑ KITV, "Temporary injunction granted against Maui GMO law," November 14, 2014
145. ↑ KHON 2, "Why Maui GMO ban may be overturned despite voter approval," March 9, 2015
146. ↑ 146.0 146.1 146.2 Maui Now, "SHAKA Files Appeal Over Delayed Maui Moratorium on GMO Operations," May 4, 2015
147. ↑ 147.0 147.1 147.2 147.3 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `overruled`
148. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `acorn`
149. ↑ 149.0 149.1 149.2 149.3 Moorpark Acorn, "Will pension measure appear on the ballot?" June 26, 2014
150. ↑ 150.0 150.1 Public CEO, "Can Local Voters Phase Out County Pensions?" June 30, 2014
151. ↑ Calpensions, "Ventura pension vote blocked, summit this fall?" August 11, 2014
152. ↑ 152.0 152.1 152.2 Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System (SCERS) website, "SCERS Website Handbook: California Counties' Retirement Systems," accessed July 25, 2014
153. ↑ Note: San Francisco County and City has its own system, as well as contracting with CalPERS, and is thus counted twice, once under option one and again under option two.
154. ↑ BreitBart.com, "CALIFORNIA UNIONS SCRAMBLE AS LOCAL VOTERS POISED TO ELIMINATE PUBLIC PENSIONS," July 1, 2014
155. ↑ 155.0 155.1 Reporter-Herald, "Loveland City Council declines to take up fracking election proposal," December 18, 2013
156. ↑ Courthouse New Service, "Group Wants Fracking Ban on Local Ballot," October 2, 2013
157. ↑ 157.0 157.1 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `election`

v • e

2014 ballot measures

I&R States|

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

Non I&R States|

Alabama • Connecticut • Georgia • Hawaii • Kansas • Louisiana • New Jersey • New York • North Carolina • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Tennessee • Texas • Virginia • Wisconsin • West Virginia

Political topics|

Abortion • Admin of gov't • Alcohol • Banking • Bond issues • Budgets • Civil rights • Constitutional conventions • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Direct democracy • Divorce and custody • Education • Elections and campaigns • Environment • Federal constitutional issues • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • History, culture and the arts • Hunting and fishing • Immigration • Insurance • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Property • Redistricting measures • State budget • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Term limits • Trials • Transportation • Utilities • Veterans • Water

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • Polls • Litigation (Lawsuits) • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2014 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot