List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2013

## Contents

* 1 By state
* 1.1 Colorado
* 1.1.1 Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)
* 1.2 New York
* 1.2.1 New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1 (2013)
* 1.3 Washington
* 1.3.1 Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)
* 2 By topic
* 2.1 Ballot text
* 2.1.1 New York
* 2.1.1.1 New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1 (2013)
* 2.2 Campaign contributions
* 2.2.1 Washington
* 2.2.1.1 Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)
* 2.3 Labor Practices
* 2.3.1 Colorado
* 2.3.1.1 Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)
* 2.4 Motivation of sponsors
* 2.4.1 New York
* 2.4.1.1 New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1 (2013)
* 2.5 Signature challenges
* 2.5.1 Colorado
* 2.5.1.1 Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)
* 2.6 Other
* 2.6.1 Colorado
* 2.6.1.1 Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)
* 3 Past measures
* 3.1 California
* 3.2 Measure B (condoms)
* 3.3 Measure L (parcel tax)
* 4 Local
* 4.1 Footnotes
* 4.2 See also

# By state[edit]

NOTE: The following tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed against statewide ballot measures aiming for the 2013 ballot. Click the "show" link to read about specifics of a particular lawsuit.

## Colorado[edit]

### Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)[edit]

Lobato vs. State of Colorado|

|

In 2005 over 50 parents and students from school districts throughout Colorado filed a lawsuit seeking to change the state's funding model for its public schools. The lawsuit alleged that Colorado's public schools were severely underfunded and that the state's funding system did not adhere to clauses in the constitution dictating "thorough and uniform" standards (Colorado Constitution, Art. IX, Section 2) and "Local Control" (Colorado Constitution, Art. IX, Section 15) mandated by the constitution. In 2011, a state district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the state's education funding "irrational and inadequate." Judge Sheila Rappaport wrote, "There is not one school district that is sufficiently funded. This is an obvious hallmark of an irrational system." The state quickly appealed Judge Rappaport's decision.[1]

On May 28, 2013, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the district court's ruling, thus freeing the state from any legal obligation to alter its funding system. The court ruled that the state's funding system was, in fact, "thorough and uniform" and did not need any alteration to pass constitutional muster. The court did note however, that the state's education system was underfunded and that its funding model "might not be ideal policy." These findings aside, the court emphasized that it was not the judicial system's purpose to rule on policy directly, but instead rule on the constitutionality of any policy brought before it. The Colorado legislature agreed to put Amendment 66 on the ballot in the same month, May of 2013, that the court issued this decision.[2][3]

Here is a key concluding text from the court's final ruling:

| “  |

We have held that "courts must avoid making decisions that are intrinsically legislative. It is not up to the court to make policy or to weigh policy.' Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 38 (Colo. 2000); see also Lobato I, 218 P.3d at 381 (Rice, J., dissenting). While the trial court’s detailed findings of fact demonstrate that the current public school financing system might not be ideal policy, this Court’s task is not to determine "whether a better financing system could be devised, but rather to determine whether the system passes constitutional muster."Lobato I, 218 P.3d at 374 (quoting Lujan, 649 P.2d at 1025) (internal citation omitted).

Our holding today that the current public school financing system complies with the Education and Local Control Clauses of the Colorado Constitution satisfies this Court’s duty “to say what the law is,” see Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803), without unduly infringing upon the policy-making power of the General Assembly. It thereby affords the General Assembly an opportunity to reform Colorado’s education policy, including the public school financing system, consistent with this opinion.[4][5]

| ”

|
|

You can view the Colorado Supreme Court's full opinion here.

Coloradans for Real Reform|

|

Status: Ruled in favor of Colorado Commits to Kids and Amendment 66

On October 2, the group Coloradans for Real Reform, which is in the front ranks in the fight against Amendment 66, announced the filing of a lawsuit challenging the validity of the 89,820 signatures that were used to get the measure on the ballot. The suit, officially filed by Bob Hagedorn, a former Democratic Senator, and Norma Anderson, a former Republican legislator from Lakewood, claims that 39,555 of the signatures gathered were collected improperly and should be discounted. The initiative required 86,105 to appear on the ballot. And as petitioners only gathered a little under 4,000 more valid signatures than this required threshold, the court case could have proven fatal to Amendment 66 if judges ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Although it was too late to remove the question from the ballot, it was possible the votes would be ignored. The lawsuit alleged that certain signatures are not valid because the paid circulators working on the signature gathering did not follow state procedures. A statement released by Coloradans for Real Education Reform stated that the lawsuit focused on three reasons for invalidating signatures:[6]

See also: Laws governing ballot initiative signature gatherers in Colorado

* the affidavits were not notarized,
* the circulators did not include their permanent address on the affidavits
* and the circulators did not present the required identification.

Anderson said, "A lot of the petition gatherers did not properly file papers, and it wasn't caught by the secretary of state."[6]

Andrew Freedman, campaign director of Colorado Commits to Kids responded saying, "Without seeing the filing, we have no comment other than to say we are fully confident Colorado voters this fall will retain the right to vote on Amendment 66 and investing more in our schools."[6]

Freedman was proved correct when Denver District Court Judge R. Michael Mullins gave his decision on October 15, 2013, saying that the petition process used to qualify Amendment 66 for the ballot was adequately compliant with the law. Mullins did find 114 signatures to be invalid, but this was not any where close to enough to put Amendment 66 in danger.[7]

Mark Grueskin, attorney for Amendment 66 supporters, called the complaints raised by the lawsuit "hypertechnical reasons" and said that they did not really concern the validity of the signatures or the petition as a whole. Gueskin stated, "For all the concerns raised when the protest was filed, the judge didn't echo any of them, didn't find anything wrong with the petitions that put into question the secretary of state's decision to put this on the ballot."[7]

When questioned, Bob Hagedorn, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, was unsure if the decision would be appealed. He did express frustration at the decision, saying, "I'm obviously very disappointed. To be quite frank, if any vested interest spends a million dollars to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, the least we can ask is for strict compliance."[7]

Colorado Education Association|

|

The Colorado Education Association (CEA) is Colorado's largest teacher union and one of the heaviest supporters of Colorado Commits to Kids, having donated $1,000,000 to the "yes" campaign on Amendment 66. But the CEA might also be planning to file a lawsuit seeking to overturn parts of Senate Bill 191, which would be funded in part by Amendment 66 revenue. SB 191 is opposed by the teacher unions. The bill alters the evaluation process for principals, teachers and any education service provider and seeks to make the education system more centered around performance. It requires:[8][9]

* annual evaluations for all principals, teachers and specialized service providers
* evaluations based on statewide Quality Standards defining what it means to be an effective teacher or principal
* that Quality Standards account for half of an educator's annual evaluation
* that the other half of an educator's annual evaluation is based on the Quality Standard that measures student learning over time
* that non-probationary status (tenure) is earned after three consecutive years of demonstrated effectiveness
* and that non-probationary status is lost after two consecutive years of ineffective ratings

Although negotiations over these new rules are still on going, a lawsuit against parts of SB 191 is reportedly still possible. The State Education Board recently pushed forward the deadline to sue against SB 191 by five months. The deadline is now beyond the November 2013 election, in which the fate of Amendment 66 will be decided. Some people are critical of this because a little over a third of Amendment 66 funds - over $350 million - would go towards "highly effective teachers and principals" or, in other words, towards implementing the goals of SB 191.[10]

In summary, the CEA has poured $1,000,000 into supporting a measure that would fund 191, even though they are seeking to eliminate, either through negotiation or the courts, the basic reforms in teacher evaluation and tenure found in that bill. If their potential lawsuit is successful, it is unclear how the $350 million portion of Amendment 66 would be spent. It would likely go towards teacher and principal salaries, but unguided by the reformed criteria of SB 191.[10]

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper said, "We understand that some may use this lawsuit as a reason to oppose Amendment 66. We respectfully disagree. The best way to protect Colorado's education reforms is to support Amendment 66 this November."[10]

Erika Stutzman, writing for the editorial board of the Daily Camera had this to say about the possible CEA lawsuit:

"However, there's talk of a challenge to the new teacher evaluation law that passed the Colorado legislature in 2010. Anti-66 groups point out that we are asking Coloradans for a genuinely sizable tax increase that will pay for teachers right at the moment the state's teacher union might be mulling a lawsuit to repeal the law that holds teachers to higher standards.

In our opinion the law, which will go into effect next year, strikes a balance between teacher evaluations and fairness to teachers. It enforces transparent, timely methods of evaluation -- including the academic growth of students -- and states that teachers must be afforded meaningful opportunities to improve.

The Colorado State Board of Education this week passed a resolution urging the Colorado Education Association not to file a lawsuit to repeal the bill [SB 191]."[11]

The Denver Post editorial board had this to say about the DEA:

| “  |

And then there is the treacherous attitude of the Colorado Education Association to consider. Although the teachers union and National Education Association, its national counterpart, are huge donors to the Amendment 66 campaign, the CEA has admitted that it might sue to overturn a key reform aimed at teacher accountability that is already law and is being implemented this year.

In a disgusting display of narrow self-interest, the union is pursuing the amendment's money to add to its membership but rejects the responsibility that goes with it.

It's another example of why teachers unions continue to get in the way of educating our children.[5]

| ”

|
|

[12]

## New York[edit]

### New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1 (2013)[edit]

Snyder vs. Walsh|

|

See also: New York, Proposal 1 (2013), Measure Language Controversy and Lawsuit

On October 2, 2013, Eric J. Snyder, a lawyer from Brooklyn, filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of the State of New York related to the ballot language controversy. Snyder is asking the court to make state officials rewrite the ballot measure's language. He argues that the New York Board of Elections overstepped its authority when approving the seemingly skewed ballot language. Citing the September Siena Poll as evidence, he claimed, “[The ballot language] is partisan, and it is having an effect. And that’s not the government’s role.” Snyder also noted that the Board of Elections did not vote publicly to change the ballot question on July 29, thus violating the Open Meetings Law. The board denies this was in violation of the law. Co-chairman of the Board of Elections, Douglas Kellner, responded calling these changes “minor revisions” to the “official text” provided by the Attorney General’s Office. On October 11, New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) joined the lawsuit in support of Snyder. The Board of Elections is contending that the lawsuit should have been filed before the August 19 deadline to sue. However, reporters have pointed out that the rewording wasn’t posted until August 23. The board is blaming "logistics" and an employee for this error. Judge Richard Platkin heard the lawsuit on October 11, 2013.[13][14][15][16][17][18]

Judge Platkin dismissed the case on October 16, 2013 based on untimeliness and legal merit.[19]

Snyder stated that he would file an immediate challenge to an appellate court on October 16, 2013.[20] On October 17, Snyder issued a statement saying he decided not to challenge the ruling after all.[21]

Town of Verona et al. vs. Hon. Andrew Cuomo|

|

The state government is being sued by the towns on Verona and Vernon in Oneida County, New York. The towns have filed their case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The towns claim that the state did not have the authority to establish an agreement between the municipalities and the Oneida Indian Nation without their consent.

In May 2013, the State of New York and the Oneida Indian Nation reached an agreement on the tribe’s casinos and related tax issues. Part of the agreement was that no casinos would be built in the 10-county Central New York region. The state agreed to cap the tribe’s tax exempt land trust at 25,000 acres, thus invalidating the towns abilities to levy property taxes on exempted land.[22] The tribe agreed to “support any referendum authorized by the state Legislature... to permit or authorize casino gaming” and that the tribe would not “directly or indirectly” pose any challenge to the referendum. This, according to towns, was an attempt by Gov. Cuomo (D) to “vote-buy” or quell major opposition to the measure from the tribe, who has fought non-tribal casino construction in the past.[23][24]

On October 30, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Kahn said that his court lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case to a state court in Albany.[25]

## Washington[edit]

### Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)[edit]

Grocery Manufacturers Association|

|

On October 16, 2013, Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the Washington Public Disclosure Commission against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), an opponent of Initiative 522. GMA, according to Ferguson, must reveal whether or not the organization did a special assessment - asking members to donate for the specific cause - in raising $7.2 million for the No on 522 campaign. If so, they must register as a political committee and disclose donor names. The GMA has refused to say if it did such a special assessment. Ferguson believes that the association is attempting to shield members from scrutiny for opposing the initiative. He said, "This is precisely the conduct our campaign disclosure laws are designed to prevent." He noted that the case could lead to a significant fine.[26][27]

"We are looking into the complaint and the specific allegations it contains. GMA takes great care to understand and comply with all state election and campaign finance laws and is surprised to learn that the Washington State authorities viewed the association’s actions as improper."[28]

The lawsuit was filed with the Thurston County Superior Court.[26] However, on Friday, October 18, 2013, GMA agreed to create a separate PAC and disclose the donors and the amounts given by each. GMA issued the following statement:[29]

| “  |

In the spirit of continuing cooperation and in an effort to provide Washington voters with full transparency about GMA’s funding for the “No on 522” campaign, the association has voluntarily decided to establish a Washington state political committee and to file reports with the PDC disclosing the source of all funds used in connection with Washington State elections.

GMA is taking this action to allow the campaign to focus on the important issues related to the I-522 ballot proposal itself, and to put an end to unnecessary distraction and speculation about sources and amounts of funding.

GMA has cooperated fully with the Public Disclosure Commission and the attorney general throughout their investigation, and will continue to engage state authorities in a constructive dialogue in the weeks and months ahead.[29] [5]

| ”

|
|

After GMA's disclosure of donors, Ferguson said, "We believe this is the largest amount of money that’s been concealed of any case we ever brought."[30] He said he will seek penalties against the GMA.[31]

On October 30, the Office of the Attorney General stated, “Since the Attorney General’s lawsuit was filed, GMA against I-522 has reported additional contributions totaling more than $3.8 million to No on 522. Under RCW 42.17A.442, a state law, a “political committee may make a contribution to another political committee only when the contributing political committee has received contributions of $10 or more each from at least 10 persons registered to vote in Washington state.” Only two days prior did the GMA report 10 donations from 10 registered voters. Nonetheless, “The $3.8 million in contributions from the [GMA] to No on 522 appear to have been collected by the GMA from its members prior to registering the political committee... These subsequent contributions were not reported by the GMA when it submitted its disclosure of contributor members and the value of their contributions on Oct. 18.”[32][33]

Thurston County Superior Court will not be setting a trial date until after February 2014.[33]

# By topic[edit]

NOTE: Each lawsuit against proposed 2013 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]

### New York[edit]

#### New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1 (2013)[edit]

Snyder vs. Walsh|

|

::See also: New York, Proposal 1 (2013), Measure Language Controversy and Lawsuit

On October 2, 2013, Eric J. Snyder, a lawyer from Brooklyn, filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of the State of New York related to the ballot language controversy. Snyder is asking the court to make state officials rewrite the ballot measure's language. He argues that the New York Board of Elections overstepped its authority when approving the seemingly skewed ballot language. Citing the September Siena Poll as evidence, he claimed, “[The ballot language] is partisan, and it is having an effect. And that’s not the government’s role.” Snyder also noted that the Board of Elections did not vote publicly to change the ballot question on July 29, thus violating the Open Meetings Law. The board denies this was in violation of the law. Co-chairman of the Board of Elections, Douglas Kellner, responded calling these changes “minor revisions” to the “official text” provided by the Attorney General’s Office. On October 11, New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) joined the lawsuit in support of Snyder. The Board of Elections is contending that the lawsuit should have been filed before the August 19 deadline to sue. However, reporters have pointed out that the rewording wasn’t posted until August 23. The board is blaming "logistics" and an employee for this error. Judge Richard Platkin heard the lawsuit on October 11, 2013.[34][35][15][36][17][18]

Judge Platkin dismissed the case on October 16, 2013 based on untimeliness and legal merit.[19]

Snyder stated that he would file an immediate challenge to an appellate court on October 16, 2013.[37] On October 17, Snyder issued a statement saying he decided not to challenge the ruling after all.[38]

## Campaign contributions[edit]

### Washington[edit]

#### Washington Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Measure, Initiative 522 (2013)[edit]

Grocery Manufacturers Association|

|

On October 16, 2013, Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the Washington Public Disclosure Commission against the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), an opponent of Initiative 522. GMA, according to Ferguson, must reveal whether or not the organization did a special assessment - asking members to donate for the specific cause - in raising $7.2 million for the No on 522 campaign. If so, they must register as a political committee and disclose donor names. The GMA has refused to say if it did such a special assessment. Ferguson believes that the association is attempting to shield members from scrutiny for opposing the initiative. He said, "This is precisely the conduct our campaign disclosure laws are designed to prevent." He noted that the case could lead to a significant fine.[26][39]

"We are looking into the complaint and the specific allegations it contains. GMA takes great care to understand and comply with all state election and campaign finance laws and is surprised to learn that the Washington State authorities viewed the association’s actions as improper."[40]

The lawsuit was filed with the Thurston County Superior Court.[26] However, on Friday, October 18, 2013, GMA agreed to create a separate PAC and disclose the donors and the amounts given by each. GMA issued the following statement:[29]

| “  |

In the spirit of continuing cooperation and in an effort to provide Washington voters with full transparency about GMA’s funding for the “No on 522” campaign, the association has voluntarily decided to establish a Washington state political committee and to file reports with the PDC disclosing the source of all funds used in connection with Washington State elections.

GMA is taking this action to allow the campaign to focus on the important issues related to the I-522 ballot proposal itself, and to put an end to unnecessary distraction and speculation about sources and amounts of funding.

GMA has cooperated fully with the Public Disclosure Commission and the attorney general throughout their investigation, and will continue to engage state authorities in a constructive dialogue in the weeks and months ahead.[29] [5]

| ”

|
|

After GMA's disclosure of donors, Ferguson said, "We believe this is the largest amount of money that’s been concealed of any case we ever brought."[41] He said he will seek penalties against the GMA.[42]

On October 30, the Office of the Attorney General stated, “Since the Attorney General’s lawsuit was filed, GMA against I-522 has reported additional contributions totaling more than $3.8 million to No on 522. Under RCW 42.17A.442, a state law, a “political committee may make a contribution to another political committee only when the contributing political committee has received contributions of $10 or more each from at least 10 persons registered to vote in Washington state.” Only two days prior did the GMA report 10 donations from 10 registered voters. Nonetheless, “The $3.8 million in contributions from the [GMA] to No on 522 appear to have been collected by the GMA from its members prior to registering the political committee... These subsequent contributions were not reported by the GMA when it submitted its disclosure of contributor members and the value of their contributions on Oct. 18.”[43][33]

Thurston County Superior Court will not be setting a trial date until after February 2014.[33]

## Labor Practices[edit]

### Colorado[edit]

#### Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)[edit]

Colorado Education Association|

|

The Colorado Education Association (CEA) is Colorado's largest teacher union and one of the heaviest supporters of Colorado Commits to Kids, having donated $1,000,000 to the "yes" campaign on Amendment 66. But the CEA might also be planning to file a lawsuit seeking to overturn parts of Senate Bill 191, which would be funded in part by Amendment 66 revenue. SB 191 is opposed by the teacher unions. The bill alters the evaluation process for principals, teachers and any education service provider and seeks to make the education system more centered around performance. It requires:[8][44]

* annual evaluations for all principals, teachers and specialized service providers
* evaluations based on statewide Quality Standards defining what it means to be an effective teacher or principal
* that Quality Standards account for half of an educator's annual evaluation
* that the other half of an educator's annual evaluation is based on the Quality Standard that measures student learning over time
* that non-probationary status (tenure) is earned after three consecutive years of demonstrated effectiveness
* and that non-probationary status is lost after two consecutive years of ineffective ratings

Although negotiations over these new rules are still on going, a lawsuit against parts of SB 191 is reportedly still possible. The State Education Board recently pushed forward the deadline to sue against SB 191 by five months. The deadline is now beyond the November 2013 election, in which the fate of Amendment 66 will be decided. Some people are critical of this because a little over a third of Amendment 66 funds - over $350 million - would go towards "highly effective teachers and principals" or, in other words, towards implementing the goals of SB 191.[10]

In summary, the CEA has poured $1,000,000 into supporting a measure that would fund 191, even though they are seeking to eliminate, either through negotiation or the courts, the basic reforms in teacher evaluation and tenure found in that bill. If their potential lawsuit is successful, it is unclear how the $350 million portion of Amendment 66 would be spent. It would likely go towards teacher and principal salaries, but unguided by the reformed criteria of SB 191.[10]

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper said, "We understand that some may use this lawsuit as a reason to oppose Amendment 66. We respectfully disagree. The best way to protect Colorado's education reforms is to support Amendment 66 this November."[10]

Erika Stutzman, writing for the editorial board of the Daily Camera had this to say about the possible CEA lawsuit:

"However, there's talk of a challenge to the new teacher evaluation law that passed the Colorado legislature in 2010. Anti-66 groups point out that we are asking Coloradans for a genuinely sizable tax increase that will pay for teachers right at the moment the state's teacher union might be mulling a lawsuit to repeal the law that holds teachers to higher standards.

In our opinion the law, which will go into effect next year, strikes a balance between teacher evaluations and fairness to teachers. It enforces transparent, timely methods of evaluation -- including the academic growth of students -- and states that teachers must be afforded meaningful opportunities to improve.

The Colorado State Board of Education this week passed a resolution urging the Colorado Education Association not to file a lawsuit to repeal the bill [SB 191]."[11]

The Denver Post editorial board had this to say about the DEA:

| “  |

And then there is the treacherous attitude of the Colorado Education Association to consider. Although the teachers union and National Education Association, its national counterpart, are huge donors to the Amendment 66 campaign, the CEA has admitted that it might sue to overturn a key reform aimed at teacher accountability that is already law and is being implemented this year.

In a disgusting display of narrow self-interest, the union is pursuing the amendment's money to add to its membership but rejects the responsibility that goes with it.

It's another example of why teachers unions continue to get in the way of educating our children.[5]

| ”

|
|

[45]

## Motivation of sponsors[edit]

### New York[edit]

#### New York Casino Gambling Amendment, Proposal 1 (2013)[edit]

Town of Verona et al. vs. Hon. Andrew Cuomo|

|

The state government is being sued by the towns on Verona and Vernon in Oneida County, New York. The towns have filed their case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The towns claim that the state did not have the authority to establish an agreement between the municipalities and the Oneida Indian Nation without their consent.

In May 2013, the State of New York and the Oneida Indian Nation reached an agreement on the tribe’s casinos and related tax issues. Part of the agreement was that no casinos would be built in the 10-county Central New York region. The state agreed to cap the tribe’s tax exempt land trust at 25,000 acres, thus invalidating the towns abilities to levy property taxes on exempted land.[46] The tribe agreed to “support any referendum authorized by the state Legislature... to permit or authorize casino gaming” and that the tribe would not “directly or indirectly” pose any challenge to the referendum. This, according to towns, was an attempt by Gov. Cuomo (D) to “vote-buy” or quell major opposition to the measure from the tribe, who has fought non-tribal casino construction in the past.[47][48]

On October 30, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Kahn said that his court lacked jurisdiction and remanded the case to a state court in Albany.[49]

## Signature challenges[edit]

### Colorado[edit]

#### Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)[edit]

Coloradans for Real Reform|

|

Status: Ruled in favor of Colorado Commits to Kids and Amendment 66

On October 2, the group Coloradans for Real Reform, which is in the front ranks in the fight against Amendment 66, announced the filing of a lawsuit challenging the validity of the 89,820 signatures that were used to get the measure on the ballot. The suit, officially filed by Bob Hagedorn, a former Democratic Senator, and Norma Anderson, a former Republican legislator from Lakewood, claims that 39,555 of the signatures gathered were collected improperly and should be discounted. The initiative required 86,105 to appear on the ballot. And as petitioners only gathered a little under 4,000 more valid signatures than this required threshold, the court case could have proven fatal to Amendment 66 if judges ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Although it was too late to remove the question from the ballot, it was possible the votes would be ignored. The lawsuit alleged that certain signatures are not valid because the paid circulators working on the signature gathering did not follow state procedures. A statement released by Coloradans for Real Education Reform stated that the lawsuit focused on three reasons for invalidating signatures:[6]

See also: Laws governing ballot initiative signature gatherers in Colorado

* the affidavits were not notarized,
* the circulators did not include their permanent address on the affidavits
* and the circulators did not present the required identification.

Anderson said, "A lot of the petition gatherers did not properly file papers, and it wasn't caught by the secretary of state."[6]

Andrew Freedman, campaign director of Colorado Commits to Kids responded saying, "Without seeing the filing, we have no comment other than to say we are fully confident Colorado voters this fall will retain the right to vote on Amendment 66 and investing more in our schools."[6]

Freedman was proved correct when Denver District Court Judge R. Michael Mullins gave his decision on October 15, 2013, saying that the petition process used to qualify Amendment 66 for the ballot was adequately compliant with the law. Mullins did find 114 signatures to be invalid, but this was not any where close to enough to put Amendment 66 in danger.[7]

Mark Grueskin, attorney for Amendment 66 supporters, called the complaints raised by the lawsuit "hypertechnical reasons" and said that they did not really concern the validity of the signatures or the petition as a whole. Gueskin stated, "For all the concerns raised when the protest was filed, the judge didn't echo any of them, didn't find anything wrong with the petitions that put into question the secretary of state's decision to put this on the ballot."[7]

When questioned, Bob Hagedorn, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, was unsure if the decision would be appealed. He did express frustration at the decision, saying, "I'm obviously very disappointed. To be quite frank, if any vested interest spends a million dollars to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot, the least we can ask is for strict compliance."[7]

## Other[edit]

### Colorado[edit]

#### Colorado Tax Increase for Education, Amendment 66 (2013)[edit]

Lobato vs. State of Colorado|

|

In 2005 over 50 parents and students from school districts throughout Colorado filed a lawsuit seeking to change the state's funding model for its public schools. The lawsuit alleged that Colorado's public schools were severely underfunded and that the state's funding system did not adhere to clauses in the constitution dictating "thorough and uniform" standards (Colorado Constitution, Art. IX, Section 2) and "Local Control" (Colorado Constitution, Art. IX, Section 15) mandated by the constitution. In 2011, a state district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and declared the state's education funding "irrational and inadequate." Judge Sheila Rappaport wrote, "There is not one school district that is sufficiently funded. This is an obvious hallmark of an irrational system." The state quickly appealed Judge Rappaport's decision.[50]

On May 28, 2013, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the district court's ruling, thus freeing the state from any legal obligation to alter its funding system. The court ruled that the state's funding system was, in fact, "thorough and uniform" and did not need any alteration to pass constitutional muster. The court did note however, that the state's education system was underfunded and that its funding model "might not be ideal policy." These findings aside, the court emphasized that it was not the judicial system's purpose to rule on policy directly, but instead rule on the constitutionality of any policy brought before it. The Colorado legislature agreed to put Amendment 66 on the ballot in the same month, May of 2013, that the court issued this decision.[51][52]

Here is a key concluding text from the court's final ruling:

| “  |

We have held that "courts must avoid making decisions that are intrinsically legislative. It is not up to the court to make policy or to weigh policy.' Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 38 (Colo. 2000); see also Lobato I, 218 P.3d at 381 (Rice, J., dissenting). While the trial court’s detailed findings of fact demonstrate that the current public school financing system might not be ideal policy, this Court’s task is not to determine "whether a better financing system could be devised, but rather to determine whether the system passes constitutional muster."Lobato I, 218 P.3d at 374 (quoting Lujan, 649 P.2d at 1025) (internal citation omitted).

Our holding today that the current public school financing system complies with the Education and Local Control Clauses of the Colorado Constitution satisfies this Court’s duty “to say what the law is,” see Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803), without unduly infringing upon the policy-making power of the General Assembly. It thereby affords the General Assembly an opportunity to reform Colorado’s education policy, including the public school financing system, consistent with this opinion.[4][5]

| ”

|
|

You can view the Colorado Supreme Court's full opinion here.

# Past measures[edit]

NOTE: The following tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed in 2013 against past ballot measures.

### 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, 2013 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.[26]

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."[26]

### 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 2013 on grounds similar to those in Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District.[53]

Lawsuits were also filed in January 2013 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)[54]

All the lawsuits were filed by David Brillant, the Walnut Creek attorney who successfully argued Borikas.[54]

# Local[edit]

NOTE: This tab includes lawsuits filed against proposed 2013 local ballot measures. Ballotpedia tracks local ballot measures, and includes local lawsuits that are found across news reports. To inform Ballotpedia of a local lawsuit near you, contact editor@ballotpedia.org.
No ballot measure lawsuits have been filed in 2013. Any information on ballot measure lawsuits can be sent to Al Ortiz, Assistant Project Director of Ballot Measures.

* * *

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Huffington Post (blog), "Colorado Education Underfunded By 'Unconscionable' Billions, Judge Rules," December 12, 2011
2. ↑ The Denver Post, "Amendment 66 backers fail to make case for higher taxes," September 20, 2013
3. ↑ Huffington Post (blog), "Lobato Case Decision: Colorado Supreme Court Finds Education Funding System Constitutional," May 29, 2013
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `Court`
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `SignatureLawsuit`
7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `Ruling`
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 the Denver Post, "Carroll: The threat hanging over Colorado's Amendment 66," September 24, 2013
9. ↑ Colorado Department of Education, Overview of Senate Bill 10-191
10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `ArticleCEA`
11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Daily Camera, "Yes on Amendment 66," October 13, 2013
12. ↑ The Denver Post, "Colorado's schools need Amendment 66," October 3, 2013
13. ↑ The Post-Standard, "NY Board of Elections sued over casino gambling language on November ballot," October 1, 2013
14. ↑ New York Times, "Lawyer Contests Casino Referendum’s Wording," October 1, 2013
15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `lawsuit3`
16. ↑ CBS New York, “Lawyer: New York Casino Referendum Was Passed in Secret”, October 8, 2013
17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 New York Post, “Casino question is skewed up: group”, October 11, 2013
18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `loaded`
19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Supreme Court of the State of New York, "Decision, Order & Judgement," accessed October 16, 2013
20. ↑ The Buffalo News, "Judge dismisses challenge to casino referendum," October 16, 2013
21. ↑ WNYT News, "No appeal in NY casino lawsuit dismissal," October 17, 2013
22. ↑ The Post Standard, "Oneida Nation, state agree on wide-ranging deal on gaming, taxing, land," May 16, 2013
23. ↑ The Post-Standard, “Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Legislature sued over Oneida Indian casino and land deal," August 19, 2013
24. ↑ Associated Press, "Lawsuit challenges underpinning of New York casino deal," September 23, 2013
25. ↑ The Post-Standard, "Federal judge sends suit challenging NY casino deal to state court," October 30, 2013
26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 26.4 26.5 The Olympian, "GMO fight: Attorney General sues to force No on 522 donor to reveal sources of its $7.2 million contribution," October 16, 2013 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; name "lawsuit" defined multiple times with different content
27. ↑ Office of the Attorney General, "State of Washington v. Grocery Manufacturers Association," accessed October 28, 2013
28. ↑ KGW, "WA AG sues food industry group over GMO initiative," October 17, 2013
29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 Seattle PI, "Faced with lawsuit, Grocery Manufacturers Association agrees to disclose campaign finances," October 18, 2013
30. ↑ kirotv.com, “VIDEO: DC group accused of illegally influencing 522 vote”, October 21, 2013
31. ↑ MyNorthwest.com, "Wash. AG to still seek penalty against food group," October 22, 2013
32. ↑ Office of the Attorney General, “Status report on AG Lawsuit against Grocery Manufacturers Association,” October 30, 2013
33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “AG: More violations in No on 522 money”, October 30, 2013
34. ↑ The Post-Standard, "NY Board of Elections sued over casino gambling language on November ballot," October 1, 2013
35. ↑ New York Times, "Lawyer Contests Casino Referendum’s Wording," October 1, 2013
36. ↑ CBS New York, “Lawyer: New York Casino Referendum Was Passed in Secret”, October 8, 2013
37. ↑ The Buffalo News, "Judge dismisses challenge to casino referendum," October 16, 2013
38. ↑ WNYT News, "No appeal in NY casino lawsuit dismissal," October 17, 2013
39. ↑ Office of the Attorney General, "State of Washington v. Grocery Manufacturers Association," accessed October 28, 2013
40. ↑ KGW, "WA AG sues food industry group over GMO initiative," October 17, 2013
41. ↑ kirotv.com, “VIDEO: DC group accused of illegally influencing 522 vote”, October 21, 2013
42. ↑ MyNorthwest.com, "Wash. AG to still seek penalty against food group," October 22, 2013
43. ↑ Office of the Attorney General, “Status report on AG Lawsuit against Grocery Manufacturers Association,” October 30, 2013
44. ↑ Colorado Department of Education, Overview of Senate Bill 10-191
45. ↑ The Denver Post, "Colorado's schools need Amendment 66," October 3, 2013
46. ↑ The Post Standard, "Oneida Nation, state agree on wide-ranging deal on gaming, taxing, land," May 16, 2013
47. ↑ The Post-Standard, “Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Legislature sued over Oneida Indian casino and land deal," August 19, 2013
48. ↑ Associated Press, "Lawsuit challenges underpinning of New York casino deal," September 23, 2013
49. ↑ The Post-Standard, "Federal judge sends suit challenging NY casino deal to state court," October 30, 2013
50. ↑ Huffington Post (blog), "Colorado Education Underfunded By 'Unconscionable' Billions, Judge Rules," December 12, 2011
51. ↑ The Denver Post, "Amendment 66 backers fail to make case for higher taxes," September 20, 2013
52. ↑ Huffington Post (blog), "Lobato Case Decision: Colorado Supreme Court Finds Education Funding System Constitutional," May 29, 2013
53. ↑ San Leandro Patch, "Lawsuit Challenges Measure L, San Leandro's 'Split Roll' School Parcel Tax," January 28, 2013
54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 Contra Costa Tiimes, "San Leandro, West Contra Costa schools and others sued over parcel taxes," February 1, 2013

v • e

2013 ballot measures

I&R States|

Colorado • Maine • Washington

Non I&R States|

New Jersey • New York • Texas

Political topics|

Admin. of gov't • Bond issues • Budgets • Business regulation • Civil service • County governance • Direct democracy • Education • Food & agriculture • Forests & parks • Gambling • Healthcare • Housing • Marijuana • Minimum wage • State judiciary • Taxes • Transportation• Veterans

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines • 2013 ballot measure petition signature costs • Polls • Media endorsements • Lawsuits • Potential measures • Tuesday Count • Changes in 2013 to laws governing ballot measures • Campaign websites • Official voter guides • Not on the ballot

## See also[edit]

* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2011
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2009
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
* List of 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