List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2023

2024 lawsuits →

<- 2022 lawsuits

2023 U.S. state
ballot measures

2024 »

« 2022

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

Have you subscribed yet?

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

This page lists summaries of lawsuits filed about ballot measures in 2023. Lawsuits can be filed before an election specifically to keep a measure from being put on the ballot. Such pre-election lawsuits often allege one or more of the following:

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

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

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

## Contents

* 1 By state
* 1.1 California
* 1.2 Colorado
* 1.3 Maine
* 1.4 Michigan
* 1.5 Missouri
* 1.6 Nevada
* 1.7 Ohio
* 1.8 Wisconsin
* 2 By subject
* 2.1 Ballot language
* 2.2 Campaign finance
* 2.3 Circulators
* 2.4 Legislative alteration
* 2.5 Post-certification removal
* 2.6 Post-election
* 2.7 Preemption
* 2.8 Signature validity
* 2.9 Signature deadlines
* 2.10 Single subject
* 2.11 Subject restriction
* 2.12 Substantive constitutionality
* 2.13 Voter guide
* 3 Past measures
* 4 Local
* 4.1 See also

# By state[edit]

This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2023—by state—for measures proximate to 2023. It also lists 2023 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2023 or a later year.

### California

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California and 2023 ballot measures

* California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule?
Court: Alameda County Superior Court
Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling
Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union| Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower

Source: California Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice?
Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court)
Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate.
Plaintiff(s): Davis White| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

Source: California Third District Court of Appeal

Click here for details.

### Colorado

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Colorado and 2023 ballot measures

* Colorado Proposition HH, Property Tax Changes and Revenue Change Measure (2023) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language is misleading
Court: Denver County District Court and Colorado Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed in Denver District Court; appealed to Colorado Supreme Court, which affirmed that Colorado courts lack jurisdiction to rule on single subject requirements until measures have been approved by voters
Plaintiff(s): Advance Colorado and Englewood City council member Steven Ward| Defendant(s): Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D)

Source: Denver Post

Click here for details.

### Maine

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2023 ballot measures

* Maine Question 1, Voter Approval of Borrowing Above $1 Billion by State Entities and Electric Cooperatives Initiative (2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Out of the 68,807 signatures validated by the secretary of state, are some of the approved signatures invalid?
Court: Maine Superior Court
Ruling: There was no evidence that signatures were gathered improperly, and if there is evidence of signatures being gathered incorrectly, that must be deferred to the secretary of state.
Plaintiff(s): Bill Dunn| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows

Source: Press Herald

Click here for details.

* Maine Question 1, Electric Transmission Line Restrictions and Legislative Approval Initiative (2021) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Question 1 violate the separation of powers or the companies' vested rights?
Court: Cumberland County Superior Court
Ruling: Jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs, agreed enough work was completed in good faith for the developers to have a right to complete the project.
Plaintiff(s): Russell Black et al.| Defendant(s): Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, Maine Public Utilities Commission, Maine Senate, and Maine House of Representatives

Source: WCVB

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does state law require splitting the ballot initiative into three separate questions?
Court: Cumberland County Superior Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of Secretary of State Bellows; Ruling said that state law does not require the secretary of state to divide a ballot initiative into separate questions
Plaintiff(s): State Rep. Christopher Caiazzo| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows
Plaintiff argument:
State law requires that voters decide each issue contained in the ballot initiative as a separate question.| Defendant argument:
State law provides a recommended format for petitioners, but it is not mandatory.

Source: Portland Press Herald

Click here for details.

### Michigan

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan and 2023 ballot measures

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

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

Source: Michigan Courts

Click here for details.

### Missouri

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Missouri and 2023 ballot measures

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

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

Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Missouri Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: The Kansas City Star

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Missouri Independent

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: U.S. News & World Report

Click here for details.

* Missouri Regulation of Firearms Amendment (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Do the filed initiatives violate the Missouri Constitution?
Court: Cole County Circuit Court
Plaintiff(s): Paul L. Berry III| Defendant(s): Missouri State Auditor

Source: Case Number: 23AC-CC05352

Click here for details.

### Nevada

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2023 ballot measures

* Nevada Funding for Oakland Athletics Baseball Stadium Referendum (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the petition description inaccurate?
Court: First District Court in Carson City
Ruling: The petition was written incorrectly.
Plaintiff(s): Danny Thompson, Thomas Morley| Defendant(s): Schools Over Stadiums PAC

Source: The Nevada Independent

Click here for details.

### Ohio

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2023 ballot measures

* Ohio Issue 1, Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative (2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the petition contain more than one proposed amendment, and should the petition be divided into individual petitions?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: The measure does not need to be divided
Plaintiff(s): Margaret DeBlase, et al.| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the initiative include the text of statutory provisions that would be repealed if the initiative is approved?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: The law does not require a petition to include the text of an existing statute.
Plaintiff(s): Realtors Jennifer Giroux and Thomas E. Brinkman Jr| Defendant(s): Committee representing petitioners, Sec. of State Frank LaRose, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did the Ohio Ballot Board adopt misleading language for the ballot title?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant
Plaintiff(s): Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, at al.| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Ohio Issue 1, 60% Vote Requirement to Approve Constitutional Amendments Measure (2023) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Can Senate Joint Resolution 2, a joint resolution, set a special election date of August 8, 2023?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: SJR 2 can set a special election date of August 8, 2023, under the Ohio Constitution.
Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Frank LaRose

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot title for Issue 1 misleading and inaccurate?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Some aspects of the ballot title were inaccurate and needed to be rewritten, while other aspects that plaintiffs argued were misleading were valid.
Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### Wisconsin

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Wisconsin and 2023 ballot measures

* Wisconsin Question 1, Conditions of Release Before Conviction Amendment (April 2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot
Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so.

Source: Kenosha News

Click here for details.

* Wisconsin Question 2, Conditions for Cash Bail Amendment (April 2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot
Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so.

Source: Kenosha News

Click here for details.

* Wisconsin Question 3, Work Requirement for Welfare Benefits Advisory Question (April 2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot
Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so.

Source: Kenosha News

Click here for details.

# By subject[edit]

This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2023—by subject—for measures proximate to 2023. It also lists 2023 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2023 or a later year.

Subjects listed include the following:

* Ballot language \- Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on petition forms or on the ballot
* Campaign finance \- Lawsuits alleging campaign finance law violations
* Circulators \- Lawsuits concerning the qualifications or actions of petition circulators
* Legislative alteration \- Lawsuits concerning actions by legislatures to repeal or amend citizen initiatives.
* Post-certification removal \- Lawsuits seeking the removal of a measure from the ballot after it was certified
* Post-election \- Lawsuits filed concerning a measure after the election has already occurred
* Preemption \- Lawsuits alleging that a measure is preempted by a higher authority (i.e. a state measure preempted by Federal authority/law or a local measure preempted by state authority/law)
* Signature validity \- Lawsuits challenging the validity of signatures
* Signature deadlines \- Lawsuits that argue proponents of a measure did not meet the procedural deadlines required to put a measure on the ballot

* Subject restriction \- Lawsuits based on legal restrictions on the subject matter of ballot measures
* Substantive constitutionality \- Lawsuits alleging that the content of a measure violates a constitutional provision such as a right to free speech or equal protection or that constitutional language added by a ballot measure is being violated by a statute, ordinance, or administrative action
* Voter guide \- Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on state-produced voter guides

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

### Ballot language[edit]

* California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule?
Court: Alameda County Superior Court
Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling
Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union| Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower

Source: California Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice?
Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court)
Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate.
Plaintiff(s): Davis White| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

Source: California Third District Court of Appeal

Click here for details.

* Ohio Issue 1, Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative (2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the petition contain more than one proposed amendment, and should the petition be divided into individual petitions?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: The measure does not need to be divided
Plaintiff(s): Margaret DeBlase, et al.| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the initiative include the text of statutory provisions that would be repealed if the initiative is approved?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: The law does not require a petition to include the text of an existing statute.
Plaintiff(s): Realtors Jennifer Giroux and Thomas E. Brinkman Jr| Defendant(s): Committee representing petitioners, Sec. of State Frank LaRose, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did the Ohio Ballot Board adopt misleading language for the ballot title?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant
Plaintiff(s): Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, at al.| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Colorado Proposition HH, Property Tax Changes and Revenue Change Measure (2023) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language is misleading
Court: Denver County District Court and Colorado Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed in Denver District Court; appealed to Colorado Supreme Court, which affirmed that Colorado courts lack jurisdiction to rule on single subject requirements until measures have been approved by voters
Plaintiff(s): Advance Colorado and Englewood City council member Steven Ward| Defendant(s): Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D)

Source: Denver Post

Click here for details.

* Ohio Issue 1, 60% Vote Requirement to Approve Constitutional Amendments Measure (2023) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Can Senate Joint Resolution 2, a joint resolution, set a special election date of August 8, 2023?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: SJR 2 can set a special election date of August 8, 2023, under the Ohio Constitution.
Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Frank LaRose

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot title for Issue 1 misleading and inaccurate?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Some aspects of the ballot title were inaccurate and needed to be rewritten, while other aspects that plaintiffs argued were misleading were valid.
Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

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

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

Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Missouri Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: The Kansas City Star

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Missouri Independent

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: U.S. News & World Report

Click here for details.

### Campaign finance[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2023 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2023 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2023.

### Circulators[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2023 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2023 regarding circulators that took place in 2023.

### Legislative alteration[edit]

* Ohio Issue 1, Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative (2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the petition contain more than one proposed amendment, and should the petition be divided into individual petitions?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: The measure does not need to be divided
Plaintiff(s): Margaret DeBlase, et al.| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the initiative include the text of statutory provisions that would be repealed if the initiative is approved?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: The law does not require a petition to include the text of an existing statute.
Plaintiff(s): Realtors Jennifer Giroux and Thomas E. Brinkman Jr| Defendant(s): Committee representing petitioners, Sec. of State Frank LaRose, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did the Ohio Ballot Board adopt misleading language for the ballot title?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant
Plaintiff(s): Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, at al.| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

### Post-certification removal[edit]

* Template:WIApril2023lawsuit -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot
Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so.

Source: Kenosha News

Click here for details.

* Wisconsin Question 1, Conditions of Release Before Conviction Amendment (April 2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot
Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so.

Source: Kenosha News

Click here for details.

* Wisconsin Question 2, Conditions for Cash Bail Amendment (April 2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot
Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so.

Source: Kenosha News

Click here for details.

* Wisconsin Question 3, Work Requirement for Welfare Benefits Advisory Question (April 2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot
Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day.| Defendant argument:
The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so.

Source: Kenosha News

Click here for details.

* Maine Question 1, Voter Approval of Borrowing Above $1 Billion by State Entities and Electric Cooperatives Initiative (2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Out of the 68,807 signatures validated by the secretary of state, are some of the approved signatures invalid?
Court: Maine Superior Court
Ruling: There was no evidence that signatures were gathered improperly, and if there is evidence of signatures being gathered incorrectly, that must be deferred to the secretary of state.
Plaintiff(s): Bill Dunn| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows

Source: Press Herald

Click here for details.

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

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

Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Missouri Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: The Kansas City Star

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Missouri Independent

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: U.S. News & World Report

Click here for details.

### Post-election[edit]

* California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule?
Court: Alameda County Superior Court
Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling
Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union| Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower

Source: California Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice?
Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court)
Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate.
Plaintiff(s): Davis White| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

Source: California Third District Court of Appeal

Click here for details.

### Preemption[edit]

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

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

Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Missouri Court of Appeals

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: The Kansas City Star

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Missouri Independent

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: U.S. News & World Report

Click here for details.

* Nevada Funding for Oakland Athletics Baseball Stadium Referendum (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the petition description inaccurate?
Court: First District Court in Carson City
Ruling: The petition was written incorrectly.
Plaintiff(s): Danny Thompson, Thomas Morley| Defendant(s): Schools Over Stadiums PAC

Source: The Nevada Independent

Click here for details.

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

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

Source: Michigan Courts

Click here for details.

### Signature validity[edit]

* Maine Question 1, Voter Approval of Borrowing Above $1 Billion by State Entities and Electric Cooperatives Initiative (2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Out of the 68,807 signatures validated by the secretary of state, are some of the approved signatures invalid?
Court: Maine Superior Court
Ruling: There was no evidence that signatures were gathered improperly, and if there is evidence of signatures being gathered incorrectly, that must be deferred to the secretary of state.
Plaintiff(s): Bill Dunn| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows

Source: Press Herald

Click here for details.

### Signature deadlines[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2023 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2023 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2023.

### Single subject[edit]

* Ohio Issue 1, Right to Make Reproductive Decisions Including Abortion Initiative (2023) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the petition contain more than one proposed amendment, and should the petition be divided into individual petitions?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: The measure does not need to be divided
Plaintiff(s): Margaret DeBlase, et al.| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Should the initiative include the text of statutory provisions that would be repealed if the initiative is approved?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: The law does not require a petition to include the text of an existing statute.
Plaintiff(s): Realtors Jennifer Giroux and Thomas E. Brinkman Jr| Defendant(s): Committee representing petitioners, Sec. of State Frank LaRose, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court Ruling

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did the Ohio Ballot Board adopt misleading language for the ballot title?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant
Plaintiff(s): Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, at al.| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al.

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Maine Question 1, Electric Transmission Line Restrictions and Legislative Approval Initiative (2021) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Question 1 violate the separation of powers or the companies' vested rights?
Court: Cumberland County Superior Court
Ruling: Jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs, agreed enough work was completed in good faith for the developers to have a right to complete the project.
Plaintiff(s): Russell Black et al.| Defendant(s): Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, Maine Public Utilities Commission, Maine Senate, and Maine House of Representatives

Source: WCVB

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does state law require splitting the ballot initiative into three separate questions?
Court: Cumberland County Superior Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of Secretary of State Bellows; Ruling said that state law does not require the secretary of state to divide a ballot initiative into separate questions
Plaintiff(s): State Rep. Christopher Caiazzo| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows
Plaintiff argument:
State law requires that voters decide each issue contained in the ballot initiative as a separate question.| Defendant argument:
State law provides a recommended format for petitioners, but it is not mandatory.

Source: Portland Press Herald

Click here for details.

* Colorado Proposition HH, Property Tax Changes and Revenue Change Measure (2023) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language is misleading
Court: Denver County District Court and Colorado Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed in Denver District Court; appealed to Colorado Supreme Court, which affirmed that Colorado courts lack jurisdiction to rule on single subject requirements until measures have been approved by voters
Plaintiff(s): Advance Colorado and Englewood City council member Steven Ward| Defendant(s): Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D)

Source: Denver Post

Click here for details.

### Subject restriction[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2023 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2023 regarding subject restrictions that took place in 2023.

### Substantive constitutionality[edit]

* California Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative (2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule?
Court: Alameda County Superior Court
Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional; California Supreme Court upheld state appeal's court ruling
Plaintiff(s): Hector Castellanos, Joseph Delgado, Saori Okawa, Michael Robinson, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Service Employees International Union| Defendant(s): State of California and California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower

Source: California Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot title for Proposition 22 false, misleading, and prejudice?
Court: California Third District Court of Appeal (Appealed from the Sacramento County Superior Court)
Ruling: Sacramento County Superior Court ruled in favor of Padilla and Becerra, stating that the ballot title is not false, misleading, or inaccurate.
Plaintiff(s): Davis White| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra

Source: California Third District Court of Appeal

Click here for details.

* Ohio Issue 1, 60% Vote Requirement to Approve Constitutional Amendments Measure (2023) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Can Senate Joint Resolution 2, a joint resolution, set a special election date of August 8, 2023?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: SJR 2 can set a special election date of August 8, 2023, under the Ohio Constitution.
Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Frank LaRose

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot title for Issue 1 misleading and inaccurate?
Court: Ohio Supreme Court
Ruling: Some aspects of the ballot title were inaccurate and needed to be rewritten, while other aspects that plaintiffs argued were misleading were valid.
Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor| Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board

Source: Ohio Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Missouri Regulation of Firearms Amendment (2024) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Do the filed initiatives violate the Missouri Constitution?
Court: Cole County Circuit Court
Plaintiff(s): Paul L. Berry III| Defendant(s): Missouri State Auditor

Source: Case Number: 23AC-CC05352

Click here for details.

### Voter guide[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2023 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2023 regarding voter guides that took place in 2023

# Past measures[edit]

Note: This section shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2023 against past ballot measures.

Ballotpedia is not covering any state ballot measure lawsuits about measures from past years filed or concluded in 2023.

# Local[edit]

See also: List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2023

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

A compiled list of 2023 lawsuits about local measures can be found here.

## See also[edit]

* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2013
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2011
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010
* List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2009
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
* List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
* List of 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 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

v • e

2023 ballot measures

I&R States|

• Colorado • Maine • Ohio • Oklahoma

Non I&R States|

• Louisiana • New York • Texas • Wisconsin

Other|

Scorecard • Petition drive deadlines and requirements • Polls • Lawsuits • Readability analysis • Signature costs • Cost per required signatures analysis • Campaign finance • Media editorial endorsements • Voter guides • Potential measures • Ballot Measure Monthly • Changes in 2023 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives