List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2019

2020 lawsuits →

<- 2018 lawsuits

2019 U.S. state
ballot measures

2020 »

« 2018

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

Have you subscribed yet?

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

This page lists summaries of lawsuits filed about ballot measures in 2019. Lawsuits can be filed before an election specifically to keep a measure from being put on the ballot. Such pre-election lawsuits often allege one or more of the following:

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

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

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

## Contents

* 1 By state
* 1.1 Alaska
* 1.2 California
* 1.3 Florida
* 1.4 Idaho
* 1.5 Kentucky
* 1.6 Massachusetts
* 1.7 Michigan
* 1.8 Montana
* 1.9 Nevada
* 1.10 North Carolina
* 1.11 Oklahoma
* 1.12 Pennsylvania
* 1.13 South Dakota
* 1.14 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 2019—by state—for measures proximate to 2019. It also lists 2019 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2019 or a later year.

### Alaska

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alaska and 2019 ballot measures

* Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means
Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus| Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai

Source: Alaska Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform.
Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE."| Defendant argument:
Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Click here for details.

* Alaska Ballot Measure 1, North Slope Oil Production Tax Increase Initiative (2020) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer write a true and impartial summary of the ballot initiative?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the case, upholding the Superior Court's ruling in favor of Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share. The Superior Court ordered Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer to strike a sentence from the ballot summary.
Plaintiff(s): Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language that Lt. Gov. Meyer wrote for the initiative is not true or impartial.| Defendant argument:
Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share did not make a timely objection to the language and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share violate the law requiring that signature gatherers earn no more than $1.00 per signature?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: Plaintiffs' interpretation of the $1.00-per-signature limit is correct; however, the limit violates the U.S. Constitution's protection of free speech.
Plaintiff(s): Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc., Alaska Trucking Association, Inc., Alaska Miners Associaiton, Inc., Associated General Contractors of Alaska, Alaska Chamber, and Alaska Support Industry Alliance| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, Division of Elections, and Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share
Plaintiff argument:
Vote Yes paid signature gatherers in excess of the $1.00-per-signature limit.| Defendant argument:
Providing signature gatherers with salaries is not affected by the $1.00-per-signature limit.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Click here for details.

### California

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in California and 2019 ballot measures

* California Proposition 12, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution?
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; appealed to United States Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 12 did not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause because Proposition 12 was not directed at interstate commerce and did not call for uniform practices throughout the U.S.; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court; U.S. Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 12
Plaintiff(s): National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation| Defendant(s): Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), Sonia Angell (Director of the California Department of Public Health), and Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General)

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

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution?
Court: U.S. District Court for Central California and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): North American Meat Institute| Defendant(s): Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General), Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), and Susan Fanelli (Acting Director of the California Department of Public Health)

Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Click here for details.

### Florida

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Florida and 2019 ballot measures

* Florida Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2022) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment's ballot language is misleading
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of Attorney General
Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Ashley Moody| Defendant(s): Sensible Florida
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment's ballot language is misleading| Defendant argument:
The ballot language is not misleading

Source: Florida Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana Legalization Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2
Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2.
Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana| Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden
Plaintiff argument:
Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2| Defendant argument:
Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional.

Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots
Court: Broward County Circuit Court
Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied.
Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida| Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida
Plaintiff argument:
The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted.| Defendant argument:
There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots.

Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald

Click here for details.

### Idaho

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Idaho and 2019 ballot measures

Ballotpedia is not covering any 2019 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.

### Kentucky

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Kentucky and 2019 ballot measures

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

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

Source: WFPL

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Courier Journal

Click here for details.

### Massachusetts

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Massachusetts and 2019 ballot measures

* Massachusetts Beer and Wine in Food Stores Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading; whether the measure violates  Section 1 of Article LXXIV of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires initiatives to concern only topics "which are related or which are mutually dependent."
Court: Filed in Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Benjamin Locke Weiner, Ronald T. Maloney, Jr., Cynthia Newell, Sean Barry, Tina M. Messina, Maximilian Pano Haivanis, and Steven Schechterle| Defendant(s): Maura Healey (D), the attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; William F. Galvin (D), secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Plaintiff argument:
The language of the ballot initiative concerns four distinct questions. It fails to comply with initiative rules established in the Massachusetts Constitution.| Defendant argument:
The ballot language meets all constitutional requirements and was therefore certified to gather signatures to appear on the 2020 ballot.

Source: Massachusetts Appellate Courts

Click here for details.

### Michigan

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Michigan and 2019 ballot measures

* Michigan Fracking Ban Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the petition used to collect signatures for a ballot initiative need to contain the date of the election at which the initiative will be submitted to voters?
Court: Michigan Court of Claims appealed to Michigan Court of Appeals
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the initiative petition was "facially compliant with all statutory requirements" and that the secretary of state had to accept signatures from the committee.
Plaintiff(s): Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan and LuAnne Kozma| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Director of Elections Sally Williams, and Board of State Canvassers
Plaintiff argument:
The secretary of state has no authority to reject an initiative due to the election date reference on the petition.| Defendant argument:
The election at which the proponent intends the initiative to appear for needs to be specified on the petition.

Source: Michigan Court of Claims and Michigan Court of Appeals

Click here for details.

* Michigan Ballot Proposal B, Term Limits for Congressional, State Executive, and State Legislative Offices Initiative (1992) -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposal B's term limits on state legislators violate the U.S. Constitution's freedom of association and/or the Michigan Constitution's single-subject rule and ballot language requirements?
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Ruling: The U.S. District Court for Western Michigan and the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that term limits, under Proposal B, were constitutional.
Plaintiff(s): Roger Kahn, Paul Opsommer, Joseph Haveman, David E. Nathan, Scott Dianda, Clark Harder, Mary Valentine, and Douglas Spade| Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson

Source: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan

Click here for details.

### Montana

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Montana and 2019 ballot measures

* Montana LR-130, Limit Local Government Authority to Regulate Firearms Measure (2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot language for LR-130 misleading?
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of Attorney General Fox, the defendant, saying the ballot language as written was fair
Plaintiff(s): City of Missoula Montana League of Cities and Towns, et al.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Tim Fox (R)

Source: U.S. News and World Report

Click here for details.

### Nevada

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2019 ballot measures

* Nevada Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot summary is misleading and inaccurate; whether the commission can be classified as independent
Court: First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
Ruling: Ruled that the original petition summary was misleading and that any signatures collected using it are invalid but that the revised petition summary as amended by proponents satisfies requirements
Plaintiff(s): Rev. Leonard Jackson| Defendant(s): Fair Maps Nevada PAC and  Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary is misleading because the commission cannot be classified as independent because of its composition and funding.| Defendant argument:
The commission is made up of citizens not lawmakers; therefore, it is not a political body.

Source: Nevada Independent and Rev. Leonard Jackson v. Fair Maps Nevada Pac and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske

Click here for details.

### North Carolina

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in North Carolina and 2019 ballot measures

Ballotpedia is not covering any 2019 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.

### Oklahoma

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Oklahoma and 2019 ballot measures

* Oklahoma State Question 804, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule, violates plaintiffs' First Amendment right to participate in political processes; and whether the measure's ballot language is inaccurate
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs
Plaintiff(s): Roger Gaddis, Laura Newberry, and Eldon Merklin| Defendant(s): Initiative sponsors Andrew Moore, Janet Ann Largent, and Lynda Johnson
Plaintiff argument:
The measure violates the state's single-subject rule, the measure violates plaintiffs' First Amendment right to participate in political processes, and the measure's ballot language is inaccurate and fails to include how commissioners would be elected.| Defendant argument:
"Today’s lawsuit is a misguided attempt by special interests and the politicians beholden to them to deny the people of Oklahoma the right to vote on a proposal that would put an end to partisan gerrymandering."

Source: Tulsa World

Click here for details.

### Pennsylvania

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Pennsylvania and 2019 ballot measures

* Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2019) - Overturned
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the ballot measure for Marsy's Law violate the state constitution's requirement that separate amendments receive separate votes?
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Ruling: On December 21, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution and that results could not be certified
Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Lorraine Haw| Defendant(s): Acting Secretary of State Veronica Degraffenreid (originally Acting Secretary Kathy Boockvar)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot measure proposed several amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution and therefore violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments.| Defendant argument:
The ballot measure contained related subparts that pertain to a single subject, which made the proposal constitutional.

Source: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Click here for details.

### South Dakota

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in South Dakota and 2019 ballot measures

* South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) - Overturned
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
Court: United States District Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative
Plaintiff(s): Cory Heidelberger (D) and his ballot question committee, SD Voice| Defendant(s): South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R), Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R)
Plaintiff argument:
IM 24 is unconstitutional and should not be implemented| Defendant argument:
Unkown

Source: The Daily Republic

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the commerce clause
Court: United States District Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative
Plaintiff(s): Former Attorney General Marty Jackley (R), the South Dakota Newspaper Association, Retailers Association, Broadcasters Association and Chamber Ballot Action Committee, as well as Americans for Prosperity and individual Thomas Barnett Jr.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R)
Plaintiff argument:
IM 24 is unconstitutional because it attempts to regulate interstate commerce, violates the plaintiff's rights, and discriminates against their economic activity| Defendant argument:
Unkown

Source: Aberdeen News

Click here for details.

### Wisconsin

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Wisconsin and 2019 ballot measures

* Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (April 2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment informed the electorate what the amendment would do
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that the amendment's ballot language was not sufficient but leaving the amendment in effect during appeal; appealed; Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the amendment
Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison)| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance.| Defendant argument:
The ballot language, which was developed over two years through the legislative process, met all statutory requirements and did not deceive voters.

Source: Urban Milwaukee

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the ballot language accurately and completely summarize the constitutional amendment?
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure
Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI), Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson, and Fred A. Risser| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), WEC Chair Dean Knudson, Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and Attorney General Josh Kaul

Source: Dane County Circuit Court

Click here for details.

# By subject[edit]

This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2019—by subject—for measures proximate to 2019. It also lists 2019 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2019 or a later year.

Subjects listed include the following:

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

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

### Ballot language[edit]

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

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

Source: WFPL

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Courier Journal

Click here for details.

* Massachusetts Beer and Wine in Food Stores Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading; whether the measure violates  Section 1 of Article LXXIV of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires initiatives to concern only topics "which are related or which are mutually dependent."
Court: Filed in Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Benjamin Locke Weiner, Ronald T. Maloney, Jr., Cynthia Newell, Sean Barry, Tina M. Messina, Maximilian Pano Haivanis, and Steven Schechterle| Defendant(s): Maura Healey (D), the attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; William F. Galvin (D), secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Plaintiff argument:
The language of the ballot initiative concerns four distinct questions. It fails to comply with initiative rules established in the Massachusetts Constitution.| Defendant argument:
The ballot language meets all constitutional requirements and was therefore certified to gather signatures to appear on the 2020 ballot.

Source: Massachusetts Appellate Courts

Click here for details.

* Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (April 2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment informed the electorate what the amendment would do
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that the amendment's ballot language was not sufficient but leaving the amendment in effect during appeal; appealed; Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the amendment
Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison)| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance.| Defendant argument:
The ballot language, which was developed over two years through the legislative process, met all statutory requirements and did not deceive voters.

Source: Urban Milwaukee

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the ballot language accurately and completely summarize the constitutional amendment?
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure
Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI), Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson, and Fred A. Risser| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), WEC Chair Dean Knudson, Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and Attorney General Josh Kaul

Source: Dane County Circuit Court

Click here for details.

* Florida Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2022) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the amendment's ballot language is misleading
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of Attorney General
Plaintiff(s): Attorney General Ashley Moody| Defendant(s): Sensible Florida
Plaintiff argument:
The amendment's ballot language is misleading| Defendant argument:
The ballot language is not misleading

Source: Florida Supreme Court

Click here for details.

* Montana LR-130, Limit Local Government Authority to Regulate Firearms Measure (2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Is the ballot language for LR-130 misleading?
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of Attorney General Fox, the defendant, saying the ballot language as written was fair
Plaintiff(s): City of Missoula Montana League of Cities and Towns, et al.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Tim Fox (R)

Source: U.S. News and World Report

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana Legalization Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2
Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2.
Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana| Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden
Plaintiff argument:
Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2| Defendant argument:
Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional.

Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots
Court: Broward County Circuit Court
Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied.
Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida| Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida
Plaintiff argument:
The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted.| Defendant argument:
There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots.

Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald

Click here for details.

* Alaska Ballot Measure 1, North Slope Oil Production Tax Increase Initiative (2020) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer write a true and impartial summary of the ballot initiative?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the case, upholding the Superior Court's ruling in favor of Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share. The Superior Court ordered Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer to strike a sentence from the ballot summary.
Plaintiff(s): Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language that Lt. Gov. Meyer wrote for the initiative is not true or impartial.| Defendant argument:
Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share did not make a timely objection to the language and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share violate the law requiring that signature gatherers earn no more than $1.00 per signature?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: Plaintiffs' interpretation of the $1.00-per-signature limit is correct; however, the limit violates the U.S. Constitution's protection of free speech.
Plaintiff(s): Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc., Alaska Trucking Association, Inc., Alaska Miners Associaiton, Inc., Associated General Contractors of Alaska, Alaska Chamber, and Alaska Support Industry Alliance| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, Division of Elections, and Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share
Plaintiff argument:
Vote Yes paid signature gatherers in excess of the $1.00-per-signature limit.| Defendant argument:
Providing signature gatherers with salaries is not affected by the $1.00-per-signature limit.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma State Question 804, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule, violates plaintiffs' First Amendment right to participate in political processes; and whether the measure's ballot language is inaccurate
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs
Plaintiff(s): Roger Gaddis, Laura Newberry, and Eldon Merklin| Defendant(s): Initiative sponsors Andrew Moore, Janet Ann Largent, and Lynda Johnson
Plaintiff argument:
The measure violates the state's single-subject rule, the measure violates plaintiffs' First Amendment right to participate in political processes, and the measure's ballot language is inaccurate and fails to include how commissioners would be elected.| Defendant argument:
"Today’s lawsuit is a misguided attempt by special interests and the politicians beholden to them to deny the people of Oklahoma the right to vote on a proposal that would put an end to partisan gerrymandering."

Source: Tulsa World

Click here for details.

* Nevada Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot summary is misleading and inaccurate; whether the commission can be classified as independent
Court: First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada
Ruling: Ruled that the original petition summary was misleading and that any signatures collected using it are invalid but that the revised petition summary as amended by proponents satisfies requirements
Plaintiff(s): Rev. Leonard Jackson| Defendant(s): Fair Maps Nevada PAC and  Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot summary is misleading because the commission cannot be classified as independent because of its composition and funding.| Defendant argument:
The commission is made up of citizens not lawmakers; therefore, it is not a political body.

Source: Nevada Independent and Rev. Leonard Jackson v. Fair Maps Nevada Pac and Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske

Click here for details.

### Campaign finance[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2019.

### Circulators[edit]

* Alaska Ballot Measure 1, North Slope Oil Production Tax Increase Initiative (2020) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer write a true and impartial summary of the ballot initiative?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the case, upholding the Superior Court's ruling in favor of Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share. The Superior Court ordered Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer to strike a sentence from the ballot summary.
Plaintiff(s): Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language that Lt. Gov. Meyer wrote for the initiative is not true or impartial.| Defendant argument:
Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share did not make a timely objection to the language and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share violate the law requiring that signature gatherers earn no more than $1.00 per signature?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: Plaintiffs' interpretation of the $1.00-per-signature limit is correct; however, the limit violates the U.S. Constitution's protection of free speech.
Plaintiff(s): Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc., Alaska Trucking Association, Inc., Alaska Miners Associaiton, Inc., Associated General Contractors of Alaska, Alaska Chamber, and Alaska Support Industry Alliance| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, Division of Elections, and Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share
Plaintiff argument:
Vote Yes paid signature gatherers in excess of the $1.00-per-signature limit.| Defendant argument:
Providing signature gatherers with salaries is not affected by the $1.00-per-signature limit.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Click here for details.

### Legislative alteration[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding legislative alteration that took place in 2019.

### Post-certification removal[edit]

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

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

Source: WFPL

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Courier Journal

Click here for details.

### Post-election[edit]

* South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) - Overturned
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
Court: United States District Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative
Plaintiff(s): Cory Heidelberger (D) and his ballot question committee, SD Voice| Defendant(s): South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R), Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R)
Plaintiff argument:
IM 24 is unconstitutional and should not be implemented| Defendant argument:
Unkown

Source: The Daily Republic

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the commerce clause
Court: United States District Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative
Plaintiff(s): Former Attorney General Marty Jackley (R), the South Dakota Newspaper Association, Retailers Association, Broadcasters Association and Chamber Ballot Action Committee, as well as Americans for Prosperity and individual Thomas Barnett Jr.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R)
Plaintiff argument:
IM 24 is unconstitutional because it attempts to regulate interstate commerce, violates the plaintiff's rights, and discriminates against their economic activity| Defendant argument:
Unkown

Source: Aberdeen News

Click here for details.

* Michigan Ballot Proposal B, Term Limits for Congressional, State Executive, and State Legislative Offices Initiative (1992) -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposal B's term limits on state legislators violate the U.S. Constitution's freedom of association and/or the Michigan Constitution's single-subject rule and ballot language requirements?
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Ruling: The U.S. District Court for Western Michigan and the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that term limits, under Proposal B, were constitutional.
Plaintiff(s): Roger Kahn, Paul Opsommer, Joseph Haveman, David E. Nathan, Scott Dianda, Clark Harder, Mary Valentine, and Douglas Spade| Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson

Source: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan

Click here for details.

* Wisconsin Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (April 2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Ballot language; whether the ballot language for the constitutional amendment informed the electorate what the amendment would do
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs stating that the amendment's ballot language was not sufficient but leaving the amendment in effect during appeal; appealed; Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds the amendment
Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI) Board President Craig Johnson, WJI Treasurer Jacqueline Boynton, and State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison)| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language failed to inform the electorate of the amendment's substance.| Defendant argument:
The ballot language, which was developed over two years through the legislative process, met all statutory requirements and did not deceive voters.

Source: Urban Milwaukee

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the ballot language accurately and completely summarize the constitutional amendment?
Court: Dane County Circuit Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure, but refraining from deciding the ultimate constitutionality of the measure
Plaintiff(s): Wisconsin Justice Initiative (WJI), Jacqueline E. Boynton, Jerome F. Buting, Craig R. Johnson, and Fred A. Risser| Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), WEC Chair Dean Knudson, Secretary of State Douglas La Follette, and Attorney General Josh Kaul

Source: Dane County Circuit Court

Click here for details.

* User:Josh Altic/WeeklyMonthlyReportDPLs -

Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 12, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution?
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; appealed to United States Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 12 did not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause because Proposition 12 was not directed at interstate commerce and did not call for uniform practices throughout the U.S.; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court; U.S. Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 12
Plaintiff(s): National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation| Defendant(s): Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), Sonia Angell (Director of the California Department of Public Health), and Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General)

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

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution?
Court: U.S. District Court for Central California and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): North American Meat Institute| Defendant(s): Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General), Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), and Susan Fanelli (Acting Director of the California Department of Public Health)

Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana Legalization Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2
Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2.
Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana| Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden
Plaintiff argument:
Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2| Defendant argument:
Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional.

Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots
Court: Broward County Circuit Court
Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied.
Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida| Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida
Plaintiff argument:
The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted.| Defendant argument:
There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots.

Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald

Click here for details.

### Preemption[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding preemption that took place in 2019.

### Signature validity[edit]

* Alaska Ballot Measure 1, North Slope Oil Production Tax Increase Initiative (2020) - Defeated
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer write a true and impartial summary of the ballot initiative?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court dismissed the case, upholding the Superior Court's ruling in favor of Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share. The Superior Court ordered Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer to strike a sentence from the ballot summary.
Plaintiff(s): Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot language that Lt. Gov. Meyer wrote for the initiative is not true or impartial.| Defendant argument:
Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share did not make a timely objection to the language and, therefore, the complaint should be dismissed.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Did Vote Yes for Alaska’s Fair Share violate the law requiring that signature gatherers earn no more than $1.00 per signature?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (Filed in Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: Plaintiffs' interpretation of the $1.00-per-signature limit is correct; however, the limit violates the U.S. Constitution's protection of free speech.
Plaintiff(s): Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc., Alaska Trucking Association, Inc., Alaska Miners Associaiton, Inc., Associated General Contractors of Alaska, Alaska Chamber, and Alaska Support Industry Alliance| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, Division of Elections, and Vote Yes for Alaska's Fair Share
Plaintiff argument:
Vote Yes paid signature gatherers in excess of the $1.00-per-signature limit.| Defendant argument:
Providing signature gatherers with salaries is not affected by the $1.00-per-signature limit.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Click here for details.

### Signature deadlines[edit]

* Michigan Fracking Ban Initiative (2018) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the petition used to collect signatures for a ballot initiative need to contain the date of the election at which the initiative will be submitted to voters?
Court: Michigan Court of Claims appealed to Michigan Court of Appeals
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the initiative petition was "facially compliant with all statutory requirements" and that the secretary of state had to accept signatures from the committee.
Plaintiff(s): Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan and LuAnne Kozma| Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Director of Elections Sally Williams, and Board of State Canvassers
Plaintiff argument:
The secretary of state has no authority to reject an initiative due to the election date reference on the petition.| Defendant argument:
The election at which the proponent intends the initiative to appear for needs to be specified on the petition.

Source: Michigan Court of Claims and Michigan Court of Appeals

Click here for details.

### Single subject[edit]

* Pennsylvania Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment (2019) - Overturned
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does the ballot measure for Marsy's Law violate the state constitution's requirement that separate amendments receive separate votes?
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Ruling: On December 21, 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the ballot measure violated the separate-vote requirement of the Pennsylvania Constitution and that results could not be certified
Plaintiff(s): League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and Lorraine Haw| Defendant(s): Acting Secretary of State Veronica Degraffenreid (originally Acting Secretary Kathy Boockvar)
Plaintiff argument:
The ballot measure proposed several amendments to the Pennsylvania Constitution and therefore violated the separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments.| Defendant argument:
The ballot measure contained related subparts that pertain to a single subject, which made the proposal constitutional.

Source: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Click here for details.

* Massachusetts Beer and Wine in Food Stores Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading; whether the measure violates  Section 1 of Article LXXIV of the Massachusetts Constitution, which requires initiatives to concern only topics "which are related or which are mutually dependent."
Court: Filed in Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County
Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure
Plaintiff(s): Benjamin Locke Weiner, Ronald T. Maloney, Jr., Cynthia Newell, Sean Barry, Tina M. Messina, Maximilian Pano Haivanis, and Steven Schechterle| Defendant(s): Maura Healey (D), the attorney general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; William F. Galvin (D), secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Plaintiff argument:
The language of the ballot initiative concerns four distinct questions. It fails to comply with initiative rules established in the Massachusetts Constitution.| Defendant argument:
The ballot language meets all constitutional requirements and was therefore certified to gather signatures to appear on the 2020 ballot.

Source: Massachusetts Appellate Courts

Click here for details.

* Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means
Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus| Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai

Source: Alaska Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform.
Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE."| Defendant argument:
Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma State Question 804, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule, violates plaintiffs' First Amendment right to participate in political processes; and whether the measure's ballot language is inaccurate
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs
Plaintiff(s): Roger Gaddis, Laura Newberry, and Eldon Merklin| Defendant(s): Initiative sponsors Andrew Moore, Janet Ann Largent, and Lynda Johnson
Plaintiff argument:
The measure violates the state's single-subject rule, the measure violates plaintiffs' First Amendment right to participate in political processes, and the measure's ballot language is inaccurate and fails to include how commissioners would be elected.| Defendant argument:
"Today’s lawsuit is a misguided attempt by special interests and the politicians beholden to them to deny the people of Oklahoma the right to vote on a proposal that would put an end to partisan gerrymandering."

Source: Tulsa World

Click here for details.

### Subject restriction[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding subject restrictions that took place in 2019.

### Substantive constitutionality[edit]

* South Dakota Initiated Measure 24, Ban Out-of-State Contributions to Ballot Question Committees Initiative (2018) - Overturned
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
Court: United States District Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative
Plaintiff(s): Cory Heidelberger (D) and his ballot question committee, SD Voice| Defendant(s): South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R), Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R)
Plaintiff argument:
IM 24 is unconstitutional and should not be implemented| Defendant argument:
Unkown

Source: The Daily Republic

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether or not IM 24 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the commerce clause
Court: United States District Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, invalidating Measure 24 as unconstitutional and blocknig the state from enforcing the initiative
Plaintiff(s): Former Attorney General Marty Jackley (R), the South Dakota Newspaper Association, Retailers Association, Broadcasters Association and Chamber Ballot Action Committee, as well as Americans for Prosperity and individual Thomas Barnett Jr.| Defendant(s): Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg (R), and Secretary of State Steve Barnett (R)
Plaintiff argument:
IM 24 is unconstitutional because it attempts to regulate interstate commerce, violates the plaintiff's rights, and discriminates against their economic activity| Defendant argument:
Unkown

Source: Aberdeen News

Click here for details.

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

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

Source: WFPL

Lawsuit overview

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

Source: Courier Journal

Click here for details.

* Michigan Ballot Proposal B, Term Limits for Congressional, State Executive, and State Legislative Offices Initiative (1992) -
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposal B's term limits on state legislators violate the U.S. Constitution's freedom of association and/or the Michigan Constitution's single-subject rule and ballot language requirements?
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
Ruling: The U.S. District Court for Western Michigan and the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that term limits, under Proposal B, were constitutional.
Plaintiff(s): Roger Kahn, Paul Opsommer, Joseph Haveman, David E. Nathan, Scott Dianda, Clark Harder, Mary Valentine, and Douglas Spade| Defendant(s): Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson

Source: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan

Click here for details.

* User:Josh Altic/WeeklyMonthlyReportDPLs -

Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default

Click here for details.

* Alaska Ballot Measure 2, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative (2020) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court
Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means
Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus| Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai

Source: Alaska Supreme Court

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law?
Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court)
Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform.
Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections| Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections
Plaintiff argument:
Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE."| Defendant argument:
Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule.

Source: Alaska Superior Court

Click here for details.

* California Proposition 12, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (2018) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution?
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; appealed to United States Supreme Court
Ruling: Proposition 12 did not violate the Interstate Commerce Clause because Proposition 12 was not directed at interstate commerce and did not call for uniform practices throughout the U.S.; appealed to U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and United States Supreme Court; U.S. Supreme Court voted to uphold Proposition 12
Plaintiff(s): National Pork Producers Council and American Farm Bureau Federation| Defendant(s): Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), Sonia Angell (Director of the California Department of Public Health), and Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General)

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

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Does Proposition 12 violate the Interstate Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution?
Court: U.S. District Court for Central California and United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): North American Meat Institute| Defendant(s): Xavier Becerra (California Attorney General), Karen Ross (Secretary of California Department of Food & Agriculture), and Susan Fanelli (Acting Director of the California Department of Public Health)

Source: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Click here for details.

* Florida Amendment 2, Medical Marijuana Legalization Measure (2016) - Approved
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Constitutionality of implementing legislation; whether banning the smoking of marijuana in statute violates Amendment 2
Court: Florida 2nd Circuit Court and Florida First District Court of Appeal
Ruling: Second Circuit Court ruled in favor of the defendant, deciding that a ban on smoking medical marijuana violated Amendment 2. On July 9, 2019, the Florida First District Court of Appeal ruled that Florida’s approach to regulating marijuana violated the constitution and violated Amendment 2.
Plaintiff(s): People United for Medical Marijuana| Defendant(s): State of Florida; Florida Department of Health; Secretary of Health Celeste Philip; Office of Compassionate Use; Director of the Office of Compassionate Use Christian Bax; Florida Board of Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Medicine James Orr; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Chair of the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine Anna Hayden
Plaintiff argument:
Senate Bill 8A was designed to ban the smoking of marijuana, which violates the content of Amendment 2| Defendant argument:
Senate Bill 8A was approved by the legislature to implement Amendment 2 and is not unconstitutional.

Source: Florida 2nd Circuit Court,Orlando Sentinel, and AP News

Lawsuit overview

Issue: Misprint omitting the amendment from certain Broward County vote-by-mail ballots
Court: Broward County Circuit Court
Ruling: The plaintiffs failed to show that there was "irreparable harm" caused due to the defendant's actions, and therefore the motion for relief was denied.
Plaintiff(s): NORML of Florida, Inc., and Karen Goldstein, a registered voter in Broward County, Florida| Defendant(s): Dr. Brenda Snipes, supervisor of elections in Broward County, Florida
Plaintiff argument:
The exclusion of Amendment 2 from certain absentee ballots deprived Florida voters of their ability to fully participate in the 2016 general election and violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court should have required the defendant to print and distribute new vote-by-mail ballots for the 2016 general election and provide an explanation for why the amendment was omitted.| Defendant argument:
There was no evidence of irreparable harm in the case because both of the voters who had confirmed instances of faulty vote-by-mail ballots already received replacement ballots.

Source: Miami Herald, WSVN News 7 Miami, and Miami Herald

Click here for details.

* Oklahoma State Question 804, Independent Redistricting Commission Initiative (2020) - Not on the ballot
Lawsuit overview

Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule, violates plaintiffs' First Amendment right to participate in political processes; and whether the measure's ballot language is inaccurate
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs
Plaintiff(s): Roger Gaddis, Laura Newberry, and Eldon Merklin| Defendant(s): Initiative sponsors Andrew Moore, Janet Ann Largent, and Lynda Johnson
Plaintiff argument:
The measure violates the state's single-subject rule, the measure violates plaintiffs' First Amendment right to participate in political processes, and the measure's ballot language is inaccurate and fails to include how commissioners would be elected.| Defendant argument:
"Today’s lawsuit is a misguided attempt by special interests and the politicians beholden to them to deny the people of Oklahoma the right to vote on a proposal that would put an end to partisan gerrymandering."

Source: Tulsa World

Click here for details.

### Voter guide[edit]

Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2019 regarding voter guides that took place in 2019.

# Past measures[edit]

Note: This section shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2019 against past ballot measures.

Ballotpedia is not covering any state ballot measure lawsuits about measures from past years filed or concluded in 2019.

# Local[edit]

See also: List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2019

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 2019 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 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

v • e

2019 ballot measures

I&R States|

• Colorado • Maine • Washington

Non I&R States|

• Kansas • Louisiana • New Jersey • Pennsylvania • Texas

Political topics|

• Administration of government‎ • Affirmative action‎ • Bond issues‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Healthcare‎ • Law enforcement‎ • Property‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Taxes‎ • Treatment of animals‎ • Water‎

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 2019 to laws governing the initiative process • Not on the ballot • Filed initiatives