2011 ballot measure litigation

2011 measure lawsuits
By state
California • Colorado• Illinois Mississippi • Missouri Nebraska • Ohio • Texas Washington
By lawsuit type
Ballot text Campaign contributions Constitutionality Motivation of sponsors Petitioner residency Post-certification removal Single-subject rule Signature challenges Initiative process

Note: A lawsuit may be included in more than one section of this article.

See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2011

Ballot text[edit]

See also: Ballot title litigation, Fiscal impact statement litigation

• The City of Beverly Hills filed a lawsuit on November 24, 2010 against the Beverly Hills Two Hours of Free Parking Initiative, Measure 2P, seeking to have the initiative removed from the March 8, 2011 ballot. A court hearing on the lawsuit took place on January 4, 2011. This resulted in Ann Jones, a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County removing the initiative from the ballot. In her ruling, Judge Jones said that Measure 2P is "impermissibly vague and clearly invalid."^[1][2][3] On January 6, 2011, the California Court of Appeal granted a stay to backers of the initiative. The stay order blocks the ruling of the trial court that removed the measure from the ballot. The stay is temporary ("pending further order of this court").^[2]

• On June 22, opponents of the San Francisco Circumcision Ban, slated to appear on the November 8, 2011 ballot, filed a lawsuit seeking to have the circumcision ban ballot measure removed from the ballot. Michael Jacobs, the attorney who is representing the plaintiffs, said that the technical basis for the lawsuit is that the State of California prohibits local governments from restricting medical procedures.^[4]

• Supporters of the San Clemente Playa Del Norte Development at North Beach, Measure A filed a lawsuit after the measure was defeated on March 8, 2011, seeking to have the results of the election thrown out on the grounds that the ballot materials didn't adequately explain what voters would be voting on. The attorney for the plaintiffs specifically argued that the voter information materials and the city attorney's analysis were inaccurate because they included and described the Playa del Norte development proposal. As well, they argued that part of Measure A's language called for voters to vote on specific use permits, and that specific use permits are an administrative decision, and that administrative decisions are prohibited under California law from being taken up in a ballot measure. On July 28, 2011, Judge James Di Cesare ruled against the plaintiffs, saying, "The petition ... is denied...After an election has already taken place, its results may only be challenged on the basis that (1) there has been a violation of California Elections Code ... or (2) if there has been a constitutional violation....Issues raised by petitioners do not amount to constitutional violations."^[5]

Campaign contributions[edit]

None

Constitutionality[edit]

See also: Mississippi Initiative 26, Definition of Person Amendment (2011)

• On July 15, 2010 Jackson Attorney Robert McDuff filed a lawsuit against the state of Mississippi on behalf of two Lafayette County residents (Deborah Hughes and Cristen Hemmins). In a statement, McDuff said, "This lawsuit is brought to preserve Mississippi's Bill of Rights. This Initiative specifically attempts to modify the Mississippi Bill of Rights by changing the word "person" to include a fertilized egg. Like the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, the Mississippi constitution states that 'the initiative process shall not be used...for the proposal, modification or repeal of any portion of the bill of rights of this constitution.'" McDuff argued that the change could lead to government interference in the doctor-patient relationship and may lead to numerous lawsuits against physicians. Steve Crampton, an attorney for the Liberty Counsel who helped circulate petitions for the proposed measure, said the McDuffs arguments are "speculative." On October 26, 2010 a Hinds County judge cleared the measure for the 2011 ballot. Judge Malcolm Harrison ruled that the initiative should appear on the ballot because supporters collected the required signatures and the constitution recognizes the right of citizens to change the state constitution.^{[6][7][8][9][10]}

See also: Mississippi Eminent Domain Amendment (2011)

• It was reported on June 5, 2011 that a lawsuit was filed in Hinds County Circuit Court challenging the ballot measure. The lawsuit was filed against the Mississippi Secretary of State's office by Leland Speed, a Mississippi businessman who is the leader of the Mississippi Development Authority. However, Speed stated that he filed the lawsuit as a private citizen. According to Speed: “This initiative will hurt opportunities for thousands of Mississippians for better jobs and for better lives."^[11] Specifically, the lawsuit challenges that the measure is unconstitutional, as Speed argues that it attempts to amend the state's Bill of Rights, which he says cannot be changed by initiative.

Electronic signatures[edit]

• Ni v Slocum: After hearing arguments in May, the California First District Court of Appeals has issued a ruling in Ni v Slocum which prohibits electronic signature collection in California. Verafirma founder Michael Ni filed the suit, challenging San Mateo County's rejection of an electronic signature in favor of Proposition 19. However, in its June 30 decision, the court ruled that the term "affix," as used in California law, implies a physical signature.^{[12][13][14][15]} The full opinion can be found here.

Motivation of sponsors[edit]

None

Petitioner residency[edit]

• Citizens in Charge v Gale: A lawsuit challenging Nebraska's residency requirement got underway on April 20, 2011. In Citizens in Charge v Gale, the ACLU is representing the Citizens in Charge Foundation and Libertarian Party against Nebraska Secretary of State John Gale. The presiding judge is Joseph F. Bataillion of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. The lawsuit also challenges an increase in the signature requirements for placing an independent candidate on the ballot and a law requiring petitions to indicate whether the circulator is paid or volunteer.^[16]

Post-certification removal[edit]

• California: Removal of Measure J from the ballot in the City of Ventura. Ruling on a lawsuit filed by the City of Ventura, on August 22 Judge Mark Borrell removed Measure J from the ballot, on the grounds that the veto referendum process should have been used to remove recently-installed parking meters, not the initiative process.^[17]

• California: Opponents of the San Francisco Circumcision Ban, slated to appear on the November 8, 2011 ballot, successfully sued to have the already-certified circumcision ban ballot measure removed from the ballot on the grounds that the State of California prohibits local governments from restricting medical procedures.^[4][18]

Post-election invalidation[edit]

• Colorado: Kerr et al. v. State of Colorado: More than 30 Colorado officials from both political parties have filed suit in federal court, challenging the state's almost 20-year-old Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). The ballot measure, passed in 1992, requires voter approval for tax/revenue increases that exceed a certain limit. This limit is variable and calculated by considering increases in population and the rate of inflation. Opponents charge that the measure is unconstitutionally restrictive since it "deprives the state and its citizens of effective representative democracy." Proponents of the bill expressed strong skepticism about the lawsuit's prospects.^[19][20]
  Mesa and El Paso Counties, home to Grand Junction and Colorado Springs, respectively, have officially denounced the lawsuit. While the Mesa County Resolution urges the court to uphold the amendment, the El Paso County Resolution additionally authorizes the County Attorney to intervene in the case. Other Colorado counties are reportedly considering similar resolutions.

• California: Supporters of the San Clemente Playa Del Norte Development at North Beach, Measure A filed a lawsuit after the measure was defeated on March 8, 2011, seeking to have the results of the election thrown out on the grounds that the ballot materials didn't adequately explain what voters would be voting on. The attorney for the plaintiffs specifically argued that the voter information materials and the city attorney's analysis were inaccurate because they included and described the Playa del Norte development proposal. As well, they argued that part of Measure A's language called for voters to vote on specific use permits, and that specific use permits are an administrative decision, and that administrative decisions are prohibited under California law from being taken up in a ballot measure. On July 28, 2011, Judge James Di Cesare ruled against the plaintiffs, saying, "The petition ... is denied...After an election has already taken place, its results may only be challenged on the basis that (1) there has been a violation of California Elections Code ... or (2) if there has been a constitutional violation....Issues raised by petitioners do not amount to constitutional violations."^[21]

• California: Opponents of Measure BB, the Monterey Park Trash-Hauling Ordinance, filed a lawsuit seeking to have the ballot measure declared null-and-void, after the city's voters had approved it with 71.6% of the vote. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Torribio ruled against the plaintiffs.^[22]

• California: Following through on a lawsuit originally filed in 2008, a San Francisco court in October 2011 invalidated nearly every provision of Proposition M, which voters approved on November 4, 2008.^[4]

• Washington: Two labor unions, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters, challenged Washington's 2011 voter-approved liquor privatization initiative. Beside privatizing liquor sales, the unions note that the measure also changed regulations on wine distribution, liquor franchises, and alcohol advertising. This, they argued, violates the state's single-subject rule. They also argued that the changes were designed to benefit the chief backer of the measure, Costco. About 1,000 union workers are expected to lose their current jobs under the plan.^[23]

Single-subject rule[edit]

None

Signature challenges[edit]

See also: Post-certification signature challenge

• On February 2, 2010, Personhood Mississippi filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Jim Hood and Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann regarding the group's effort to place the Life Begins at the Moment of Fertilization Initiative on the ballot. The lawsuit was filed as an attempt to clarify the state laws governing the initiative process. Stephen Crampton, Personhood Mississippi attorney, believed that state law allowed for a full year to gather signatures. However, according to a Mississippi Attorney General 1996 opinion signatures must be certified and turned in by the one year deadline. Crampton said that he wanted the federal court to weigh in on the issue because signature verification by circuit clerks can take months and could potentially change the "signature deadline" for the group.^[24][25]

• The group ProgressOhio challenged the petition signatures collected for the Ohio health care measure with the Ohio Supreme Court in hopes of taking the measure off of the ballot. However, on August 12, 2011, the high court ruled that the measure did indeed collect enough valid signatures, and it should stay on the ballot. According to the ruling, ProgressOhio did not provide proof that supporters of the measure failed to collect the required 385,245 signatures needed to make the ballot.

Traffic camera lawsuits[edit]

• Longview referendum: In late May, proponents of a ban on traffic cameras in Longview, WA filed suit against the city for refusing to verify their signature filing. Arguing that the ban was outside the scope of the initiative and referendum process, the city refused to submit the signatures to the county auditor for verification. A few weeks later, the city reversed its decision, allowing the signatures to be tallied. However, initial reports reveal that over half the signatures checked so far are invalid. Although proponents initially filed 3,628 signatures, this figure could drop well below the 2,830 needed to place the referendum on the ballot. Once the final count is published, proponents have a 10-day window to collect additional signatures. Sponsors expressed surprise at the results and plan to collect more signatures. The city maintains that its decision to count the signatures concedes "absolutely nothing" on the legality of the initiative. A hearing will be held on June 27, 2011 in Superior Court to consider the city's request for the measure to be declared invalid.^[26][27][28]

• Wenatchee referendum: On May 20, a Superior Court ruling rejected a local Wenatchee camera referendum, siding with plaintiffs, the City of Wenatchee and American Traffic Solutions Inc. The plaintiffs contended that the city's contract with ATS Inc. could not be voided via referendum (See decision).^[29]

• Mukilteo referendum: Prior to the November election, the City of Mukilteo also attempted to have a similar ban removed from the ballot. The State Supreme Court refused to intervene in the case, and the law remained on the ballot (See decision).^[30] Following the court's ruling and the overwhelming passage of the measure, city officials determined that traffic camera laws were not subject to referendum and decided to treat the vote as advisory. Currently, the Mukilteo case is again before the State Supreme Court. Initial reports suggest that the court is sympathetic to the initiative's proponents.^[31][32]

• Houston charter amendment: On June 17, the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas struck down a Houston referendum banning traffic cameras in the city. The case, City of Houston v American Traffic Solutions, Inc., featured the same camera company involved in Washington's camera referendum lawsuits. However, unlike the Washington lawsuits, the case did not hinge on the ability of voters, via referendum, to cancel the city's contract with ATS, Inc. Instead, the court found that although initiative proponents had crafted the measure as a charter amendment to sidestep the expired deadline for an ordinary referendum, the measure was in reality a referendum and thus was subject to the deadline. An appeal is expected.^[33] The full opinion can be found here.

• Potential lawsuits: Proponents of a similar ban in Monroe, WA have had their signatures verified by the local county auditor. The ban now moves to the Monroe City Council which can either adopt the ban or place it on the ballot. It is unclear whether the city will attempt to challenge the validity of the measure. Residents of Bellingham, WA also submitted signatures on a similar measure this week, collecting almost double the required number.^[34][35]

Initiative process[edit]

See also: Mississippi Initiative 26, Definition of Person Amendment (2011)

• On February 2, 2010, Personhood Mississippi filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Jim Hood and Secretary of State Delbert Hosemann regarding the group's effort to place the Life Begins at the Moment of Fertilization Initiative on the ballot. The lawsuit was filed as an attempt to clarify the state laws governing the initiative process. Stephen Crampton, Personhood Mississippi attorney, believed that state law allowed for a full year to gather signatures. However, according to a Mississippi Attorney General 1996 opinion signatures must be certified and turned in by the one year deadline. Crampton said that he wanted the federal court to weigh in on the issue because signature verification by circuit clerks can take months and could potentially change the "signature deadline" for the group.^[36][37]

See also: Seattle Viaduct Tunnel Replacement Question (August 2011)

• In Seattle, the group Let's Move Forward in conjunction with the city attorney, filed a lawsuit to seek to block the Seattle Viaduct Tunnel question from being on the August 16 ballot. The issue went to a King County judge which ruled that a portion of the proposed ordinance could be voted on in a referendum. Those who filed the lawsuit stated that they will likely not seek an appeal of the ruling.

See also: Longview City Red Light Camera Advisory Question (November 2011)

• In the city of Longview, a lawsuit was reported to be filed against the city in order to force a vote on cameras to be binding and not just advisory. The fact that the city also did not turn over the signatures to the county clerk to be verified but instead held a session to decide on the issue, is also illegal according to lawyers for the petitioners. There was no open session to hear public opinion. Instead the decision was made solely by council members, an issue which is reportedly illegal.^[38]

• California: Chula Vista sponsor restrictions: Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs and Fair Competition has filed a motion in a federal court, seeking to have two state I&R regulations overturned as unconstitutional. The first, a natural person requirement, prohibits organizations from acting as initiative proponents. The second requires that individual proponents be identified on the petition forms. The group was forced to comply with these regulations when it promoted a measure allowing the city to contract with non-union construction firms. James Bopp Jr., lead attorney for the plaintiffs, argues that these laws run contrary to Supreme Court decisions supporting corporate and anonymous speech.^[39] Details and court documents for Chula Vista Citizens, et al. v. Norris, et al. can be found here. (dead link)

• California: Removal of Measure J from the ballot in the City of Ventura. Ruling on a lawsuit filed by the City of Ventura, on August 22 Judge Mark Borrell removed Measure J from the ballot, on the grounds that the veto referendum process should have been used to remove recently-installed parking meters, not the initiative process.^[40]

See also[edit]

Suggest a link

• Post-certification signature challenge
• Signature recovery lawsuit
• Ballot title litigation
• List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2011
• 2010 ballot measure litigation

Footnotes[edit]