List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
From Ballotpedia - Reading time: 32 min
| 2021 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2022 »
« 2020
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Scorecard | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| 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.
| |
This page lists summaries of lawsuits filed about ballot measures in 2021. 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.
By state[edit]
This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2021—by state—for measures proximate to 2021. It also lists 2021 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2021 or a later year.
Alaska
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alaska and 2021 ballot measures
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2021 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the Arizona Constitution prohibited veto referendums against bills that provide for support and maintenance of the state government. | |
| Court: Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Arizona Supreme Court found that sections 13 and 15 of SB1828 do fall into the support and maintenance exception of the Arizona Constitution, therefore, the issue cannot be put before voters on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Free Enterprise Club, et al. | Defendant(s): Katie Hobbs, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The Arizona Constitution does not allow for referendum of legislative actions “for the support and maintenance of the departments of state government and state institutions.” | Defendant argument: The veto referendum will leave the state with additional funds, and does not appropriate money. Therefore, the referendum can be subject to voters. |
Source: [1]
Arkansas
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2021 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra) |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms | Defendant argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional |
Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause. (Appealed) | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc., | Defendant(s): Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| 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: Superior court ruled that two sections are unconstitutional and the measure as a whole is unenforceable; an appeal was announced. | |
| 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
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the initiative violate the state's single-subject rule? | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and application for stay denied | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hollywood Park Casino Company, LLC and Cal-Pac Rancho Cordova, LLC | Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) and Coalition to Authorize Regulated Sports Wagering |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule because it includes sports betting, roulette and dice games, and a provision allowing the tribes to file suit against organizations that violate other state gambling limits. | Defendant argument: All matters in the initiative are related to gambling. |
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Colorado
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading; whether the measure adheres to the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Coloradans for Animal Care, opponents of the initiative | Defendant(s): The Colorado Title Board |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is misleading and incomplete; the initiative includes multiple subjects | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: The Fence Post
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment is substantially related to Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to appear on the 2021 ballot, which is limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR | |
| Court: Denver District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Wasserman of the Bell Policy Center and Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue | Defendant(s): Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, measure sponsor Michael Fields |
Source: KOAA.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition 118 is constitutional; whether it violates Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) | |
| Court: Denver District Court, Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and upheld Proposition 118; the measure does not violate TABOR; it is not an income tax; fees are held in the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chronos Builders, LLC | Defendant(s): Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Family and Medical Leave Insurance |
Source: Colorado Politics
Florida
| 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
Kentucky
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2021 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
Maine
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2021 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Residency requirement; whether the state's requirement that petition circulators be registered voters and, therefore, residents violates the First Amendment | |
| Court: United States District Court for the District of Maine | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, blocking the enforcement of Maine's voter registration and residency requirements for petition circulators | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Rep. William Faulkingham (R), We the People PAC, the Liberty Initiative Fund, and Nicholas Kowalski | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn |
| Plaintiff argument: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that "ballot access rules which reduce the pool of available circulators of initiative petitions is a severe impairment"; residency requirements significantly impede the ability of plaintiffs to qualify their measure for the ballot and prevent them from associating with a large portion of the available professional petition circulators; requiring out-of-state circulators to register with the state is sufficient to safeguard the integrity of the initiative process. | Defendant argument: Many other initiatives and veto referendums have been successfully qualified for the ballot while adhering to the state's circulator requirements, proving the requirements are not a severe burden; the state's circulator requirements have been upheld by state court rulings; the circulator requirements are necessary for the state's interests in protecting the integrity of the initiative process and "protecting the initiative’s grassroots nature." |
Source: United States District Court, District of Maine
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Question 1 violate the separation of powers or the companies' vested rights? | |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): NECEC Transmission, LLC and Avangrid Networks, Inc. | Defendant(s): Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, Maine Public Utilities Commission, Maine Senate, and Maine House of Representatives |
Source: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
| 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
Massachusetts
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2021 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
Mississippi
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure was placed on the ballot in accordance with the state constitution | |
| Court: Mississippi Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; initiative found invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Madison, Mississippi; Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler | Defendant(s): Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson |
| Plaintiff argument: Votes on the measure should not be counted because the measure was placed on the ballot in violation of the state constitution | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs could and should have filed the lawsuit much earlier before the measure was certified for the ballot. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
Missouri
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the Department of Social Services has to provide Medicaid to individuals that qualify under the 2020 initiative even if the legislature did not appropriate additional funds to expand Medicaid eligibility | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The amendment is constitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Stephanie Doyle, Melinda Hille, and Autumn Stultz | Defendant(s): Jennifer Tidball, Missouri Department of Social Services; Kirk Matthews, Missouri Healthnet Division; and Kim Evans, Department of Social Services-Family Support Division |
| Plaintiff argument: The state must allow the three plaintiffs to enroll in Medicaid per the expanded eligibility authorized by Amendment 2 and receive the same coverage as existing enrollees | Defendant argument: The agencies responsible for Medicaid administration cannot allow them to enroll since the legislature did not appropriate funding for the expansion |
Source: Missouri Independent
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the Missouri Constitution | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Americans for Prosperity-Missouri | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the Missouri Constitution because it does not create a new revenue source to fund Medicaid expansion in the state. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the Missouri Constitution because it does not require the legislature to appropriate funds and therefore does not need to include a new revenue source. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the Missouri Constitution | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): United for Missouri | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff arguments: The initiative violates the Missouri Constitution because it does not create a new revenue source to fund Medicaid expansion in the state. | Defendant arguments: The initiative does not violate the Missouri Constitution because it does not require the legislature to appropriate funds and therefore does not need to include a new revenue source. |
Sources: Missourinet and CT Post
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language and the summary statement is accurate | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Court of Appeals Western District | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; the ballot language and summary are fair and sufficiently summarize Amendment 1; appeal rejected | |
| Plaintiff(s): Missouri State Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick (R) | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language and summary is misleading and unfair | Defendant argument: The ballot language and summary accurately describes the amendment |
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certified ballot language and summary is accurate | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The majority of the summary is accurate; rewrote portion concerning parental influence | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sherri Talbott, a member of the Northwest School District Board of Education and sponsor of the initiative | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The language omits one of the purposes of the initiative and is biased against the initiative | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: News Tribune
Montana
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot measure denies Montana voters the right to vote for all seven Supreme Court justices | |
| Court: Montana 2nd Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the measure is unconstitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sister Mary Jo McDonald, Lori Maloney, Fritz Daily, Bob Brown, Dorothy Bradley, Vernon Finley, Mae Nan Ellingson, and the League of Women Voters of Montana | Defendant(s): Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure violates Montana voters' right to vote for all seven Supreme Court justices. | Defendant argument: Voting by district for state Supreme Court justices will better represent the different populations of the state. |
Source: Daily Montanan
Nevada
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2021 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the state's single subject rule and other constitutional requirements | |
| Court: Carson City District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendant. The initiative complies with constitutional and statutory requirements. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Nathan Helton, a registered voter in Churchill County | Defendant(s): Nevada Voters First |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the single subject rule, adds a cost to the state without creating a funding source, and has a deficient "description of effect." | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single subject rule. |
Source: The Nevada Independent
North Dakota
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2021 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
Ohio
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2021 ballot measures
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2021 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
Oklahoma
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure is constitutional; whether signatures collected for it will be valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled that measure is legally sufficient after striking Section 5 concerning retroactive expungement for marijuana convictions and amending the gist | |
| Plaintiff(s): Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action |
| Plaintiff argument: All signatures collected in Native American territory would be invalid; the measure is unconstitutional | Defendant argument: The lawsuit is a challenge attempting to try to block the measure by going after multiple points to see if any of them hold up in court; proponents are confident they will prevail |
Source: Cannabis Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure is constitutional; whether signatures collected for it will be valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Denied plaintiff's challenge; ruled that the measure is legally sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action |
| Plaintiff argument: All signatures collected in Native American territory would be invalid; the measure is unconstitutional; the gist is insufficient | Defendant argument: The lawsuit is a challenge attempting to try to block the measure by going after multiple points to see if any of them hold up in court |
Source: Oklahoma Secretary of State
Pennsylvania
| 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
South Dakota
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment comprises more than a single subject; whether the amendment is considered to be an amendment or a revision to the state constitution | |
| Court: Hughes County Circuit Court appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning Amendment A; the ruling was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court upon appeal. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller | Defendant(s): State of South Dakota; intervention by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure comprises more than one subject; the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature | Defendant argument: Amendment A contains one subject to which all provisions are essentially related, and the state constitution's definition of amendment and revision is permissive, not obligatory. |
Source: South Dakota Department of Public Safety
Texas
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Texas and 2021 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language complies with the city's charter | |
| Court: Third Court of Appeals;Texas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; Austin City Council ordered to change the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Linda Durin, Eric Krohn, and Michael Lovins | Defendant(s): Austin City Council; City of Austin |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language as written by the city council does not comply with the city's charter and is biased against the proposition. | Defendant argument: The ballot language does comply with the city's charter |
Source: Austin Bulldog
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is biased against the proposed initiative | |
| Court: Third Court of Appeals;Texas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot language submitted by petitioners complied with state law and should appear on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Save Austin Now | Defendant(s): Austin City Council; City of Austin |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language as written by the city council is biased against the proposition because it doesn't include key provisions of the initiative, and the estimated fiscal cost is also misleading. | Defendant argument: The ballot language does comply with the city's charter. |
Source: Austin-American Statesman
Washington
Ballotpedia is not covering any 2021 lawsuits about recent measures at this time.
By subject[edit]
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2021—by subject—for measures proximate to 2021. It also lists 2021 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2021 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]
| 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: Superior court ruled that two sections are unconstitutional and the measure as a whole is unenforceable; an appeal was announced. | |
| 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
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language complies with the city's charter | |
| Court: Third Court of Appeals;Texas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; Austin City Council ordered to change the ballot language | |
| Plaintiff(s): Linda Durin, Eric Krohn, and Michael Lovins | Defendant(s): Austin City Council; City of Austin |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language as written by the city council does not comply with the city's charter and is biased against the proposition. | Defendant argument: The ballot language does comply with the city's charter |
Source: Austin Bulldog
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading; whether the measure adheres to the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Coloradans for Animal Care, opponents of the initiative | Defendant(s): The Colorado Title Board |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is misleading and incomplete; the initiative includes multiple subjects | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: The Fence Post
| 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
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language and the summary statement is accurate | |
| Court: Filed in Cole County Circuit Court; appealed to Missouri Court of Appeals Western District | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; the ballot language and summary are fair and sufficiently summarize Amendment 1; appeal rejected | |
| Plaintiff(s): Missouri State Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick (R) | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language and summary is misleading and unfair | Defendant argument: The ballot language and summary accurately describes the amendment |
Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is biased against the proposed initiative | |
| Court: Third Court of Appeals;Texas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot language submitted by petitioners complied with state law and should appear on the ballot. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Save Austin Now | Defendant(s): Austin City Council; City of Austin |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language as written by the city council is biased against the proposition because it doesn't include key provisions of the initiative, and the estimated fiscal cost is also misleading. | Defendant argument: The ballot language does comply with the city's charter. |
Source: Austin-American Statesman
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certified ballot language and summary is accurate | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The majority of the summary is accurate; rewrote portion concerning parental influence | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sherri Talbott, a member of the Northwest School District Board of Education and sponsor of the initiative | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The language omits one of the purposes of the initiative and is biased against the initiative | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: News Tribune
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
Campaign finance[edit]
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2021.
Circulators[edit]
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Residency requirement; whether the state's requirement that petition circulators be registered voters and, therefore, residents violates the First Amendment | |
| Court: United States District Court for the District of Maine | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, blocking the enforcement of Maine's voter registration and residency requirements for petition circulators | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Rep. William Faulkingham (R), We the People PAC, the Liberty Initiative Fund, and Nicholas Kowalski | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn |
| Plaintiff argument: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that "ballot access rules which reduce the pool of available circulators of initiative petitions is a severe impairment"; residency requirements significantly impede the ability of plaintiffs to qualify their measure for the ballot and prevent them from associating with a large portion of the available professional petition circulators; requiring out-of-state circulators to register with the state is sufficient to safeguard the integrity of the initiative process. | Defendant argument: Many other initiatives and veto referendums have been successfully qualified for the ballot while adhering to the state's circulator requirements, proving the requirements are not a severe burden; the state's circulator requirements have been upheld by state court rulings; the circulator requirements are necessary for the state's interests in protecting the integrity of the initiative process and "protecting the initiative’s grassroots nature." |
Source: United States District Court, District of Maine
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
Legislative alteration[edit]
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding legislative alteration that took place in 2021.
Post-certification removal[edit]
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure was placed on the ballot in accordance with the state constitution | |
| Court: Mississippi Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; initiative found invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Madison, Mississippi; Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler | Defendant(s): Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson |
| Plaintiff argument: Votes on the measure should not be counted because the measure was placed on the ballot in violation of the state constitution | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs could and should have filed the lawsuit much earlier before the measure was certified for the ballot. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the Department of Social Services has to provide Medicaid to individuals that qualify under the 2020 initiative even if the legislature did not appropriate additional funds to expand Medicaid eligibility | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The amendment is constitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Stephanie Doyle, Melinda Hille, and Autumn Stultz | Defendant(s): Jennifer Tidball, Missouri Department of Social Services; Kirk Matthews, Missouri Healthnet Division; and Kim Evans, Department of Social Services-Family Support Division |
| Plaintiff argument: The state must allow the three plaintiffs to enroll in Medicaid per the expanded eligibility authorized by Amendment 2 and receive the same coverage as existing enrollees | Defendant argument: The agencies responsible for Medicaid administration cannot allow them to enroll since the legislature did not appropriate funding for the expansion |
Source: Missouri Independent
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the Missouri Constitution | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Americans for Prosperity-Missouri | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the Missouri Constitution because it does not create a new revenue source to fund Medicaid expansion in the state. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the Missouri Constitution because it does not require the legislature to appropriate funds and therefore does not need to include a new revenue source. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the Missouri Constitution | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): United for Missouri | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff arguments: The initiative violates the Missouri Constitution because it does not create a new revenue source to fund Medicaid expansion in the state. | Defendant arguments: The initiative does not violate the Missouri Constitution because it does not require the legislature to appropriate funds and therefore does not need to include a new revenue source. |
Sources: Missourinet and CT Post
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment is substantially related to Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to appear on the 2021 ballot, which is limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR | |
| Court: Denver District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Wasserman of the Bell Policy Center and Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue | Defendant(s): Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, measure sponsor Michael Fields |
Source: KOAA.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment is substantially related to Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to appear on the 2021 ballot, which is limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR | |
| Court: Denver District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Wasserman of the Bell Policy Center and Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue | Defendant(s): Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, measure sponsor Michael Fields |
Source: KOAA.com
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
Post-election[edit]
| 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: Superior court ruled that two sections are unconstitutional and the measure as a whole is unenforceable; an appeal was announced. | |
| 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
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment comprises more than a single subject; whether the amendment is considered to be an amendment or a revision to the state constitution | |
| Court: Hughes County Circuit Court appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning Amendment A; the ruling was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court upon appeal. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller | Defendant(s): State of South Dakota; intervention by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure comprises more than one subject; the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature | Defendant argument: Amendment A contains one subject to which all provisions are essentially related, and the state constitution's definition of amendment and revision is permissive, not obligatory. |
Source: South Dakota Department of Public Safety
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure was placed on the ballot in accordance with the state constitution | |
| Court: Mississippi Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; initiative found invalid | |
| Plaintiff(s): City of Madison, Mississippi; Mayor Mary Hawkins Butler | Defendant(s): Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson |
| Plaintiff argument: Votes on the measure should not be counted because the measure was placed on the ballot in violation of the state constitution | Defendant argument: Plaintiffs could and should have filed the lawsuit much earlier before the measure was certified for the ballot. |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the Department of Social Services has to provide Medicaid to individuals that qualify under the 2020 initiative even if the legislature did not appropriate additional funds to expand Medicaid eligibility | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The amendment is constitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Stephanie Doyle, Melinda Hille, and Autumn Stultz | Defendant(s): Jennifer Tidball, Missouri Department of Social Services; Kirk Matthews, Missouri Healthnet Division; and Kim Evans, Department of Social Services-Family Support Division |
| Plaintiff argument: The state must allow the three plaintiffs to enroll in Medicaid per the expanded eligibility authorized by Amendment 2 and receive the same coverage as existing enrollees | Defendant argument: The agencies responsible for Medicaid administration cannot allow them to enroll since the legislature did not appropriate funding for the expansion |
Source: Missouri Independent
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the Missouri Constitution | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Americans for Prosperity-Missouri | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the Missouri Constitution because it does not create a new revenue source to fund Medicaid expansion in the state. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the Missouri Constitution because it does not require the legislature to appropriate funds and therefore does not need to include a new revenue source. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the Missouri Constitution | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): United for Missouri | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff arguments: The initiative violates the Missouri Constitution because it does not create a new revenue source to fund Medicaid expansion in the state. | Defendant arguments: The initiative does not violate the Missouri Constitution because it does not require the legislature to appropriate funds and therefore does not need to include a new revenue source. |
Sources: Missourinet and CT Post
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra) |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms | Defendant argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional |
Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause. (Appealed) | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc., | Defendant(s): Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition 118 is constitutional; whether it violates Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) | |
| Court: Denver District Court, Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and upheld Proposition 118; the measure does not violate TABOR; it is not an income tax; fees are held in the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chronos Builders, LLC | Defendant(s): Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Family and Medical Leave Insurance |
Source: Colorado Politics
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
Preemption[edit]
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding preemption that took place in 2021.
Signature validity[edit]
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure is constitutional; whether signatures collected for it will be valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled that measure is legally sufficient after striking Section 5 concerning retroactive expungement for marijuana convictions and amending the gist | |
| Plaintiff(s): Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action |
| Plaintiff argument: All signatures collected in Native American territory would be invalid; the measure is unconstitutional | Defendant argument: The lawsuit is a challenge attempting to try to block the measure by going after multiple points to see if any of them hold up in court; proponents are confident they will prevail |
Source: Cannabis Times
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure is constitutional; whether signatures collected for it will be valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Denied plaintiff's challenge; ruled that the measure is legally sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action |
| Plaintiff argument: All signatures collected in Native American territory would be invalid; the measure is unconstitutional; the gist is insufficient | Defendant argument: The lawsuit is a challenge attempting to try to block the measure by going after multiple points to see if any of them hold up in court |
Source: Oklahoma Secretary of State
Signature deadlines[edit]
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
Single subject[edit]
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment comprises more than a single subject; whether the amendment is considered to be an amendment or a revision to the state constitution | |
| Court: Hughes County Circuit Court appealed to the South Dakota Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Circuit Judge Christina Klinger ruled in favor of plaintiffs, overturning Amendment A; the ruling was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court upon appeal. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Pennington County Sheriff Kevin Thom and South Dakota Highway Patrol Superintendent Rick Miller | Defendant(s): State of South Dakota; intervention by South Dakotans for Better Marijuana Laws and New Approach South Dakota |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure comprises more than one subject; the measure does not simply amend the constitution but, rather, revises the constitution and therefore required a constitutional convention to be called for by a three-fourths vote of all the members of each house in the state legislature | Defendant argument: Amendment A contains one subject to which all provisions are essentially related, and the state constitution's definition of amendment and revision is permissive, not obligatory. |
Source: South Dakota Department of Public Safety
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading; whether the measure adheres to the state's single-subject rule | |
| Court: Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Coloradans for Animal Care, opponents of the initiative | Defendant(s): The Colorado Title Board |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot language is misleading and incomplete; the initiative includes multiple subjects | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: The Fence Post
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the state's single subject rule and other constitutional requirements | |
| Court: Carson City District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendant. The initiative complies with constitutional and statutory requirements. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Nathan Helton, a registered voter in Churchill County | Defendant(s): Nevada Voters First |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the single subject rule, adds a cost to the state without creating a funding source, and has a deficient "description of effect." | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the single subject rule. |
Source: The Nevada Independent
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Question 1 violate the separation of powers or the companies' vested rights? | |
| Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): NECEC Transmission, LLC and Avangrid Networks, Inc. | Defendant(s): Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, Maine Public Utilities Commission, Maine Senate, and Maine House of Representatives |
Source: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
| 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
| 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
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the initiative violate the state's single-subject rule? | |
| Court: California Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; Petition for writ of mandate/prohibition and application for stay denied | |
| Plaintiff(s): Hollywood Park Casino Company, LLC and Cal-Pac Rancho Cordova, LLC | Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) and Coalition to Authorize Regulated Sports Wagering |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule because it includes sports betting, roulette and dice games, and a provision allowing the tribes to file suit against organizations that violate other state gambling limits. | Defendant argument: All matters in the initiative are related to gambling. |
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Subject restriction[edit]
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment is substantially related to Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to appear on the 2021 ballot, which is limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR | |
| Court: Denver District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Wasserman of the Bell Policy Center and Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue | Defendant(s): Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, measure sponsor Michael Fields |
Source: KOAA.com
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the amendment is substantially related to Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) in order to appear on the 2021 ballot, which is limited to topics that concern taxes or state fiscal matters arising under TABOR | |
| Court: Denver District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Wasserman of the Bell Policy Center and Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue | Defendant(s): Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, measure sponsor Michael Fields |
Source: KOAA.com
Substantive constitutionality[edit]
| 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: Superior court ruled that two sections are unconstitutional and the measure as a whole is unenforceable; an appeal was announced. | |
| 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
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the Department of Social Services has to provide Medicaid to individuals that qualify under the 2020 initiative even if the legislature did not appropriate additional funds to expand Medicaid eligibility | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: The amendment is constitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Stephanie Doyle, Melinda Hille, and Autumn Stultz | Defendant(s): Jennifer Tidball, Missouri Department of Social Services; Kirk Matthews, Missouri Healthnet Division; and Kim Evans, Department of Social Services-Family Support Division |
| Plaintiff argument: The state must allow the three plaintiffs to enroll in Medicaid per the expanded eligibility authorized by Amendment 2 and receive the same coverage as existing enrollees | Defendant argument: The agencies responsible for Medicaid administration cannot allow them to enroll since the legislature did not appropriate funding for the expansion |
Source: Missouri Independent
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the Missouri Constitution | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): Americans for Prosperity-Missouri | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the Missouri Constitution because it does not create a new revenue source to fund Medicaid expansion in the state. | Defendant argument: The initiative does not violate the Missouri Constitution because it does not require the legislature to appropriate funds and therefore does not need to include a new revenue source. |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the Missouri Constitution | |
| Court: Missouri 19th Judicial Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, allowing a vote on the measure | |
| Plaintiff(s): United for Missouri | Defendant(s): Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) |
| Plaintiff arguments: The initiative violates the Missouri Constitution because it does not create a new revenue source to fund Medicaid expansion in the state. | Defendant arguments: The initiative does not violate the Missouri Constitution because it does not require the legislature to appropriate funds and therefore does not need to include a new revenue source. |
Sources: Missourinet and CT Post
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot measure denies Montana voters the right to vote for all seven Supreme Court justices | |
| Court: Montana 2nd Judicial District Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the measure is unconstitutional | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sister Mary Jo McDonald, Lori Maloney, Fritz Daily, Bob Brown, Dorothy Bradley, Vernon Finley, Mae Nan Ellingson, and the League of Women Voters of Montana | Defendant(s): Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen (R) |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure violates Montana voters' right to vote for all seven Supreme Court justices. | Defendant argument: Voting by district for state Supreme Court justices will better represent the different populations of the state. |
Source: Daily Montanan
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure is constitutional; whether signatures collected for it will be valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled that measure is legally sufficient after striking Section 5 concerning retroactive expungement for marijuana convictions and amending the gist | |
| Plaintiff(s): Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action |
| Plaintiff argument: All signatures collected in Native American territory would be invalid; the measure is unconstitutional | Defendant argument: The lawsuit is a challenge attempting to try to block the measure by going after multiple points to see if any of them hold up in court; proponents are confident they will prevail |
Source: Cannabis Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California) | |
| Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit | |
| Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra) |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms | Defendant argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional |
Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California | |
| Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause. (Appealed) | |
| Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc., | Defendant(s): Attorney General Xavier Becerra |
Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition 118 is constitutional; whether it violates Colorado Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) | |
| Court: Denver District Court, Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of defendants and upheld Proposition 118; the measure does not violate TABOR; it is not an income tax; fees are held in the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Fund | |
| Plaintiff(s): Chronos Builders, LLC | Defendant(s): Department of Labor and Employment, Division of Family and Medical Leave Insurance |
Source: Colorado Politics
Template:SBMLawsuitOverview.default
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure is constitutional; whether signatures collected for it will be valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Denied plaintiff's challenge; ruled that the measure is legally sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action |
| Plaintiff argument: All signatures collected in Native American territory would be invalid; the measure is unconstitutional; the gist is insufficient | Defendant argument: The lawsuit is a challenge attempting to try to block the measure by going after multiple points to see if any of them hold up in court |
Source: Oklahoma Secretary of State
Voter guide[edit]
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2021 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding voter guides that took place in 2021
Past measures[edit]
Note: This section shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2021 against past ballot measures.
Ballotpedia is not covering any state ballot measure lawsuits about measures from past years filed or concluded in 2021.
Local[edit]
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 2021 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 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
Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 | Original source: https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_ballot_measure_lawsuits_in_2021Status: cached on November 09 2022 02:57:58
EncycloReader
is supported by the 
KSF