List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
From Ballotpedia
2024 lawsuits →
| 2023 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2024 »
« 2022
| |
 | |
| Overview | |
| Scorecard | |
| Tuesday Count | |
| Deadlines | |
| Requirements | |
| Lawsuits | |
| Readability | |
| Voter guides | |
| Election results | |
| Campaigns | |
| Polls | |
| Media editorials | |
| Filed initiatives | |
| Finances | |
| Contributions | |
| Signature costs | |
| Ballot Measure Monthly | |
| Signature requirements | |
Have you subscribed yet?
Join the hundreds of thousands of readers trusting Ballotpedia to keep them up to date with the latest political news. Sign up for the Daily Brew.
| |
This page lists summaries of lawsuits filed about ballot measures in 2023. Lawsuits can be filed before an election specifically to keep a measure from being put on the ballot. Such pre-election lawsuits often allege one or more of the following:
- invalid signatures,
- unqualified signature gatherers,
- the unconstitutionality of the measure,
- biased or misleading petition language, or
- other criticisms that—if agreed to by a judge—could cause the measure to be removed or blocked from the ballot.
Pre-election lawsuits are most often filed against citizen initiatives and veto referendums.
Lawsuits alleging the invalidity or unconstitutionality of a measure independently from the presence of the measure on the ballot can also be filed. Such lawsuits are sometimes filed before the election and sometimes after the election. Sometimes these court cases extend for years after a measure has been approved.
By state
This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2023—by state—for measures proximate to 2023. It also lists 2023 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2023 or a later year.
Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 211 violate the freedom of speech? | |
| Court: Superior Court of Maricopa County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Center for Arizona Policy, Inc; Arizona Free Enterprise Club; et al. | Defendant(s): Arizona Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs; et al. |
Source: Superior Court of Maricopa County
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 211 violate the First Amendment? | |
| Court: Phoenix U.S. District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Americans for Prosperity | Defendant(s): Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the measure give too much power to the secretary of state, who is charged with gathering information on donors and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
Source: AZ Capitol Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should each circulator provide a separate affidavit for each petition they are gathering signatures for, and must a registration disclose the circulator's full residential address, including the unit number? | |
| Court: Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County | |
| Ruling: The court rejected the challenge by the plaintiffs. The statute does not support the claim that the affidavit must specifically relate to each new initiative. The residential addresses provided by petitioners were sufficient, and while a unit number is required, it is only required if a unit number is necessary to ensure that the individual could be contacted or questioned. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Seth Leibsohn, et al. | Defendant(s): Katie Hobbs, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The secretary of state needs to require petitioners to file separate affidavits for each petition they plan to circulate for. The addresses provided from circulators were not sufficient, and must include a unit number. | Defendant argument: The law does not require a new affidavit for each registration. The statute only requires the circulator's "residence address" and the plaintiffs have not provided proof that the addresses were insufficient so that the circulators could be contacted. |
Source: Leibsohn v. Hobbs ruling
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: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional | |
| 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
Colorado
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Denver County District Court and Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed in Denver District Court; appealed to Colorado Supreme Court, which affirmed that Colorado courts lack jurisdiction to rule on single subject requirements until measures have been approved by voters | |
| Plaintiff(s): Advance Colorado and Englewood City council member Steven Ward | Defendant(s): Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) |
Source: Denver Post
Maine
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2023 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Out of the 68,807 signatures validated by the secretary of state, are some of the approved signatures invalid? | |
| Court: Maine Superior Court | |
| Ruling: There was no evidence that signatures were gathered improperly, and if there is evidence of signatures being gathered incorrectly, that must be deferred to the secretary of state. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Bill Dunn | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows |
Source: Press Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Question 1 violate the separation of powers or the companies' vested rights? | |
| Court: Cumberland County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs, agreed enough work was completed in good faith for the developers to have a right to complete the project. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Russell Black et al. | Defendant(s): Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, Maine Public Utilities Commission, Maine Senate, and Maine House of Representatives |
Source: WCVB
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does state law require splitting the ballot initiative into three separate questions? | |
| Court: Cumberland County Superior Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Secretary of State Bellows; Ruling said that state law does not require the secretary of state to divide a ballot initiative into separate questions | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Rep. Christopher Caiazzo | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows |
| Plaintiff argument: State law requires that voters decide each issue contained in the ballot initiative as a separate question. | Defendant argument: State law provides a recommended format for petitioners, but it is not mandatory. |
Source: Portland Press Herald
Michigan
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: QUESTION | |
| Court: Michigan Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Fair Wage | Defendant(s): Michigan Board of State Canvassers |
Source: MLive
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does language of Proposal 3 conflict with the 1st and 14th amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan | |
| Plaintiff(s): Right to Life of Michigan, et al. | Defendant(s): Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, et al. |
Source: Lawsuit
Missouri
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State. | Defendant argument: The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved. |
Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate? | |
| Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District | |
| Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) | Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor |
Source: Missouri Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: The Kansas City Star
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Do the filed initiatives violate the Missouri Constitution? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Paul L. Berry III | Defendant(s): Missouri State Auditor |
Source: Case Number: 23AC-CC05352
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Are the summaries assigned by the secretary of state "biased and incorrect"? | |
| Court: Circuit Court of Cole County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jamie Corley | Defendant(s): Missouri Sec. of State John Ashcroft |
Source: Circuit Court of Cole County
Nevada
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Nevada and 2023 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the petition description inaccurate? | |
| Court: First District Court in Carson City | |
| Ruling: The petition was written incorrectly. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Danny Thompson, Thomas Morley | Defendant(s): Schools Over Stadiums PAC |
Source: The Nevada Independent
Ohio
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2023 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the petition contain more than one proposed amendment, and should the petition be divided into individual petitions? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The measure does not need to be divided | |
| Plaintiff(s): Margaret DeBlase, et al. | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the initiative include the text of statutory provisions that would be repealed if the initiative is approved? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The law does not require a petition to include the text of an existing statute. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Realtors Jennifer Giroux and Thomas E. Brinkman Jr | Defendant(s): Committee representing petitioners, Sec. of State Frank LaRose, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did the Ohio Ballot Board adopt misleading language for the ballot title? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, at al. | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Can Senate Joint Resolution 2, a joint resolution, set a special election date of August 8, 2023? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: SJR 2 can set a special election date of August 8, 2023, under the Ohio Constitution. | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Frank LaRose |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Issue 1 misleading and inaccurate? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Some aspects of the ballot title were inaccurate and needed to be rewritten, while other aspects that plaintiffs argued were misleading were valid. | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
Oklahoma
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to federal officials | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce and Oklahoma Farm Bureau | Defendant(s): State elections officials and initiative proponents |
Source: Oklahoma Farm Bureau
South Dakota
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Are petition circulation restrictions a violation of the First Amendment? | |
| Court: Western Division of United States District Court of South Dakota | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dakotans for Health, et. al. | Defendant(s): Bob Ewing, et. al. |
Source: Complaint
Wisconsin
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day. | Defendant argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so. |
Source: Kenosha News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day. | Defendant argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so. |
Source: Kenosha News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day. | Defendant argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so. |
Source: Kenosha News
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2023—by subject—for measures proximate to 2023. It also lists 2023 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2023 or a later year.
Subjects listed include the following:
- Ballot language - Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on petition forms or on the ballot
- Campaign finance - Lawsuits alleging campaign finance law violations
- Circulators - Lawsuits concerning the qualifications or actions of petition circulators
- Legislative alteration - Lawsuits concerning actions by legislatures to repeal or amend citizen initiatives.
- Post-certification removal - Lawsuits seeking the removal of a measure from the ballot after it was certified
- Post-election - Lawsuits filed concerning a measure after the election has already occurred
- Preemption - Lawsuits alleging that a measure is preempted by a higher authority (i.e. a state measure preempted by Federal authority/law or a local measure preempted by state authority/law)
- Signature validity - Lawsuits challenging the validity of signatures
- Signature deadlines - Lawsuits that argue proponents of a measure did not meet the procedural deadlines required to put a measure on the ballot
- Subject restriction - Lawsuits based on legal restrictions on the subject matter of ballot measures
- Substantive constitutionality - Lawsuits alleging that the content of a measure violates a constitutional provision such as a right to free speech or equal protection or that constitutional language added by a ballot measure is being violated by a statute, ordinance, or administrative action
- Voter guide - Lawsuits challenging the accuracy, form, neutrality, or clarity of language designed to appear on state-produced voter guides
Methodological note: Since multiple lawsuits are often filed surrounding one measure, and these lawsuits provide important context for each other, information about all lawsuits surrounding a specific measure will be listed whether or not each separate lawsuit concerns the subject under which the lawsuits are listed on this tab.
Ballot language
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional | |
| 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 petition contain more than one proposed amendment, and should the petition be divided into individual petitions? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The measure does not need to be divided | |
| Plaintiff(s): Margaret DeBlase, et al. | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the initiative include the text of statutory provisions that would be repealed if the initiative is approved? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The law does not require a petition to include the text of an existing statute. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Realtors Jennifer Giroux and Thomas E. Brinkman Jr | Defendant(s): Committee representing petitioners, Sec. of State Frank LaRose, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did the Ohio Ballot Board adopt misleading language for the ballot title? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, at al. | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Denver County District Court and Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed in Denver District Court; appealed to Colorado Supreme Court, which affirmed that Colorado courts lack jurisdiction to rule on single subject requirements until measures have been approved by voters | |
| Plaintiff(s): Advance Colorado and Englewood City council member Steven Ward | Defendant(s): Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) |
Source: Denver Post
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Can Senate Joint Resolution 2, a joint resolution, set a special election date of August 8, 2023? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: SJR 2 can set a special election date of August 8, 2023, under the Ohio Constitution. | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Frank LaRose |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Issue 1 misleading and inaccurate? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Some aspects of the ballot title were inaccurate and needed to be rewritten, while other aspects that plaintiffs argued were misleading were valid. | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State. | Defendant argument: The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved. |
Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate? | |
| Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District | |
| Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) | Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor |
Source: Missouri Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: The Kansas City Star
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2023 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2023 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2023.
Circulators
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 211 violate the freedom of speech? | |
| Court: Superior Court of Maricopa County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Center for Arizona Policy, Inc; Arizona Free Enterprise Club; et al. | Defendant(s): Arizona Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs; et al. |
Source: Superior Court of Maricopa County
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 211 violate the First Amendment? | |
| Court: Phoenix U.S. District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Americans for Prosperity | Defendant(s): Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the measure give too much power to the secretary of state, who is charged with gathering information on donors and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
Source: AZ Capitol Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should each circulator provide a separate affidavit for each petition they are gathering signatures for, and must a registration disclose the circulator's full residential address, including the unit number? | |
| Court: Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County | |
| Ruling: The court rejected the challenge by the plaintiffs. The statute does not support the claim that the affidavit must specifically relate to each new initiative. The residential addresses provided by petitioners were sufficient, and while a unit number is required, it is only required if a unit number is necessary to ensure that the individual could be contacted or questioned. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Seth Leibsohn, et al. | Defendant(s): Katie Hobbs, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The secretary of state needs to require petitioners to file separate affidavits for each petition they plan to circulate for. The addresses provided from circulators were not sufficient, and must include a unit number. | Defendant argument: The law does not require a new affidavit for each registration. The statute only requires the circulator's "residence address" and the plaintiffs have not provided proof that the addresses were insufficient so that the circulators could be contacted. |
Source: Leibsohn v. Hobbs ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Are petition circulation restrictions a violation of the First Amendment? | |
| Court: Western Division of United States District Court of South Dakota | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dakotans for Health, et. al. | Defendant(s): Bob Ewing, et. al. |
Source: Complaint
Legislative alteration
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the petition contain more than one proposed amendment, and should the petition be divided into individual petitions? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The measure does not need to be divided | |
| Plaintiff(s): Margaret DeBlase, et al. | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the initiative include the text of statutory provisions that would be repealed if the initiative is approved? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The law does not require a petition to include the text of an existing statute. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Realtors Jennifer Giroux and Thomas E. Brinkman Jr | Defendant(s): Committee representing petitioners, Sec. of State Frank LaRose, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did the Ohio Ballot Board adopt misleading language for the ballot title? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, at al. | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
Post-certification removal
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day. | Defendant argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so. |
Source: Kenosha News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day. | Defendant argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so. |
Source: Kenosha News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day. | Defendant argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so. |
Source: Kenosha News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state legislature filed the measures with the correct elections office before the referral deadline | |
| Court: Dane County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants; measures allowed to appear on April ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): EXPO Wisconsin and WISDOM | Defendant(s): Wisconsin Elections Commission |
| Plaintiff argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with county election officials by January 25 but missed the deadline by a day. | Defendant argument: The state legislature needed to file the referrals with the state elections commission by January 25 and did so. |
Source: Kenosha News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Out of the 68,807 signatures validated by the secretary of state, are some of the approved signatures invalid? | |
| Court: Maine Superior Court | |
| Ruling: There was no evidence that signatures were gathered improperly, and if there is evidence of signatures being gathered incorrectly, that must be deferred to the secretary of state. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Bill Dunn | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows |
Source: Press Herald
Post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional | |
| 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 Proposition 211 violate the freedom of speech? | |
| Court: Superior Court of Maricopa County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Center for Arizona Policy, Inc; Arizona Free Enterprise Club; et al. | Defendant(s): Arizona Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs; et al. |
Source: Superior Court of Maricopa County
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Proposition 211 violate the First Amendment? | |
| Court: Phoenix U.S. District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Americans for Prosperity | Defendant(s): Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, et al. |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the measure give too much power to the secretary of state, who is charged with gathering information on donors and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission? | |
| Court: Maricopa County Superior Court | |
Source: AZ Capitol Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should each circulator provide a separate affidavit for each petition they are gathering signatures for, and must a registration disclose the circulator's full residential address, including the unit number? | |
| Court: Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County | |
| Ruling: The court rejected the challenge by the plaintiffs. The statute does not support the claim that the affidavit must specifically relate to each new initiative. The residential addresses provided by petitioners were sufficient, and while a unit number is required, it is only required if a unit number is necessary to ensure that the individual could be contacted or questioned. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Seth Leibsohn, et al. | Defendant(s): Katie Hobbs, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The secretary of state needs to require petitioners to file separate affidavits for each petition they plan to circulate for. The addresses provided from circulators were not sufficient, and must include a unit number. | Defendant argument: The law does not require a new affidavit for each registration. The statute only requires the circulator's "residence address" and the plaintiffs have not provided proof that the addresses were insufficient so that the circulators could be contacted. |
Source: Leibsohn v. Hobbs ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does language of Proposal 3 conflict with the 1st and 14th amendment of the United States Constitution? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan | |
| Plaintiff(s): Right to Life of Michigan, et al. | Defendant(s): Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, et al. |
Source: Lawsuit
Preemption
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should Attorney General Andrew Bailey be compelled to approve fiscal summaries of the ballot initiatives proposed by Dr. Anna Fitz-James and Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, which would allow the campaign to start collecting signatures for the initiative? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Attorney General Andrew Bailey must approve the fiscal note for the initiatives. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Dr. Anna Fitz-James, State of Missouri ex rel. | Defendant(s): Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Scott Fitzpatrick, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The fiscal summaries must be approved by Attorney General Bailey in order for the initiative to be certified by the Secretary of State. | Defendant argument: The fiscal summaries, written by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, were inadequate because they contained “inadequate and divergent submissions” from government entities regarding the fiscal impact of the proposed initiatives, and should not be approved. |
Source: Missouri Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the cost estimate of the ballot initiative, estimated by State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, accurate? | |
| Court: Missouri Court of Appeals Western District | |
| Ruling: The fiscal notes are fair and sufficient | |
| Plaintiff(s): Rep. Hannah Kelly (R) and Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman (R) | Defendant(s): Scott Fitzpatrick, Missouri State Auditor |
Source: Missouri Court of Appeals
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot summary written by the office of the secretary of state misleading? | |
| Court: Missouri Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The ballot summary provided by the secretary of state was misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): ACLU | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft |
Source: The Kansas City Star
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the petition description inaccurate? | |
| Court: First District Court in Carson City | |
| Ruling: The petition was written incorrectly. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Danny Thompson, Thomas Morley | Defendant(s): Schools Over Stadiums PAC |
Source: The Nevada Independent
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: QUESTION | |
| Court: Michigan Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Fair Wage | Defendant(s): Michigan Board of State Canvassers |
Source: MLive
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Are the summaries assigned by the secretary of state "biased and incorrect"? | |
| Court: Circuit Court of Cole County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jamie Corley | Defendant(s): Missouri Sec. of State John Ashcroft |
Source: Circuit Court of Cole County
Signature validity
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Out of the 68,807 signatures validated by the secretary of state, are some of the approved signatures invalid? | |
| Court: Maine Superior Court | |
| Ruling: There was no evidence that signatures were gathered improperly, and if there is evidence of signatures being gathered incorrectly, that must be deferred to the secretary of state. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Bill Dunn | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows |
Source: Press Herald
Signature deadlines
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2023 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2023 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2023.
Single subject
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the petition contain more than one proposed amendment, and should the petition be divided into individual petitions? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The measure does not need to be divided | |
| Plaintiff(s): Margaret DeBlase, et al. | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Should the initiative include the text of statutory provisions that would be repealed if the initiative is approved? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: The law does not require a petition to include the text of an existing statute. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Realtors Jennifer Giroux and Thomas E. Brinkman Jr | Defendant(s): Committee representing petitioners, Sec. of State Frank LaRose, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court Ruling
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did the Ohio Ballot Board adopt misleading language for the ballot title? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendant | |
| Plaintiff(s): Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, at al. | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board, et al. |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Question 1 violate the separation of powers or the companies' vested rights? | |
| Court: Cumberland County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Jury ruled in favor of plaintiffs, agreed enough work was completed in good faith for the developers to have a right to complete the project. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Russell Black et al. | Defendant(s): Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands, Maine Public Utilities Commission, Maine Senate, and Maine House of Representatives |
Source: WCVB
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does state law require splitting the ballot initiative into three separate questions? | |
| Court: Cumberland County Superior Court and Maine Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of Secretary of State Bellows; Ruling said that state law does not require the secretary of state to divide a ballot initiative into separate questions | |
| Plaintiff(s): State Rep. Christopher Caiazzo | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Shenna Bellows |
| Plaintiff argument: State law requires that voters decide each issue contained in the ballot initiative as a separate question. | Defendant argument: State law provides a recommended format for petitioners, but it is not mandatory. |
Source: Portland Press Herald
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the measure violates the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Denver County District Court and Colorado Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed in Denver District Court; appealed to Colorado Supreme Court, which affirmed that Colorado courts lack jurisdiction to rule on single subject requirements until measures have been approved by voters | |
| Plaintiff(s): Advance Colorado and Englewood City council member Steven Ward | Defendant(s): Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D) |
Source: Denver Post
Subject restriction
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2023 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2023 regarding subject restrictions that took place in 2023.
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did Proposition 22 (a) limit the legislature's constitutional power to extend compensation benefits, (b) include a definition of amendment that was too expansive, and (c) violate the single-subject rule? | |
| Court: Alameda County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: State appeals court reversed the superior court's ruling and found the proposition is constitutional | |
| 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: Can Senate Joint Resolution 2, a joint resolution, set a special election date of August 8, 2023? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: SJR 2 can set a special election date of August 8, 2023, under the Ohio Constitution. | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Frank LaRose |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Is the ballot title for Issue 1 misleading and inaccurate? | |
| Court: Ohio Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Some aspects of the ballot title were inaccurate and needed to be rewritten, while other aspects that plaintiffs argued were misleading were valid. | |
| Plaintiff(s): One Person One Vote, Jeniece Brock, Brent Edwards, and Christopher Tavenor | Defendant(s): Ohio Ballot Board |
Source: Ohio Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Do the filed initiatives violate the Missouri Constitution? | |
| Court: Cole County Circuit Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Paul L. Berry III | Defendant(s): Missouri State Auditor |
Source: Case Number: 23AC-CC05352
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to federal officials | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce and Oklahoma Farm Bureau | Defendant(s): State elections officials and initiative proponents |
Source: Oklahoma Farm Bureau
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2023 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2023 regarding voter guides that took place in 2023
Past measures
Note: This section shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2023 against past ballot measures.
Ballotpedia is not covering any state ballot measure lawsuits about measures from past years filed or concluded in 2023.
Local
Ballotpedia covers all local measures in California, measures on the ballot for voters within the top 100 largest cities in the United States, and select measures that are notable because of their topic or because of the jurisdiction in which they are on the ballot.
A compiled list of 2023 lawsuits about local measures can be found here.
See also
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2013
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2014
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2011
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2010
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2009
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2016
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2015
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2017
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2018
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
- 2008 ballot measure lawsuits
- 2009 ballot measure litigation
- 2010 ballot measure litigation
- 2011 ballot measure litigation
- 2008 single-subject rule challenges
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 1999
