List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
From Ballotpedia
This page lists summaries of lawsuits about local ballot measures filed or ruled on in 2019. Lawsuits can be filed before an election specifically to keep a measure from being put on the ballot. Such pre-election lawsuits often allege one or more of the following:
- invalid signatures,
- unqualified signature gatherers,
- the unconstitutionality of the measure,
- biased or misleading petition language, or
- other criticisms that—if agreed to by a judge—could cause the measure to be removed or blocked from the ballot.
Pre-election lawsuits are most often filed against citizen initiatives and veto referendums; very infrequently are they filed against measures referred to the ballot by the legislature.
Lawsuits alleging the invalidity or unconstitutionality of a measure can also be filed after the election. Sometimes these court cases extend for years after a measure has been approved.
Click on the tabs below to see summaries of lawsuits:
- The By state tab organizes lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019 by state.
- The By subject tab organizes lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019 according to the subject of the lawsuits.
- The Historical measures tab lists lawsuits filed or ruled on in 2019 about historical local ballot measures.
- The State tab will bring you to information about lawsuits over statewide ballot measures.
By state
This tab lists lawsuits that were filed or ruled on in 2019—by state—for local measures proximate to 2019. It also lists 2019 lawsuits about any local measures targeting a ballot in 2020 or a later year.
Arizona
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Petition summary and pay-per-signature; whether the language on the petition was misleading and whether pay-per-signature was used illegally. | |
| Court: Filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals and then to the Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants initially and upon both appeals, allowing the measure to remain on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America | Defendant(s): The city of Phoenix and Building a Better Phoenix (the initiative's sponsoring group) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative should be blocked from the ballot because the summary of the initiative on petition sheets was misleading and sponsors paid petitioners according to the number of signatures collected, which violated state law, according to plaintiffs. | Defendant argument: Restricted to 100 words, as required, the petition language cannot be a comprehensive summary, but it did provide an explanation of the key provisions of the initiative and, therefore, the initiative petition drive was valid. Also, the ban on pay-per-signature applies only to statewide ballot measures, not to local ballot measures. |
Source: Arizona Supreme Court, Ahwatukee Foothills News, KTAR News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether enough submitted signatures were valid and whether the signature requirement calculated by the city clerk is legally valid | |
| Court: Pima County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping the initiative on the November 2019 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Tucson city voters Betty White, Ann Harris, and Mike Ebert | Defendant(s): Roger Randolph, as city clerk; F. Ann Rodriguez, as county recorder; The People's Defense Committee; and other city and county officials and initiative sponsors |
| Plaintiff argument: The signature requirement calculated and enforced by the city clerk violated state law and was too low; signatures declared valid by Pima County were, in fact, invalid; and the process of signature verification was not carried out according to the law. | Defendant argument: The signature requirement calculated and enforced by the city clerk was calculated properly according to the rules in the city charter as authorized by the Arizona Constitution and state statute, and the process for signature verification was carried out properly according to the law. |
Source: Pima Superior Court
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Measure T is constitutional | |
| Court: El Dorado County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: A temporary injunction against certain provisions was granted through January 24, 2019. The city then agreed to further delay implementation of Measure T while under judicial review. | |
| Plaintiff(s): South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group | Defendant(s): City of South Lake Tahoe |
| Plaintiff argument: "The ordinance is unconstitutional and unenforceable because (1) it discriminates against owners who are not 'permanent residents' while allowing 'permanent residents' to continue renting their properties to visitors as short-term rentals; (2) the initiative imposes occupancy limits without regard to the size of the property; (3) the initiative conflicts with state and county law regarding land use regulation in the Lake Tahoe Region; (4) the initiative impermissibly intrudes into administrative matters rather than legislative issues; (5) the initiative interferes with vested rights; (6) the initiative contains numerous vague and ambiguous terms; (7) the initiative violates the privileges and immunities clause of the US. Constitution; and (8) the initiative impairs the obligations of contracts." | Defendant argument: The initiative is enforceable because it received majority approval from voters in the city. |
Source: Lawsuit filing
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; Whether language used in the ballot question and summary description of the ballot measure was false and biased | |
| Court: Filed in Superior Court of San Francisco | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jennifer Hochstatter | Defendant(s): John Arntz, director of Department of Elections; San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee; and Dennis Herrera, San Francisco city attorney |
| Plaintiff argument: The official ballot question and summary description drafted by the city’s Ballot Simplification Committee and approved by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera are biased and will sway the results of the election against the initiative. | Defendant argument: Both the official ballot question and summary description were drafted and approved by neutral and independent entities. City Attorney Dennis Herrera has not taken a public position on the ballot measure, and the city's Ballot Simplification Committee is an independent body that conducts its proceedings in public view. |
Source: California Superior Court, Court House News, San Francisco Chronicle
Ohio
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality and lawfulness of the "Lake Erie Bill of Rights" | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio | |
| Ruling: The initiative was ruled invalid in its entirety | |
| Plaintiff(s): Drewes Farms Partnership | Defendant(s): City of Toledo, Ohio |
Source: Courthouse News
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2019—by subject—for local measures proximate to 2019. It also lists 2019 lawsuits about any local measures targeting a ballot in 2020 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
- Post-certification removal - Lawsuits seeking the removal of a local measure from the ballot after it was certified
- Post-election - Lawsuits filed concerning a local measure after the election has already occurred
- Preemption - Lawsuits alleging that a local 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 local 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 local ballot measures
- Substantive constitutionality - Lawsuits alleging that the content of a local measure violates a constitutional provision such as a right to free speech or equal protection.
- Voter approval requirements - Lawsuits concerning supermajority vote requirements, double majority vote requirements, or other requirements for approval at the ballot.
- 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: Petition summary and pay-per-signature; whether the language on the petition was misleading and whether pay-per-signature was used illegally. | |
| Court: Filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals and then to the Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants initially and upon both appeals, allowing the measure to remain on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America | Defendant(s): The city of Phoenix and Building a Better Phoenix (the initiative's sponsoring group) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative should be blocked from the ballot because the summary of the initiative on petition sheets was misleading and sponsors paid petitioners according to the number of signatures collected, which violated state law, according to plaintiffs. | Defendant argument: Restricted to 100 words, as required, the petition language cannot be a comprehensive summary, but it did provide an explanation of the key provisions of the initiative and, therefore, the initiative petition drive was valid. Also, the ban on pay-per-signature applies only to statewide ballot measures, not to local ballot measures. |
Source: Arizona Supreme Court, Ahwatukee Foothills News, KTAR News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Ballot language; Whether language used in the ballot question and summary description of the ballot measure was false and biased | |
| Court: Filed in Superior Court of San Francisco | |
| Plaintiff(s): Jennifer Hochstatter | Defendant(s): John Arntz, director of Department of Elections; San Francisco Ballot Simplification Committee; and Dennis Herrera, San Francisco city attorney |
| Plaintiff argument: The official ballot question and summary description drafted by the city’s Ballot Simplification Committee and approved by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera are biased and will sway the results of the election against the initiative. | Defendant argument: Both the official ballot question and summary description were drafted and approved by neutral and independent entities. City Attorney Dennis Herrera has not taken a public position on the ballot measure, and the city's Ballot Simplification Committee is an independent body that conducts its proceedings in public view. |
Source: California Superior Court, Court House News, San Francisco Chronicle
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2019.
Circulators
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether enough submitted signatures were valid and whether the signature requirement calculated by the city clerk is legally valid | |
| Court: Pima County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping the initiative on the November 2019 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Tucson city voters Betty White, Ann Harris, and Mike Ebert | Defendant(s): Roger Randolph, as city clerk; F. Ann Rodriguez, as county recorder; The People's Defense Committee; and other city and county officials and initiative sponsors |
| Plaintiff argument: The signature requirement calculated and enforced by the city clerk violated state law and was too low; signatures declared valid by Pima County were, in fact, invalid; and the process of signature verification was not carried out according to the law. | Defendant argument: The signature requirement calculated and enforced by the city clerk was calculated properly according to the rules in the city charter as authorized by the Arizona Constitution and state statute, and the process for signature verification was carried out properly according to the law. |
Source: Pima Superior Court
Post-certification removal
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019 regarding post-certification removal that took place in 2019.
Post-election
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 post-election lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019 that took place in 2019.
Preemption
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality and lawfulness of the "Lake Erie Bill of Rights" | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio | |
| Ruling: The initiative was ruled invalid in its entirety | |
| Plaintiff(s): Drewes Farms Partnership | Defendant(s): City of Toledo, Ohio |
Source: Courthouse News
Signature validity
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Signature validity; whether enough submitted signatures were valid and whether the signature requirement calculated by the city clerk is legally valid | |
| Court: Pima County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, keeping the initiative on the November 2019 ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Tucson city voters Betty White, Ann Harris, and Mike Ebert | Defendant(s): Roger Randolph, as city clerk; F. Ann Rodriguez, as county recorder; The People's Defense Committee; and other city and county officials and initiative sponsors |
| Plaintiff argument: The signature requirement calculated and enforced by the city clerk violated state law and was too low; signatures declared valid by Pima County were, in fact, invalid; and the process of signature verification was not carried out according to the law. | Defendant argument: The signature requirement calculated and enforced by the city clerk was calculated properly according to the rules in the city charter as authorized by the Arizona Constitution and state statute, and the process for signature verification was carried out properly according to the law. |
Source: Pima Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Petition summary and pay-per-signature; whether the language on the petition was misleading and whether pay-per-signature was used illegally. | |
| Court: Filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals and then to the Arizona Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants initially and upon both appeals, allowing the measure to remain on the ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America | Defendant(s): The city of Phoenix and Building a Better Phoenix (the initiative's sponsoring group) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative should be blocked from the ballot because the summary of the initiative on petition sheets was misleading and sponsors paid petitioners according to the number of signatures collected, which violated state law, according to plaintiffs. | Defendant argument: Restricted to 100 words, as required, the petition language cannot be a comprehensive summary, but it did provide an explanation of the key provisions of the initiative and, therefore, the initiative petition drive was valid. Also, the ban on pay-per-signature applies only to statewide ballot measures, not to local ballot measures. |
Source: Arizona Supreme Court, Ahwatukee Foothills News, KTAR News
Signature deadlines
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2019.
Single subject
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019 regarding single subject that took place in 2019.
Subject restriction
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019 regarding subject restriction that took place in 2019.
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Measure T is constitutional | |
| Court: El Dorado County Superior Court | |
| Ruling: A temporary injunction against certain provisions was granted through January 24, 2019. The city then agreed to further delay implementation of Measure T while under judicial review. | |
| Plaintiff(s): South Lake Tahoe Property Owners Group | Defendant(s): City of South Lake Tahoe |
| Plaintiff argument: "The ordinance is unconstitutional and unenforceable because (1) it discriminates against owners who are not 'permanent residents' while allowing 'permanent residents' to continue renting their properties to visitors as short-term rentals; (2) the initiative imposes occupancy limits without regard to the size of the property; (3) the initiative conflicts with state and county law regarding land use regulation in the Lake Tahoe Region; (4) the initiative impermissibly intrudes into administrative matters rather than legislative issues; (5) the initiative interferes with vested rights; (6) the initiative contains numerous vague and ambiguous terms; (7) the initiative violates the privileges and immunities clause of the US. Constitution; and (8) the initiative impairs the obligations of contracts." | Defendant argument: The initiative is enforceable because it received majority approval from voters in the city. |
Source: Lawsuit filing
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality and lawfulness of the "Lake Erie Bill of Rights" | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio | |
| Ruling: The initiative was ruled invalid in its entirety | |
| Plaintiff(s): Drewes Farms Partnership | Defendant(s): City of Toledo, Ohio |
Source: Courthouse News
Voter approval requirements
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019 regarding voter approval requirements that took place in 2019.
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2019 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019 regarding voter guide language that took place in 2019.
Historical measures
This tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2019 against historical local ballot measures. For lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2019, see the By state and "By subject tabs.
Ballotpedia did not cover any local ballot measure lawsuits about historical measures in 2019.
Statewide measures
- See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
Ballotpedia covers all statewide measures in every state.
A compiled list of 2019 lawsuits about statewide ballot 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 ballot measure lawsuits in 2019
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2021
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2023
- 2008 ballot measure lawsuits
- 2009 ballot measure litigation
- 2010 ballot measure litigation
- 2011 ballot measure litigation
- 2008 single-subject rule challenges
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 1999
- List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2024
- List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2024
Footnotes
| |||||||||||||
