List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2022
From Ballotpedia
| 2022 U.S. state ballot measures | |
|---|---|
2023 »
« 2021
| |
 | |
| 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 | |
| State Ballot Measure Monthly | |
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 2022. 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 2022—by state—for measures proximate to 2022. It also lists 2022 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2022 or a later year.
Alaska
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Alaska and 2022 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus | Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai |
Source: Alaska Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE." | Defendant argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule. |
Source: Alaska Superior Court
Arizona
| 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: Whether the state can enforce a law while signatures for a veto referendum are being verified | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the law could not take effect during the signature verification process. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Save Local Restaurants | Defendant(s): Katie Hagen, Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations; California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D); and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The constitutional section governing veto referendums requires the state not to enforce the law once a veto referendum is filed. | Defendant argument: The state can enforce the law up until and unless the veto referendum makes the ballot. |
Source: AP News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative should be placed on the 2022 ballot | |
| Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joe Sanberg, sponsor of the initiative | Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) |
Source: Bloomberg Law
| 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
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the state ban on flavored tobacco products violate the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California | |
| Plaintiff(s): R.J. Reynolds, et. al. | Defendant(s): California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The flavored tobacco ban violates the U.S. Constitution's | Defendant argument: The state has the right to set regulations on such tobacco products. |
Source: New York Times
Colorado
| 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 ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; measure invalidated | |
| Plaintiff(s): Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) | Defendant(s): State elections officials, Make it Legal Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title is misleading and inaccurately says it can legalize something that is illegal under federal law | Defendant argument: The ballot title is not misleading; voters would understand the legalization of marijuana would remain illegal under federal law and would only be legalized in Florida |
Source: Tallahassee Democrat
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether restrictions imposed by state law on signature gathering for initiative petitions violates the First Amendment and federal equal-protections rights | |
| Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida | |
| Plaintiff(s): Florida Right to Pray Together, Citizens in Charge | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Laurel Lee and Attorney General Ashley Moody |
Source: Justia
Illinois
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Did the Illinois Right to Collective Bargaining Amendment violate the supremacy clause by using public funds to place the amendment on the ballot? | |
| Court: Fourth District Appellate Court of Illinois | |
| Ruling: The Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Seventh Judicial Circuit Court, which found that no reasonable grounds existed for the proposed taxpayer action because (1) Amendment 1 could have some valid applications that would not be subject to preemption and (2) preemption could only render Amendment 1 “dormant, not invalid.” | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sarah Sachen, Ifeoma Nkemdi, Joseph Ocol, and Alberto Molina | Defendant(s): The Illinois State Board Of Elections, et al. |
| Plaintiff argument: The plaintiffs argue that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) governs private sector collective bargaining nationwide, and because Amendment 1 would regulate the same activity by establishing a state-law right to collective bargaining for private-sector employees, it is subject to preemption by the NLRA and in violation of the supremacy clause. | Defendant argument: The defendants argue that no reasonable grounds existed for the filing of the plaintiff's complaint. |
Maine
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Maine and 2022 ballot measures
| 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
Massachusetts
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot summary is accurate or misleading | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; The ballot summary is fair and not misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christopher R. Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Galvin |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary is misleading because it does not explain that the legislature is not mandated to appropriate the additional income tax revenue to education and transportation. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Bloomberg
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative contains subjects that are unrelated | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of the defendants; the subjects are related. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Cumberland Farms | Defendant(s): Massachusetts Package Store Association |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative contains several subjects that are unrelated; therefore, the initiative should not have been cleared for circulation. | Defendant argument: The subjects addressed in the initiative are mutually dependent. |
Source: The Eagle-Tribune
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the subjects contained in the initiative were "related or mutually dependent" according to the state constitution | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the subjects of the initiative are not related. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Martin El Koussa et al. | Defendant(s): Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin (D) and Attorney General Maura Healey (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state constitutional requirement that subjects of an initiative must be "related or mutually dependent." | Defendant argument: The subjects of the initiative are "related or mutually dependent." |
Source: Commonwealth Magazine
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 2022 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the description of the effect of the measure on petitions is confusing, argumentative, and misleading | |
| Court: Carson City District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Eric Jeng and Emily Persaud-Zamora | Defendant(s): Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske |
Source: The Nevada Independent
Ohio
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Ohio and 2022 ballot measures
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Were the petition signatures submitted by the appropriate deadline? | |
| Court: Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio | |
| Ruling: Both parties agreed to settle. Secretary LaRose agreed to resubmit the initiative to the state legislature. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brandon Lynaugh, et al. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Frank LaRose, et al. |
Source: Settlement Order
Oklahoma
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether State Question 820 adheres to the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language and gist are accurate | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sponsors of State Questions 818 and 819 (Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action) | Defendant(s): Sponsors of State Question 820; elections officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule and the “gist is written to appeal to Oklahomans most likely to sign the document for ballot access” and “the ballot title is written to appeal to a broader group of Oklahomans at the ballot box” | Defendant argument: "Their claims about SQ 820 are purely political and have nothing to do with the actual language of SQ 820 or whether SQ 820 will survive this protest, which we firmly believe it will" |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the State Supreme Court can expedite the ballot title verification process and certify the question for the ballot before the challenge period ends | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sponsors of State Question 820 | Defendant(s): Elections officials |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signatures for State Question 820 are valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Oklahoma State Rep. Mike Reynolds (R); Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Elections officials, Secretary of State Brian Bingman |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is accurate | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): John Stotts, Karma Robinson, and Mary Chris Barth; Jed Green | Defendant(s): Elections officials, initiative proponents |
Source: Cannabis Business Times
Oregon
- See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Oregon and 2022 ballot measures
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the District of Oregon | |
| Ruling: | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oregon Firearms Federation and Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey | Defendant(s): Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment and should not take effect. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the state constitution's right to bear arms? | |
| Court: Harney County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: | |
| Plaintiff(s): Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation, Gliff Asmussen, and Joseph Arnold | Defendant(s): Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum (D) |
| Plaintiff arguments: The law violates the state constitution's right to bear arms and should not take effect. | Defendant arguments: Unknown |
Sources: U.S. News
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2022—by subject—for measures proximate to 2022. It also lists 2022 lawsuits about any measures for elections in 2022 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: Whether the ballot summary is accurate or misleading | |
| Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs; The ballot summary is fair and not misleading | |
| Plaintiff(s): Christopher R. Anderson, president of the Massachusetts High Technology Council | Defendant(s): Attorney General Maura Healey (D) and Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Galvin |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot summary is misleading because it does not explain that the legislature is not mandated to appropriate the additional income tax revenue to education and transportation. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
Source: Bloomberg
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the description of the effect of the measure on petitions is confusing, argumentative, and misleading | |
| Court: Carson City District Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): Eric Jeng and Emily Persaud-Zamora | Defendant(s): Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske |
Source: The Nevada Independent
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether State Question 820 adheres to the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language and gist are accurate | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sponsors of State Questions 818 and 819 (Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action) | Defendant(s): Sponsors of State Question 820; elections officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule and the “gist is written to appeal to Oklahomans most likely to sign the document for ballot access” and “the ballot title is written to appeal to a broader group of Oklahomans at the ballot box” | Defendant argument: "Their claims about SQ 820 are purely political and have nothing to do with the actual language of SQ 820 or whether SQ 820 will survive this protest, which we firmly believe it will" |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the State Supreme Court can expedite the ballot title verification process and certify the question for the ballot before the challenge period ends | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sponsors of State Question 820 | Defendant(s): Elections officials |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signatures for State Question 820 are valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Oklahoma State Rep. Mike Reynolds (R); Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Elections officials, Secretary of State Brian Bingman |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is accurate | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): John Stotts, Karma Robinson, and Mary Chris Barth; Jed Green | Defendant(s): Elections officials, initiative proponents |
Source: Cannabis Business Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is misleading | |
| Court: Florida Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; measure invalidated | |
| Plaintiff(s): Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) | Defendant(s): State elections officials, Make it Legal Florida |
| Plaintiff argument: The ballot title is misleading and inaccurately says it can legalize something that is illegal under federal law | Defendant argument: The ballot title is not misleading; voters would understand the legalization of marijuana would remain illegal under federal law and would only be legalized in Florida |
Source: Tallahassee Democrat
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2022 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2022 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2022.
Circulators
| 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: Whether restrictions imposed by state law on signature gathering for initiative petitions violates the First Amendment and federal equal-protections rights | |
| Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida | |
| Plaintiff(s): Florida Right to Pray Together, Citizens in Charge | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Laurel Lee and Attorney General Ashley Moody |
Source: Justia
Legislative alteration
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2022 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2022 regarding legislative alteration that took place in 2022.
Post-certification removal
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2022 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2021 regarding post-certification removal that took place in 2022.
Post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the state ban on flavored tobacco products violate the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California | |
| Plaintiff(s): R.J. Reynolds, et. al. | Defendant(s): California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The flavored tobacco ban violates the U.S. Constitution's | Defendant argument: The state has the right to set regulations on such tobacco products. |
Source: New York Times
| 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
Preemption
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2022 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2022 regarding preemption that took place in 2022.
Signature validity
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the state can enforce a law while signatures for a veto referendum are being verified | |
| Court: Sacramento Superior Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the law could not take effect during the signature verification process. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Save Local Restaurants | Defendant(s): Katie Hagen, Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations; California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D); and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The constitutional section governing veto referendums requires the state not to enforce the law once a veto referendum is filed. | Defendant argument: The state can enforce the law up until and unless the veto referendum makes the ballot. |
Source: AP News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether State Question 820 adheres to the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language and gist are accurate | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sponsors of State Questions 818 and 819 (Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action) | Defendant(s): Sponsors of State Question 820; elections officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule and the “gist is written to appeal to Oklahomans most likely to sign the document for ballot access” and “the ballot title is written to appeal to a broader group of Oklahomans at the ballot box” | Defendant argument: "Their claims about SQ 820 are purely political and have nothing to do with the actual language of SQ 820 or whether SQ 820 will survive this protest, which we firmly believe it will" |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the State Supreme Court can expedite the ballot title verification process and certify the question for the ballot before the challenge period ends | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sponsors of State Question 820 | Defendant(s): Elections officials |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signatures for State Question 820 are valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Oklahoma State Rep. Mike Reynolds (R); Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Elections officials, Secretary of State Brian Bingman |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is accurate | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): John Stotts, Karma Robinson, and Mary Chris Barth; Jed Green | Defendant(s): Elections officials, initiative proponents |
Source: Cannabis Business Times
Signature deadlines
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative should be placed on the 2022 ballot | |
| Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County | |
| Plaintiff(s): Joe Sanberg, sponsor of the initiative | Defendant(s): California Secretary of State Shirley Weber (D) |
Source: Bloomberg Law
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether State Question 820 adheres to the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language and gist are accurate | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sponsors of State Questions 818 and 819 (Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action) | Defendant(s): Sponsors of State Question 820; elections officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule and the “gist is written to appeal to Oklahomans most likely to sign the document for ballot access” and “the ballot title is written to appeal to a broader group of Oklahomans at the ballot box” | Defendant argument: "Their claims about SQ 820 are purely political and have nothing to do with the actual language of SQ 820 or whether SQ 820 will survive this protest, which we firmly believe it will" |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the State Supreme Court can expedite the ballot title verification process and certify the question for the ballot before the challenge period ends | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sponsors of State Question 820 | Defendant(s): Elections officials |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signatures for State Question 820 are valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Oklahoma State Rep. Mike Reynolds (R); Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Elections officials, Secretary of State Brian Bingman |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is accurate | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): John Stotts, Karma Robinson, and Mary Chris Barth; Jed Green | Defendant(s): Elections officials, initiative proponents |
Source: Cannabis Business Times
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Were the petition signatures submitted by the appropriate deadline? | |
| Court: Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio | |
| Ruling: Both parties agreed to settle. Secretary LaRose agreed to resubmit the initiative to the state legislature. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Brandon Lynaugh, et al. | Defendant(s): Secretary of State Frank LaRose, et al. |
Source: Settlement Order
Single subject
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus | Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai |
Source: Alaska Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE." | Defendant argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule. |
Source: Alaska Superior Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether State Question 820 adheres to the state's single-subject rule; whether the ballot language and gist are accurate | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sponsors of State Questions 818 and 819 (Oklahomans for Responsible Cannabis Action) | Defendant(s): Sponsors of State Question 820; elections officials |
| Plaintiff argument: The initiative violates the state's single-subject rule and the “gist is written to appeal to Oklahomans most likely to sign the document for ballot access” and “the ballot title is written to appeal to a broader group of Oklahomans at the ballot box” | Defendant argument: "Their claims about SQ 820 are purely political and have nothing to do with the actual language of SQ 820 or whether SQ 820 will survive this protest, which we firmly believe it will" |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the State Supreme Court can expedite the ballot title verification process and certify the question for the ballot before the challenge period ends | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled against plaintiffs | |
| Plaintiff(s): Sponsors of State Question 820 | Defendant(s): Elections officials |
Source: Oklahoma State Courts Network
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the signatures for State Question 820 are valid | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): Former Oklahoma State Rep. Mike Reynolds (R); Paul Tay | Defendant(s): Elections officials, Secretary of State Brian Bingman |
Source: Marijuana Moment
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the ballot language is accurate | |
| Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Dismissed | |
| Plaintiff(s): John Stotts, Karma Robinson, and Mary Chris Barth; Jed Green | Defendant(s): Elections officials, initiative proponents |
Source: Cannabis Business Times
| 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: 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
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2022 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2022 regarding subject restrictions that took place in 2022.
Substantive constitutionality
| 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: Does Ballot Measure 2 violate plaintiffs' rights to free political association, free speech, and due process? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ballot Measure 2 did not violate plaintiffs' rights; political parties can choose their preferred candidates through various means | |
| Plaintiff(s): Scott Kohlhaas, Alaskan Independence Party, Robert M. Bird, and Kenneth P. Jacobus | Defendant(s): State of Alaska, Office of Lieutenant Governor Division of Elections, Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer, and Director Gail Fenumiai |
Source: Alaska Supreme Court
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Was Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative based on the single-subject rule incorrect as a matter of law? | |
| Court: Alaska Supreme Court (appealed from the Alaska Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling, deciding that the ballot initiative was designed as a single subject—election reform. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Alaskans for Better Elections | Defendant(s): Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer and Division of Elections |
| Plaintiff argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative "unlawfully denied Alaskans for Better Elections and the citizens of Alaska the opportunity to exercise their constitutional initiative rights by refusing to certify 19AKBE." | Defendant argument: Lt. Gov. Kevin Meyer's decision to reject the ballot initiative was correct because the ballot initiative contains three subjects and therefore violates the state's single-subject rule. |
Source: Alaska Superior Court
| Lawsuits overview | |
| First lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the District of Oregon | |
| Ruling: | |
| Plaintiff(s): Oregon Firearms Federation and Sherman County Sheriff Brad Lohrey | Defendant(s): Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The measure is unconstitutional because it violates the Second Amendment and should not take effect. | Defendant argument: Unknown |
| Second lawsuit | |
| Issue: Whether the initiative violates the state constitution's right to bear arms? | |
| Court: Harney County Circuit Court | |
| Ruling: | |
| Plaintiff(s): Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation, Gliff Asmussen, and Joseph Arnold | Defendant(s): Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) and Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum (D) |
| Plaintiff arguments: The law violates the state constitution's right to bear arms and should not take effect. | Defendant arguments: Unknown |
Sources: U.S. News
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Does the state ban on flavored tobacco products violate the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause? | |
| Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California | |
| Plaintiff(s): R.J. Reynolds, et. al. | Defendant(s): California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) |
| Plaintiff argument: The flavored tobacco ban violates the U.S. Constitution's | Defendant argument: The state has the right to set regulations on such tobacco products. |
Source: New York Times
| 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
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2022 lawsuits about measures proximate to 2022 regarding voter guides that took place in 2022
Past measures
Note: This section shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled on in 2022 against past ballot measures.
Ballotpedia is not covering any state ballot measure lawsuits about measures from past years filed or concluded in 2022.
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 2022 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 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
