Ballot measure lawsuit news

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Ballot law
Image:ExamineBallot.png
State laws
Initiative law
Recall law
2009 lawsuits
Statutory changes
Court cases
Lawsuit news
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges

News headlines from around the country on ballot law news.


Maine anti-tax group takes secretary of state to court

AUGUSTA, Maine: This week a Maine anti-tax group - Still Fed Up With Taxes - filed a lawsuit with the Kennebec County Superior Court requesting that the court order Secretary of State Matt Dunlap to finish reviewing signatures for the Maine tax code referendum (2010).[1] The proposed measure, which was filed through the People's Veto provision, calls for the repeal of an enacted tax code overhaul. The overhaul includes an income tax rate cut, a broadening of the state sales tax to more items and an increase in the state meals and lodging tax. The overhaul passed the Maine Legislature and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci in 2009.[2]

Still Fed Up With Taxes filed petitions supporting the referendum in September 2009 but state election officials have yet to verify the signatures. The verification deadline was October 13, 2009.[3] In order to place the referendum on the June 2010 ballot supporters are required to submit a minimum of 10% of the number of people who voted in the last governor’s election - 55,087 signatures.[2]


Oregon anti-tax group files lawsuit against ballot titles

SALEM, Oregon: Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes has filed lawsuits with the Marion County Circuit Court challenging the impartiality of two ballot measure titles - Measure 66 and Measure 67. The proposed measures seek to overturn $733 million in tax increases. Additionally, on October 28 the group filed four appeals with the Oregon Supreme Court. According to the group, on November 17 they plan to request an injunction in order to prevent the Oregon Secretary of State from using the ballot titles in the voter's guide.[4]

The ballot titles were written by a special panel that consisted of four Democratic members and two Republicans. However, some Oregonians said that they are worried about possible ballot title bias. Both measures are expected to appear on the January 26, 2009 statewide ballot.[5]

Ballot titles can be found here:


SCOTUS upholds R-71 ban on petition names

OLYMPIA, Washington: In an 8 to 1 vote the United States Supreme Court ruled to uphold the ban on releasing Referendum 71 petition signatures. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. According to reports the injunction on the signatures, which is expected to remain until at least the November election, will remain in place unless new motions are filed.[6] On Monday Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary injunction.[7] Kennedy's ruling came only days after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to release the names on R-71 petitions. [8]


Runner files lawsuit against Jerry Brown's office over ballot title

Example of a photo ID

SACRAMENTO, California: State Senator George Runner has filed a lawsuit against the office of the California Attorney General, alleging that the ballot title written by that office for the "Photo ID to Vote" measure that would require people to show a picture ID before they could vote is misleading.[9]

Runner said that Brown's ballot title is "way over the top".

The office of the attorney general said they think the lawsuit is "without merit".

The ballot title written by Brown's office says that the "Photo ID to Vote" proposition would place "limits" on voting and "prohibits citizens from voting" unless they produce the photo ID.[9]


Supreme Court Justice temporarily blocks R-71 names

OLYMPIA, Washington: Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy temporarily blocked state officials from releasing any names on Referendum 71 petitions.[10] Kennedy's temporary block comes only days after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to release the names on R-71 petitions. [11] Kennedy's Monday ruling resulted after Protect Marriage Washington requested that the United States Supreme Court review the recent ruling by the Court of Appeals.[12]


Joe Mathews wants four changes to California's initiative system

LOS ANGELES, California: Joe Mathews, an Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author of Blockbuster Democracy has argued in a column published in the Los Angeles Times that "California's system is deeply flawed."[13]

He recommends four changes:

  • "Make initiatives subject to the same rules as legislation."[13]
  • "Extend the same flexibility to constitutional revisions as constitutional amendments."
  • Permit the Legislature more involvement with the initiative process.
  • Make it easier for voters to overturn the Legislature through a more referendum-based direct democracy.[13]

California court upholds Prop 63 tax on wealthy

LOS ANGELES, California: On October 14, the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles upheld a trial court ruling against the plaintiffs in Jensen v. California Franchise Tax Board. Plaintiffs Craig and Sally Jensen had challenged the wealth tax imposed in 2004 via Proposition 63, suggesting that it violated the equal protection clause of the federal and state constitutions.[14]

Proposition 63 imposes an additional 1% tax on annual incomes over $1 million.[15]

The three-judge appellate panel wrote that the Jensens "are mistaken in thinking that taxpayers in a particular tax bracket cannot be singled out for an income tax to benefit society at large."[14]

Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds said that the decision is good news for Nevada and Arizona, to the extent that these states are seeking to attract the immigration of wealthy individuals from California.[16]


Alaska officials reject ballot measure settlement

JUNEAU, Alaska: Last week Alaska Public Offices Commission (APOC) rejected a $35,000 settlement regarding the Alaska Clean Water Act (2008). During a hearing held on that day, the attorney for the Pebble Partnership criticized the settlement, calling it a “slap on the wrist” and would not be a good message for future violators.[17] Earlier this year, the Pebble Partnership and the Resource Development Council filed a complaint with APOC claiming that Bob Gillam, an Anchorage financial manager, broke the law in hiding his contributions from voters, regarding the Clean Water measure. Gillam and three associated advocacy groups denied the claims.[18]


R-71 signature privacy case continues

OLYMPIA, Washington: Referendum 71 opponents announced late last week that they want the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the signature privacy case.[19] Earlier last week the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to reverse the decision made by U.S. District Judge Ben Settle. Settle ruled that releasing the names of Referendum 71 petition signers could violate their First Amendment rights.[20]


Oregonians worried about ballot title bias

SALEM, Oregon: Oregonians are worried about possible ballot title bias regarding two tax measures scheduled to appear on the January 26, 2010 ballot.[21] Just last week the Oregon Legislature announced that they are preparing to write ballot titles for Measure 66 and Measure 67, which directly challenge two tax bills - House Bill 2649 and House Bill 3405. Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed the bills on July 20, 2009. The tax bills increase taxes in the state by $733 million through increasing the state’s corporate minimum tax, raising taxes on the state’s high-income individuals and raising income taxes on businesses.[22] However, Oregonians said that they are concerned about the appointed special panel that will be writing the ballot titles. The panel consists of four Democratic members and two Republicans. Democratic legislators have in the past spoken in favor of the tax increases and argue that they are necessary to balance the state budget. Tax critics worry that this will result in a biased ballot title. If a problem does arise once the ballot titles have been written the language can be appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.[23] Senate President Peter Courtney said, "The committee will write a ballot title that will make it clear to voters what they are voting on."[21]


Washington Court of Appeals lifts ban on R-71 petitions

OLYMPIA, Washington: Today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order to reverse the decision made by U.S. District Judge Ben Settle. Settle ruled that releasing the names of Referendum 71 petition signers could violate their First Amendment rights. The 9th Circuit Court began listening to arguments yesterday.[24] In response to the court ruling, state elections director Nick Handy said,"The winner here is open government."[25]

The three-member panel consists of Judges Harry Pregerson, A. Wallace Tashima, and N. Randy Smith. Washington courts have been listening to arguments since July 2009 regarding the signature privacy of R-71 petition signers.

After listening to arguments yesterday, Judge Tashima said,"Can we take judicial notice of the fact that the plaintiffs represent people who are in the majority? This isn’t a persecuted minority." However, plaintiff attorney responded by saying that the majority cannot be determined just yet. Referendum 71 is scheduled for the November 3, 2009 ballot. "You’ve won all the elections around the country so far," responded Tashima. The judge later noted that he believes the case revolves around "politics."[26]

Timeline:


Colorado Supreme Court rules on Secret Ballot title challenge

DENVER, Colorado: Earlier this week the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the three measures (Initiatives 22-24), also known as the Colorado Save Our Secret Ballot (2010), do not violate the state's single-subject rule.[27] The challenge was filed by Philip Hayes of the AFL-CIO. According to court documents, Hayes argues that the ballot language violated the state's single-subject rule, which is a constitutional requirement that amendments address only one topic so as not to confuse voters.[28] In reaction to the news, Mark Grueskin, legal representative of Hayes said that the court fairly addressed their challenge. However, Grueskin added,"We still think people will be confused by these measures: They purport to create exceptions to federal law and guarantee certain rights that will have to be litigated in the future."[29]

The ballot title reads as follows:

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning the right to vote by secret ballot regarding employee representation, and, in connection therewith, guaranteeing the fundamental right of individuals to vote by secret ballot where state or federal law requires or permits elections or designations or authorizations of employee representation?[27]

Eyman petitions to stay private for now

OLYMPIA, Washington: Yesterday, Judge Richard Hicks of the Thurston County Superior Court granted a temporary restraining order blocking the release of petition signatures relating to approximately 11 initiatives (including this years I-1033), most of which were filed by Tim Eyman.[30] Eyman filed the lawsuit earlier this week citing that signers' identities are protected by the freedom of speech, however state officials argue that an injunction will threaten open government and impact campaign disclosure laws.[31] Judge Hicks said on Wednesday that he wants to wait for the ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Referendum 71. Earlier this year, R-71 signatures were also temporary blocked.[30]


Oregon legislature prepares to write tax measure ballot titles

SALEM, Oregon: Next week the Oregon Legislature will be writing the ballot titles for ballot measures scheduled to appear on the January 26, 2010 ballot. The Oregon Tax Hike Referendum (2010) directly challenges House Bill 2649 and House Bill 3405. The referendum is scheduled to appear as two separate measures - Measure 66 and Measure 67 - on the January ballot.[32]

Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed both HB 2649 and 3405 into law on July 20, 2009. The tax bills increase taxes in the state by $733 million through increasing the state’s corporate minimum tax, raising taxes on the state’s high-income individuals and raising income taxes on businesses.[33] In reaction to the news, tax activists in the state geared up to use the veto referendum process in the state to try to stop the hikes.[34]


Tim Eyman files lawsuit to block release of petition signatures

OLYMPIA, Washington: Tim Eyman, a political activist in Washington who has sponsored or worked on at least 15 initiatives in the state of Washington since 1997, filed a lawsuit to block the release of petition signatures relating to approximately 11 initiatives (including this years I-1033).[35] Eyman argues that the signers' identities are protected by the freedom of speech. According to reports a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in Thurston County Superior Court. Prior to the lawsuit, Bryan Wahl, a lobbyist and political consultant, paid for copies of petition signatures. He is expected to receive the copies on Monday, unless the court rules otherwise. [36] State officials, however, disagree with Eyman's lawsuit and argue that an injunction on petition signatures would threaten open government and impact campaign disclosure laws. The lawsuit comes in the midst of a similar signature debate relating to Washington Referendum 71.[30]

The 11 initiatives mentioned in the lawsuit include:[30]


Nevadans seek injunction on state's petition rules

CARSON CITY, Nevada: This week a 12-page lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas seeking an injunction on Nevada's current initiative and petition rules. The lawsuit was filed by Sharron Angle, U.S. Senate candidate and former assemblywoman, and two ballot advocacy groups.[37] Specifically the lawsuit seeks to halt initiative laws approved by the Nevada Legislature in 2007, which they argue to be "unconstitutional and invalid." The 2007 approved legislation requires that petition gatherers sign affidavits under penalty of perjury in order to help better verify the validity of collected signatures.[38] The new law, said Angle, has made it difficult to qualify two initiatives for the ballot. According to the filed suit, "There are no reasonable, practical or economical ways for a circulator to know, while gathering signatures in the field, whether or not, a person signing the initiative petition is in fact a registered voter in that county."[37]


Federal judge orders Prop 8 supporters to disclose internal campaign strategies

SAN FRANCISCO, California: U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has ordered the sponsors of Proposition 8 to provide private e-mails, memos and reports to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which filed a federal lawsuit that seeks to overturn Proposition 8.

Vaughn says that the confidential communications between the campaign's leaders and professional consultants could reveal what their rationale was for wanting to deny gays the right to marry. That rationale may be relevant to how he rules in the case, which is why the judge thinks the records are relevant.[39]

Attorneys for Protect Marriage may appeal the ruling. Attorney Andy Pugno says the mandated disclosure, if allowed to stand, may have a chilling effect on the willing of people in the future to conduct ballot initiative campaigns. "Giving the losing side of a campaign this level of information will discourage anyone from ever attempting to use the initiative process in the future, knowing that sensitive strategies will likely all become public if they prevail. It just seems like Alice in Wonderland for me, that we would get to a place that a consequence of winning an election is that you would have to open your play book."

Christopher Dusseault, an attorney for two couples who seek in the federal lawsuit to have Prop 8 overturned, said Walker's ruling makes sense, arguing, "Their argument that documents about campaign strategy and rejected campaign messages being irrelevant, simply because they weren't sent to voters at large, is an argument he rejected."


Maine officials approve investigation of same-sex marriage fundraising

AUGUSTA, Maine: Today the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices voted 3 to 2 to investigate groups supporting the Maine Same-Sex Marriage People's Veto, Question 1 campaign.[40]

The complaint was filed by Fred Karger, founder of Californians Against Hate, on August 25, 2009. In the 9-page complaint Karger said groups like the National Organization for Marriage and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, solicited contributions from individuals and in turn gave the money to Stand for Marriage - hiding the identity of the individual donors.[41] Maine election law states that every donation, regardless of how small, must be listed.

Barry Bostrom, National Organization for Marriage attorney, said Karger's complaint is "nothing more than an attempt to harass and intimidate those of us who believe in the core truth that marriage is between one man and one woman." According to Bostrom, the organization complies with state campaign financing laws. It's policy is to collect funds and then submit the donations to a particular campaign so as to protect donors from harassment.[42]


Arizona Representative not charged in false statement about petition

PHOENIZ, Arizona: Arizona Representative Russell Jones cannot be charged for falsely stating he was present when residents signed a petition for his candidacy for the state senate in 2006. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on September 24, 2009 that a person could not be charged for falsely stating presence, and can only be charged for submitting an invalid petition.

State law says that any candidate circulating a petition must be present to witness signatures. However, when Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas investigated the claim, he found that Jones was in Phoenix at the Legislature during signature gathering.[43]


R-71 returns to court regarding signature privacy

OLYMPIA, Washington: This week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals scheduled the hearing for Referendum 71 case about signature privacy. In light of two filed appeals, one by the state of Washington and the other by Open Government activist Arthur West, the court combined both appeals.[44]

The briefing schedule is as follows, according to state officials:[44]

  • September 18: the state filed its opening brief
  • September 23: the Washington Coalition for Open Government's brief is due
  • September 25: Plaintiff-Appellees’ answering brief is due
  • September 28: the state may file a reply brief
  • September 30: the Washington Coalition for Open Government may file a reply brief

Additionally, the court granted Attorney General Rob McKenna's request for a fast-track appeal. The hearing is scheduled to begin October 14, 2009 in Pasadena, California.[45]

Ballotpedia News
Propositions • Recall • Law


Archived stories

References

v • d • e
Ballot news from around the country and The Ballot Initiative Gazette
Retrieved from "http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Ballot_measure_lawsuit_news"
Personal tools