List of local ballot measure lawsuits in 2020
This page lists summaries of lawsuits about local ballot measures filed or ruled on in 2020. 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,
- unqualifiedsignature 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 casesextend for years after a measure has been approved.
Click on the tabs below to see summaries of lawsuits:
- TheBy state tab organizes lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 by state.
- TheBy subject tab organizes lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 according to the subject of the lawsuits.
- TheHistorical measures tab lists lawsuits filed or ruled on in 2020 about historical local ballot measures.
- TheState 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 2020—by state—for local measures proximate to 2020. It also lists 2020 lawsuits about any local measures targeting a ballot in 2020 or a later year.
California
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition C required a two-thirds supermajority vote or a simple majority vote for approval | |
| Court:California First District Court of Appeal; originated inSuperior Court of San Francisco | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, stating the measure required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority; appealed, lower court ruling upheld; appealed, declined by California Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, the California Business Properties Association, and the California Business Roundtable | Defendant(s): City and county of San Francisco |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition C is invalid because it should have required a two-thirds supermajority vote due to the specific designation for tax revenues (childcare and early education). | Defendant argument: Proposition C is valid becauseCalifornia Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland declared the citizen initiative process separate from the actions of local governments, allowing local governments to require a simple majority for local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for a specific purpose. |
Source:Superior Court of San Francisco
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Supermajority requirement application; whether the two-thirds supermajority requirement for special taxes imposed by local governments applies | |
| Court:California Fifth District Court of Appeal (originated inFresno County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, stating that Measure P was approved and required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority, for approval. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fresno Building Healthy Communities | Defendant(s): City of Fresno, with intervention from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
| Plaintiff argument: Because Measure P was a citizen initiative, it did not require atwo-thirds (66.67%) vote and should have passed with 52 percent approval. | Defendant argument: Because Measure P was a special tax measure, it required atwo-thirds (66.67%) vote and, therefore, failed when it received 52 percent approval. |
Source:GV Wire
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether the measure unconstitutionally restricts the ability of the board of supervisors to allocate revenue | |
| Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2020 about a 2020 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Tentative ruling in favor of plaintiffs overturning Measure J | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Coalition of County Unions, including the Assn. of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs | Defendant(s): Los Angeles Board of Supervisors |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure J unconstitutionally limited the ability of the county board to allocate revenue | Defendant argument: The county charter addresses many budget issues, and Measure J is just another of many budget restrictions in the charter |
Source:Los Angeles times
By subject
This tab lists lawsuits there were filed or ruled on in 2020—by subject—for local measures proximate to 2020. It also lists 2020 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 allegingcampaign finance law violations
- Circulators - Lawsuits concerning the qualifications or actions ofpetition 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 ispreempted 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 thevalidity of signatures
- Signature deadlines - Lawsuits that argue proponents of a local measure did not meet theprocedural deadlines required to put a measure on the ballot
- Single subject - Lawsuits challenging an initiative according to a state'ssingle-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
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding ballot language that took place in 2020.
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding campaign finance that took place in 2020.
Circulators
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding circulators that took place in 2020.
Post-certification removal
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding post-certification removal that took place in 2020.
Post-election
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether Proposition C required a two-thirds supermajority vote or a simple majority vote for approval | |
| Court:California First District Court of Appeal; originated inSuperior Court of San Francisco | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of defendants, stating the measure required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority; appealed, lower court ruling upheld; appealed, declined by California Supreme Court | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, the California Business Properties Association, and the California Business Roundtable | Defendant(s): City and county of San Francisco |
| Plaintiff argument: Proposition C is invalid because it should have required a two-thirds supermajority vote due to the specific designation for tax revenues (childcare and early education). | Defendant argument: Proposition C is valid becauseCalifornia Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland declared the citizen initiative process separate from the actions of local governments, allowing local governments to require a simple majority for local citizen initiatives, including tax measures that designate funds for a specific purpose. |
Source:Superior Court of San Francisco
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Supermajority requirement application; whether the two-thirds supermajority requirement for special taxes imposed by local governments applies | |
| Court:California Fifth District Court of Appeal (originated inFresno County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, stating that Measure P was approved and required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority, for approval. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fresno Building Healthy Communities | Defendant(s): City of Fresno, with intervention from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
| Plaintiff argument: Because Measure P was a citizen initiative, it did not require atwo-thirds (66.67%) vote and should have passed with 52 percent approval. | Defendant argument: Because Measure P was a special tax measure, it required atwo-thirds (66.67%) vote and, therefore, failed when it received 52 percent approval. |
Source:GV Wire
Preemption
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding preemption that took place in 2020.
Signature validity
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding signature validity that took place in 2020.
Signature deadlines
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding signature deadlines that took place in 2020.
Single subject
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding single subject that took place in 2020.
Subject restriction
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding subject restriction that took place in 2020.
Substantive constitutionality
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether the measure unconstitutionally restricts the ability of the board of supervisors to allocate revenue | |
| Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2020 about a 2020 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Tentative ruling in favor of plaintiffs overturning Measure J | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Coalition of County Unions, including the Assn. of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs | Defendant(s): Los Angeles Board of Supervisors |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure J unconstitutionally limited the ability of the county board to allocate revenue | Defendant argument: The county charter addresses many budget issues, and Measure J is just another of many budget restrictions in the charter |
Source:Los Angeles times
Voter approval requirements
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Supermajority requirement application; whether the two-thirds supermajority requirement for special taxes imposed by local governments applies | |
| Court:California Fifth District Court of Appeal (originated inFresno County Superior Court) | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs, stating that Measure P was approved and required a simple majority, not a two-thirds supermajority, for approval. | |
| Plaintiff(s): Fresno Building Healthy Communities | Defendant(s): City of Fresno, with intervention from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association |
| Plaintiff argument: Because Measure P was a citizen initiative, it did not require atwo-thirds (66.67%) vote and should have passed with 52 percent approval. | Defendant argument: Because Measure P was a special tax measure, it required atwo-thirds (66.67%) vote and, therefore, failed when it received 52 percent approval. |
Source:GV Wire
Voter guide
Ballotpedia did not cover any 2020 lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020 regarding voter guide language that took place in 2020.
Historical measures
This tab shows a list of lawsuits, by state, that were filed or ruled onin 2020 against historical local ballot measures. For lawsuits about local measures proximate to 2020, see theBy state and "By subject tabs.
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Constitutionality; whether the measure unconstitutionally restricts the ability of the board of supervisors to allocate revenue | |
| Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court | |
| Timeline: Filed in 2020 about a 2020 ballot measure | |
| Ruling: Tentative ruling in favor of plaintiffs overturning Measure J | |
| Plaintiff(s): The Coalition of County Unions, including the Assn. of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs | Defendant(s): Los Angeles Board of Supervisors |
| Plaintiff argument: Measure J unconstitutionally limited the ability of the county board to allocate revenue | Defendant argument: The county charter addresses many budget issues, and Measure J is just another of many budget restrictions in the charter |
Source:Los Angeles times
Statewide measures
Ballotpedia covers all statewide measures in every state.
A compiled list of 2020 lawsuits about statewide ballot measures can be foundhere.
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 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
| |||||||||||||
- Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function
- Current local measure lawsuit
- Local ballot measure with 2018 lawsuit
- Local ballot measure with 2020 lawsuit
- Local ballot measure lawsuit about Post-election
- Local ballot measure lawsuit about Supermajority requirement
- Local ballot measure with lawsuit, California
- Local ballot measure with 2018 lawsuit, California
- Local ballot measure with 2020 lawsuit, California
- Local ballot measure lawsuit about Voter approval requirements
- Past local ballot measure lawsuit, 2020
- Local ballot measure lawsuit about Substantive constitutionality
- Local ballot measures, 2020
- Ballot measure lawsuit list
- Local ballots, 2020
