After a ballot measure is certified to appear before voters, state courts can still invalidate the measure for various reasons, even after officials have printed the ballots. Lawsuits against ballot measures are common and often result in several being disqualified after certification during each election cycle.
Since 2014, state courts removed or disqualified 16 state ballot measures after officials certified them to appear on the ballot. An average of 2.4 measures were disqualified due to court rulings in each even-numbered election year from 2014 to 2022. As of Sept. 26, 2024, courts have disqualified two ballot measures certified for this year’s general election:
- On September 26, 2024, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the ballot language for Amendment D, which addressed legislative alterations of voter-approved initiatives, was misleading, and publication deadlines were missed. The opinion said, “The Legislature did not cause the amendment to be published in newspapers throughout the state for two months, and the description that will appear on the ballot does not submit the amendment to voters ‘with such clarity as to enable voters to express their will.’” On September 12, Utah Third Judicial District Court Judge Dianna Gibson ruled against Amendment D, saying, “They [the State of Utah] truncated the deadlines, sidestepped normal processes, and proposed in short order a constitutional amendment, with inaccurate descriptions, to shift power from the people to the Legislature.”
- On June 20, 2024, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Two-Thirds Legislative Vote and Voter Approval for New or Increased Taxes Initiative amounted to a revision of the state constitution and could not go before voters. Justice Goodwin Liu said, “[The initiative] would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative.” Article 18 of the California Constitution says that ballot initiatives can amend the state constitution; however, constitutional revisions require a two-thirds vote of each legislative chamber or a vote of delegates at a constitutional convention and voter approval. The California Supreme Court has defined constitutional revisions as changes that alter the basic governmental framework and determined that initiatives cannot make revisions.
There are lawsuits against ballot measures in other states that could result in them being invalidated before the election, including Arizona Proposition 140, Arkansas Issue 2, Nebraska Initiative 437 and Initiative 438, and Utah Amendment A.
Since 2014, eight (50%) of the 16 ballot measures were in Arkansas. Two were removed in both Arizona and California, while one was disqualified in each of the following states: Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Eleven (69%) were citizen-initiated ballot measures, and the other five were legislative referrals. Six (38%) were removed due to issues with signatures. Five (31%) were removed based on state constitutional issues, such as violating single-subject or separate-vote requirements. Five (31%) were removed on account of ballot language issues.
When courts rule against measures after ballots have been printed, voters still see the questions on the ballot, but they’re null or void. Votes won’t be counted in most cases. For 2024, the ballot initiative in California was disqualified in June, months before the general election printing deadline. However, Utah Amendment D was disqualified on Sept. 26 and is printed on ballots (for example, the official ballot for Salt Lake County). Amendment D has no practical effect, and votes won’t be canvassed.
From 2014 to 2023, two ballot measures had votes tabulated and released to the public after being ruled invalid. Votes were not certified, however. Both were pending appeals to their respective state supreme courts, which could have reversed the decisions (neither did in this case). These measures were in Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
Courts can also strike down ballot measures after voters approve them. In 2022, for example, voters approved Missouri Amendment 4, and the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the ballot language for the amendment was misleading on May 1, 2024. In 2020, voters approved Arizona Proposition 208 and South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A, which courts later struck down and rendered null.
Additional reading: