Lemons v. Bradbury

538 F.3d 1098 (2008)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lemons v. Bradbury

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
538 F.3d 1098 (2008)

JC

Facts

Oregon allowed ballot initiatives and referendum votes. In order to qualify for the ballot, a referendum had to be submitted with a petition including valid signatures from a number of voters equal to four percent of the total votes for state governor in the last general election. When such petitions were received, the secretary of state sent a sample of approximately five percent of the signatures received to county election officials for comparison with voter-registration records. There was no concrete guidance for the county election officials, save that the officials were to compare the signatures from the petition to the signatures on the voter registration rolls and determine whether the signatures matched. A group of voters including Phillip Lemons (plaintiffs) submitted documentation in support of a proposed referendum to establish same-sex domestic partnerships. Approximately 62,000 unverified signatures were submitted in support of that referendum. Oregon Secretary of State Bill Bradbury (defendant) submitted 3,033 samples signatures to county election officials, who reported that 254 of the signatures were invalid. From that total, Bradbury extrapolated to find that 55,083 valid signatures had been submitted in support of the referendum, less than the 55,179 valid signatures required for ballot inclusion. Lemons and other voters filed suit seeking to rehabilitate disputed signatures and for a ruling that the referendum qualified for the ballot, under grounds including the Equal Protection Clause. While a district court provided temporary relief, ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the state, finding that the signature-verification procedures did not violate the equal-protection rights of voters, that a referendum petition did not implicate a fundamental right, and that the vote-verification mechanics did not violate any voters’ rights. Lemons and the voters appealed, arguing that the verification procedures burdened their fundamental right to vote; that the lack of an opportunity to rehabilitate disputed signatures was an equal-protection violation, in contrast to the cure period provided for mail-in ballots in general elections; and that the lack of concrete verification guidelines was error.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Goodwin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership