Voice v. Noem

4 Citing cases

  1. Inst. for Free Speech v. Ravnsborg

    416 F. Supp. 3d 894 (D.S.D. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Though beside the point as far as this decision, IFS may have predicted accurately on the constitutionality of one of the measures. See SD Voice v. Noem, 380 F. Supp. 3d 939 (D.S.D. 2019). IFS after the election filed an Amended Verified Complaint, again alleging that §§ 12-27-1(11) and 12-27-16 are unconstitutional.

  2. League of Women Voters of S. Dakota v. Noem

    4:22-CV-04085-RAL (D.S.D. Dec. 12, 2022)

    Missourians for Fiscal Accountability v. Klahr, 830 F.3d 789, 794 (8th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up and citations omitted); see also S.D. Voice v. Noem, 380 F.Supp.3d 939, 954 (D.S.D. 2019). Further, the organizational plaintiffs' inability to use volunteers from out of state creates what could be a prohibitive cost, approximately $425,029 or $554,909, for a non-profit to spearhead the circulation of a petition. Though the defendants dispute these allegations, the organizational plaintiffs have adequately alleged an injury and ripe dispute.

  3. Smith v. Helzer

    614 F. Supp. 3d 668 (D. Alaska 2022)   Cited 5 times
    Distinguishing Bonta based on its "extensive record" showing the government rarely used donor information to further its stated interest

    There, the court concluded that the contribution limit did not serve an anti-corruption interest and that even if it did, the limit was not sufficiently tailored to serve that interest. Docket 18-1 at 23–25 (citing Thompson v. Hebdon , 7 F.4th 811 (9th Cir. 2021) ; Landell v. Sorrell , 382 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2004) ; SD Voice v. Noem , 380 F. Supp. 3d 939 (D.S.D. 2019) ). Plaintiffs also cite two cases regarding bans on out-of-state petition circulators.

  4. Dakotans for Health v. Noem

    543 F. Supp. 3d 769 (D.S.D. 2021)

    IM 24 barred out-of-state contributions to South Dakota ballot question committees. SeeSD Voice v. Noem , 380 F. Supp. 3d 939, 944 (D.S.D. 2019).