Quinn v. Crowder

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that ballot, summaries must be invalidated when they fail to mention constitutional provisions that are affected, or when they fail to define terms adequately or to use consistent terminology
• concluding an undefined term left “voters to guess at its meaning. . . . [V]oters would undoubtedly rely on their own conceptions of what constitutes a bona fide qualification,” and that the summary violated section 101.161
• invalidating proposed amendment due to misleading ballot summary and explaining that “[w]hile ‘people’ and ‘person[s]’ also appear synonymous, their legal differences are significant and are not revealed to the voter”
• invalidating proposed amendment due to misleading ballot summary and explaining that “[w]hile ‘people’ and ‘person[s]’ also appear synonymous, their legal differences are significant and are not revealed to the voter”
• “In order for the Court to invalidate a proposed amendment, the record must show that the proposal is clearly and conclusively defective.... ”
• “In order for the Court to invalidate a proposed amendment, the record must show that the proposal is clearly and conclusively defective....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).