Legal Opinion
Idaho Coalition United for Bears v. Cenarrussa
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 8, 2003No. 02-35030PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge.
Idaho permits direct legislation through ballot initiatives. In order to appear on the ballot, an initiative must meet several conditions; one is that signatures in support of the initiative must be collected
from six percent of the qualified voters in each of at least half of the state’s counties. Because Idaho’s counties vary widely in population, this geographic distribution requirement favors residents of sparsely populated areas over residents of more densely populated areas in their respective efforts to participate in the process of qualifying initiatives…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Reynolds v. SimsSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Illinois State Board of Elections v. Socialist Workers PartySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Gray v. SandersSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Moore v. OgilvieSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- American Civil Liberties Union Of Nevada v. LomaxCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Lemons v. BradburyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Montana Public Interest Research Group v. JohnsonDistrict Court, D. Montana · 2005
- Marijuana Policy Project v. MillerDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 2008
- American Civil Liberties Union v. LomaxCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.