CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION

Federal Judicial Center 7/11/2023 1

Signature Requirements for a Ballot Question 

Protect Marriage Illinois v. Orr 

(Elaine E. Bucklo, N.D. Ill. 1:06-cv-3835) 

On July 14, 2006, proponents of an advisory question for the 2006 

general election in Illinois filed a constitutional challenge to the petition requirements for getting their question on the ballot. The 

plaintiffs claimed that the number of signatures required was too 

onerous, as was the requirement that the signatures and the signers’ 

addresses match voter-registration cards. On August 2, the district 

judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. The court 

of appeals affirmed the dismissal. 

Subject: Ballot measures. Topics: Getting on the ballot; ballot 

measure; intervention. 

On July 14, 2006, proponents of an advisory question for the 2006 general 

election in Illinois filed a constitutional challenge to the petition requirements for getting their question on the ballot.1

 The plaintiffs claimed that the 

number of signatures required was too onerous, as was the requirement that 

the signatures and the signers’ addresses match voter-registration cards.2

With their complaint, the plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited hearing, 

seeking relief before an August 4 evaluation of their ballot petition’s validity.3

On July 18, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and another motion to 

expedite consideration.4

Judge Elaine E. Bucklo held a conference with the parties on July 20 to 

determine whether matters of controversy were factual or just legal; although 

the plaintiffs were reluctant to waive an evidentiary hearing, the case appeared to be substantially a legal one.5

 She granted expedition and ordered 

briefing on a preliminary injunction to be completed by July 31.6

 On August 

2, Judge Bucklo granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case.7 She denied as moot a motion by voters to intervene in opposition to the complaint.8

1. Amended Complaint, Protect Marriage Ill. v. Orr, No. 1:06-cv-3835 (N.D. Ill. July 18, 

2006), D.E. 7; Complaint, id. (July 14, 2006), D.E. 1; Protect Marriage Ill. v. Orr, 463 F.3d 

604, 605–06 (7th Cir. 2006); Protect Marriage Ill. v. Orr, 458 F. Supp. 2d 562, 567 (N.D. Ill. 

2006); see Second Amended Complaint, Protect Marriage Ill., No. 1:06-cv-3835 (N.D. Ill. July 

21, 2006), D.E. 15. 

2. Amended Complaint, supra note 1; Complaint, supra note 1; Protect Marriage Ill., 463 

F.3d at 606, 608. 

3. Expedition Motion, Protect Marriage Ill., No. 1:06-cv-3835 (N.D. Ill. July 18, 2006), 

D.E. 4. 

4. Expedition Motion, id. (July 18, 2006), D.E. 8; Amended Complaint, supra note 1. 

5. Transcript, Protect Marriage Ill., No. 1:06-cv-3835 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2006, filed Oct. 17, 

2006), D.E. 84. 

6. Minute Entry, id. (July 20, 2006), D.E. 10; see Minute Entry, id. (July 27, 2006), D.E. 32 

(granting permission for briefs up to thirty pages in length). 

7. Protect Marriage Ill. v. Orr, 458 F. Supp. 2d 562 (N.D. Ill. 2006); Minute Entry, Protect 

Marriage Ill., No. 1:06-cv-3835 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 2, 2006), D.E. 71. 

8. Protect Marriage Ill., 458 F. Supp. 2d at 564, 575; see Motion to Intervene, Protect Mar-
Signature Requirements for a Ballot Question 

2 Federal Judicial Center 7/11/2023 

On September 6, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.9 Ballots are 

primarily a vehicle for candidates, not ballot questions.10 “The ballot is not a 

traditional public forum for the expression of ideas and opinions, like streets 

or parks, to which reasonable access must be given to people who want to 

engage in political and other protected expression.”11

riage Ill., No. 1:06-cv-3835 (N.D. Ill. July 27, 2006), D.E. 38. 

9. Protect Marriage Ill. v. Orr, 463 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2006), cert denied, 549 U.S. 1208 

(2007). 

10. Id. at 608. 

11. Id. at 606.