Opinion ID: 779503
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Voting Dilution Due Process Challenge

Text: 78 The trappers allege a violation of substantive due process, based on an argument that the trappers' and the public's right to vote was diluted because the ballot material accompanying Proposition 4 was materially misleading. Specifically, the trappers object to the following language contained in a section of the ballot materials entitled Argument in Favor of Proposition 4: 79 Proposition 4 WILL ALLOW the use of traps and other Wildlife management techniques: 80 —to protect human health and safety 81 —to protect property, levees and canals 82 —to protect endangered wildlife 83 —to protect crops and livestock 84 This statement, the trappers argue, is misleading. Proposition 4 contains two separate bans on traps. Section 3003.1(a) bans trapping with any body-gripping trap (including leghold traps) for purposes of recreation or commerce in fur. Section 3003.1(c) bans the use of leghold traps to capture listed animals, irrespective of the trapper's purpose. Therefore, according to the trappers, while the ballot material's description of exceptions may apply to the ban on body-gripping traps under § 3003.1(a), it understates the scope of the broader ban on leghold traps under § 3003.1(c). 85 The parties do not dispute the legal standard, as set forth in Burton v. State of Georgia, 953 F.2d 1266 (11th Cir.1992): 86 For such extraordinary relief to be justified, it must be demonstrated that the state's choice of ballot language so upset the evenhandedness of the referendum that it worked a patent and fundamental unfairness on the voters. Such an exceptional case can arise . . . only when the ballot language is so misleading that voters cannot recognize the subject of the amendment at issue. 87