Case: Isbelle v. Denney

1:19-cv-00093 | U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho

Filed Date: Feb. 19, 2019

Closed Date: June 1, 2020

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is about the constitutionality of Section 34-1805 of the Idaho Code which established the required number of signatures to get an initiative placed on a ballot or a referendum. To get an initiative placed on the ballot, Section 34-1805 required a person to obtain the signatures of at least 6% of eligible voters within a legislative district according to the last general election, out of 18 of Idaho's 35 legislative districts. The case was assigned to Judge David C. Nye.  On March 19, …

This case is about the constitutionality of Section 34-1805 of the Idaho Code which established the required number of signatures to get an initiative placed on a ballot or a referendum. To get an initiative placed on the ballot, Section 34-1805 required a person to obtain the signatures of at least 6% of eligible voters within a legislative district according to the last general election, out of 18 of Idaho's 35 legislative districts. The case was assigned to Judge David C. Nye. 

On March 19, 2019, the plaintiff, a private individual, filed this suit pro se in the District of Idaho against teh Secretary of the State of Idaho. Plaintiff argued that the requirements under Section 34-1805 to get an initiative on a ballot or a referendum violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment because (1) if Plaintiff was located in a different and less populated district, his vote would have a greater impact towards the 6% percent threshold requirement than his assigned legislative district, and (ii) the requirements effectively ignored the vote of qualified voters from Plaintiff's district that supported a ballot initiative or referendum unless Plaintiff could also obtain the required percentage of signatures from 17 other districts. 

On April 9, 2019, defendant filed a rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim. Primarily, the defendant argued that Section 34-1805 is consistent with federal precedent concerning similar cases.

On October 29, 2019, the court entered a judgment and order in favor of the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Court agreed with the defendant that Section 34-1805 is consistent with U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit Court precedent. 

The case is now closed. 

Summary Authors

Kierre Elvington (5/14/2024)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14760383/parties/isbelle-v-denney/


Judge(s)

Nye, David Charles (Idaho)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Isbelle, Ryan (Idaho)

Attorney for Defendant

Berry, Robert Arthur (Idaho)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1-2

1:19-cv-00093

Summons In a Civil Action

March 19, 2019

March 19, 2019

Pleading / Motion / Brief
1

1:19-cv-00093

Complaint

March 19, 2019

March 19, 2019

Complaint
1-1

1:19-cv-00093

Civil Cover Sheet

March 19, 2019

March 19, 2019

Pleading / Motion / Brief
2-1

1:19-cv-00093

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

April 9, 2019

April 9, 2019

Pleading / Motion / Brief
2

1:19-cv-00093

Motion to Dismiss

April 9, 2019

April 9, 2019

Pleading / Motion / Brief
2-2

1:19-cv-00093

Declaration of Dorothy Canary

April 9, 2019

April 9, 2019

Pleading / Motion / Brief
3

1:19-cv-00093

Notice of Assignment to US Magistrate Judge and Consent Form

April 10, 2019

April 10, 2019

Order/Opinion
7

1:19-cv-00093

Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

May 2, 2019

May 2, 2019

Pleading / Motion / Brief
8

1:19-cv-00093

Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

May 16, 2019

May 16, 2019

Pleading / Motion / Brief
10

1:19-cv-00093

Memorandum Decision and Order

Oct. 29, 2019

Oct. 29, 2019

Order/Opinion

2019 WL 5580951

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14760383/isbelle-v-denney/

Last updated Aug. 9, 2025, 9:22 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
4

Summons Issued as to Lawrence Denney. (Print attached Summons for service.) (cjs) (Entered: 04/10/2019)

March 19, 2019

March 19, 2019

PACER

Receipt

March 19, 2019

March 19, 2019

PACER

RECEIPT: Filing Fee Received $ 400, receipt # 1336 (alw)

March 19, 2019

March 19, 2019

PACER
1

COMPLAINT against Lawrence Denney Summons Issued, filed by Ryan Isbelle. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(alw) (Entered: 03/20/2019)

1 Cover Sheet

View on RECAP

2 Summons

View on RECAP

March 19, 2019

March 19, 2019

Clearinghouse

Receipt

March 20, 2019

March 20, 2019

PACER
6

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ryan Isbelle. Lawrence Denney served on 3/22/2019, answer due 4/12/2019. (cjs) (Entered: 04/18/2019)

March 22, 2019

March 22, 2019

PACER
2

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Robert Arthur Berry appearing for Defendant Lawrence Denney. Responses due by 4/30/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Dorothy Canary)(Berry, Robert)

1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss

View on RECAP

2 Affidavit Declaration of Dorothy Canary

View on RECAP

April 9, 2019

April 9, 2019

Clearinghouse
3

NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Lawrence Denney, Ryan Isbelle re 2 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 1 Complaint Consent/Objection to Magistrate due by 6/10/2019. (cjs)

April 10, 2019

April 10, 2019

Clearinghouse
5

NOTICE to Pro Se Litigants of the Summary Judgment Rule Requirement re 2 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (cjs)(Mailed to Plaintiff on 4/17/2019.)

April 16, 2019

April 16, 2019

RECAP
7

RESPONSE to Motion re 2 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Ryan Isbelle. Replies due by 5/16/2019.(jp) (Entered: 05/06/2019)

May 2, 2019

May 2, 2019

Clearinghouse
8

REPLY to Response to Motion re 2 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Lawrence Denney.Motion Ripe Deadline set for 5/17/2019.(Berry, Robert)

May 16, 2019

May 16, 2019

Clearinghouse

Consent Filed

May 30, 2019

May 30, 2019

PACER

Notice of Case Number Change

June 11, 2019

June 11, 2019

PACER

Expired 60 Day ddl re Consents

June 11, 2019

June 11, 2019

PACER
10

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Defendant Denneys Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 2 ) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Isbelles Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court GRANTS Isbelle leave to file an Amended Complaint. Isbelle has thirty (30) days to do s o. Failure to file an Amended Complaint within the ordered time frame will result in the full dismissal of this case WITH PREJUDICE and without further notice. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)

Oct. 29, 2019

Oct. 29, 2019

Clearinghouse
11

Amended Complaint

Nov. 25, 2019

Nov. 25, 2019

Clearinghouse
12

Extension of Time to File Answer

Dec. 6, 2019

Dec. 6, 2019

PACER
13

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

Dec. 6, 2019

Dec. 6, 2019

PACER
14

Dismiss

1 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

View on RECAP

Dec. 20, 2019

Dec. 20, 2019

Clearinghouse
15

Response to Motion

Jan. 9, 2020

Jan. 9, 2020

Clearinghouse
16

Reply to Response to Motion

Jan. 23, 2020

Jan. 23, 2020

Clearinghouse
17

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - Denneys Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11 ) is GRANTED. Isbelles Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge David C. Nye. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jd)

June 1, 2020

June 1, 2020

RECAP
18

Judgment

June 1, 2020

June 1, 2020

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Idaho

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Special Collection(s):

Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 19, 2019

Closing Date: June 1, 2020

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A private individual that is a resident of the State of Idaho.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: Yes

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Secretary of State of the State of Idaho, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Complaint (any)

Non-settlement Outcome

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Voting:

Vote dilution

Voting: General & Misc.