April Forrester v. Mark…

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of injunctive and mandamus relief concerning amendment 89. It held that the ballot title identified and distinguished the amendment and did not amount to manifest fraud, and that the amendment's provisions satisfied the separate-submission requirement because they were reasonably germane to a common subject. Justice Corbin, dissenting, would have invalidated the amendment's interest-rate provision as impermissible logrolling and would have upheld the ballot title on a different statutory-interpretation rationale.