See Pest Committee v. Miller. Particularly interesting to me (given this work) was the discussion of the vagueness challenge to the rule. The court wrote: “evidence that some ballot petitions have been successfully challenged does not demonstrate that the language of either the single-subject or the description-of-effect requirement is insufficient to provide persons of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what is required for ballot initiatives and referenda, and the language of the statutory requirements provides sufficiently explicit standards for judges charged with reviewing their application.”