Sunday, May 31, 2009
Expenses scandal likely to create large turnover in British Parliament.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
This is unusual: a Right to Life case about campaign finance that's not a Jim Bopp case.
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/ID.705/blog_detail.asp
A preliminary injunction is here. http://www.campaignfreedom.org/docLib/20080905_ORTL_PI.pdf It's a split decision, rules for plaintiffs on some issues against on others. It gets McIntyre wrong:
Plaintiff ORTL's reliance on McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334
(1995), is also misplaced. (See Pl.’s Am. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 15-16). Like NAACP, McIntyre
did not involve candidate elections and the important state interests present in the candidate
election context. Instead, the disclosure statute struck down in McIntyre had required the ballot
initiative handbill at issue in the case to identify the author of the literature. The Supreme Court
noted that no anti-corruption interest was implicated by ballot initiative activity, in contrast to
lobbying, because the former has no nexus to candidates, political parties or officeholders.
McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 356, n.20. Further, the Supreme Court noted the limited utility of
information required by the statute in McIntyre—i.e., the identification of private individuals
who may make at most minimal expenditures for a ballot initiative handbill. Id. at 348-49.
Whereas the ads in the instant case relate to candidates for office and trigger disclosure
Case 2:08-cv-00492-GCS-NMK Document 40 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 19 of 25
-20-
requirements only when their value exceeds $10,000, in McIntyre the handbill made no mention
of candidates and had been produced at insubstantial cost. The McIntyre decision therefore does
not bear upon this Court's analysis of the constitutionality of O.R.C. § 3517.1011.
This is wrong. McIntyre was a facial challenge to an Ohio statute requiring disclaimer on candidate literature. The state argued for an "elections exception" to Talley v California's holding that disclaimer rules violate the First Amendment. The state also argued for intermediate scrutiny under Anderson rather than strict scrutiny. The Court rejected both ideas.
It held that there is no elections exception to the First Amendment, and applied strict scrutiny to the Ohio candidate literature disclosure provisions. Therefore, it is highly relevant, more directly on point that McConnell, possibly controlling in the Right to Life case. The court should consider reissuing its opinion redacting or revising its discussion of McIntyre,and should re-evaluate RtL's positions in the ongoing litigation in light of a proper understanding of McIntyre.
I have not, as yet, read the amicus by the campaign legal center http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-285.html. My guess is that that might be where this false view of McIntyre came from.
I probably won't get around to writing to the court about this topic.
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/ID.705/blog_detail.asp
A preliminary injunction is here. http://www.campaignfreedom.org/docLib/20080905_ORTL_PI.pdf It's a split decision, rules for plaintiffs on some issues against on others. It gets McIntyre wrong:
Plaintiff ORTL's reliance on McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334
(1995), is also misplaced. (See Pl.’s Am. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 15-16). Like NAACP, McIntyre
did not involve candidate elections and the important state interests present in the candidate
election context. Instead, the disclosure statute struck down in McIntyre had required the ballot
initiative handbill at issue in the case to identify the author of the literature. The Supreme Court
noted that no anti-corruption interest was implicated by ballot initiative activity, in contrast to
lobbying, because the former has no nexus to candidates, political parties or officeholders.
McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 356, n.20. Further, the Supreme Court noted the limited utility of
information required by the statute in McIntyre—i.e., the identification of private individuals
who may make at most minimal expenditures for a ballot initiative handbill. Id. at 348-49.
Whereas the ads in the instant case relate to candidates for office and trigger disclosure
Case 2:08-cv-00492-GCS-NMK Document 40 Filed 09/05/2008 Page 19 of 25
-20-
requirements only when their value exceeds $10,000, in McIntyre the handbill made no mention
of candidates and had been produced at insubstantial cost. The McIntyre decision therefore does
not bear upon this Court's analysis of the constitutionality of O.R.C. § 3517.1011.
This is wrong. McIntyre was a facial challenge to an Ohio statute requiring disclaimer on candidate literature. The state argued for an "elections exception" to Talley v California's holding that disclaimer rules violate the First Amendment. The state also argued for intermediate scrutiny under Anderson rather than strict scrutiny. The Court rejected both ideas.
It held that there is no elections exception to the First Amendment, and applied strict scrutiny to the Ohio candidate literature disclosure provisions. Therefore, it is highly relevant, more directly on point that McConnell, possibly controlling in the Right to Life case. The court should consider reissuing its opinion redacting or revising its discussion of McIntyre,and should re-evaluate RtL's positions in the ongoing litigation in light of a proper understanding of McIntyre.
I have not, as yet, read the amicus by the campaign legal center http://www.clcblog.org/blog_item-285.html. My guess is that that might be where this false view of McIntyre came from.
I probably won't get around to writing to the court about this topic.
Somehow I'd missed this in December:
LWV v Rokita the Indiana state constitutional voter ID lawsuit, has been dismissed at the trial court. pdf. An appeal has been filed. pdf. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Rokita-Brief-3-2-09.pdf
LWV v Rokita the Indiana state constitutional voter ID lawsuit, has been dismissed at the trial court. pdf. An appeal has been filed. pdf. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/Rokita-Brief-3-2-09.pdf
