Sunday, November 23, 2014
Majors v Abell cited in california 9th circuit opinion which is up for rehearing next month.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020140616124.xml/CHULA%20VISTA%20CITIZENS%20v.%20NORRIS
see guest post at hasen.
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68569
That is the most footnotes I have seen in a Hasen blog. I'm responding to footnote 50.
Other circuits have recognized that candidates for public office have no First Amendment interest in anonymity by virtue of their voluntary undertaking of a public role. See, e.g., Majors v. Abell,317 F.3d 719 , 722 (7th Cir.2003) ("[The plaintiff's] standing might be questioned on the ground that a candidate has no [free speech] interest in anonymity that the statute might protect; for there are no anonymous candidates.").
This passage is poorly chosen, because Posner was wrong here. As numerous cases show, candidates do have a first amendment right in choosing the content of their messages. "Vote for Smith" is equally core speech whether spoken by Smith or someone else. This passage was one of many errors in Majors 1, although it was not as wrong as Majors 2.
I am inclined to think that there is here no right to be anonymous in proposing an initiative. But I haven't read James Bopp's briefs in the case.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020140616124.xml/CHULA%20VISTA%20CITIZENS%20v.%20NORRIS
see guest post at hasen.
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=68569
That is the most footnotes I have seen in a Hasen blog. I'm responding to footnote 50.
Other circuits have recognized that candidates for public office have no First Amendment interest in anonymity by virtue of their voluntary undertaking of a public role. See, e.g., Majors v. Abell,
This passage is poorly chosen, because Posner was wrong here. As numerous cases show, candidates do have a first amendment right in choosing the content of their messages. "Vote for Smith" is equally core speech whether spoken by Smith or someone else. This passage was one of many errors in Majors 1, although it was not as wrong as Majors 2.
I am inclined to think that there is here no right to be anonymous in proposing an initiative. But I haven't read James Bopp's briefs in the case.
Comments:
Post a Comment
