Friday, June 30, 2023
Dear Senator Young,
cc: Representative Johnson
Today the United States Supreme Court decided 303 Creative v. Colorado.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf, 600 US _ (2023.)
The case reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the government may not compel speech.
The reason I am writing is to ask your office to ask Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita for an advisory opinion [AGO] on whether Indiana's disclaimer statute, IC 3-9-3.2.5, is unconstitutional based on this case.
The disclaimer statute is what forces candidates and others to put "paid for by _" on their signs and brochures, at the risk of being jailed or fined.
The statute also violates the state constitution, particularly Price v Indiana (1993.)
As a private citizen I cannot request the opinion myself; the request must come from an elected official.
In 1996 in Stewart v Taylor I was able to get the previous statute, then IC 3-9-3-2, struck down as unconstitutional, but the legislature quickly passed the new statute, which is just as unconstitutional, but my lawyer had retired and I have not been in the situation of being able to afford a lawyer.
Your office was a great help to me in obtaining my passport.
I hope you can assist me with this matter.
Sincerely,
Robbin Stewart.
gtbear at gmail.com.
as sent.To: Representative Andre Carson
2135 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Today the United States Supreme Court decided 303 Creative v. Colorado.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf, 600 US _ (2023.)
The case reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the government may not compel speech.
In 1960 in Talley v. California the Supreme Court held that a state cannot require disclaimers on political literature. Manual Talley, an activist with CORE, had distributed a flyer calling for a boycott of racist businesses. He was fined $10 for not putting his name and address on the flyer. As a black man married to a white woman in 1960, it would not have been safe for his family to have their home address on the flyer.
The court held that the First Amendment contains a right to privacy.
The reason I am writing is to ask your office to ask Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita for an advisory opinion [AGO] on whether Indiana's disclaimer statute, IC 3-9-3.2.5, is unconstitutional based on these cases.
The disclaimer statute is what forces candidates and others to put "paid for by _" on their signs and brochures, at the risk of being jailed or fined. I am someone who has been tortured in Marion County Jail, and would prefer to never go through that again.
The statute also violates the state constitution, particularly Price v Indiana (1993.)
As a private citizen I cannot request the opinion myself; the request must come from an elected official.
In 1996 in Stewart v Taylor I was able to get the previous statute, then IC 3-9-3-2, struck down as unconstitutional, My sign had read "Robbin Stewart for Township Board - Vote Tuesday". It was taken down by precinct officials because it did not have the disclaimer.
But the legislature quickly passed the new statute, which is just as unconstitutional, but my lawyer had retired and I have not been in the situation of being able to afford a lawyer. Your letter of last week asked me to contact you if I needed help with a government agency.
I hope you can assist me with this matter.
Sincerely,
Robbin Stewart.
gtbear at gmail.com.
sent.
sent to rep robin shackleford, slightly edited.
sent to secstate diego morales, slightly edited.
