soapbox

 while we wait for today's opinion announcement, which will probably be trump v colorado,

old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt let me know that alan gura has submitted his cert petition in the san francisco No on E case.

This post is to make a few notes while giving the cert petition a first read.

I quibble semantically with the framing of the question, as whether strict scrutiny or exacting scrutiny applies. here, exacting scrutiny is strict scrutiny, using the McIntyre definition, not the Valeo one.

So point 1, exacting scrutiny is a contronym, explained by the tale of two Buckleys, Buckley v Valeo 1976, and Buckley v ACLF (2000).

Point 2: The parties and the court have chosen to ignore the state cases and the state constitution. The ordinance is void as a matter of state law, Schuster (1980), and probably also violate sthe California right to privacy. This supports Gura's point that the rule does not survive exacting scrutiny because no legitimate state interest.

Point 3: The decision is at odds with scotus precedent from barnette to 303. specifically, Talley mcintyre and aclf are the controlling precedents, which were not changed by citizens united, and by Reed v Town of Gilbert, Janus, NIFLA, and 303. Bonta is related but not controlling since it is a disclosure case and not a disclaimer case. Tornillo (pronounced Tor Nil' O) is also controlling, and was the focus of oral argument in a recent compelled speech case (but which one, mental lapse here)

Point 4: The version of Citizens United being promoted by the Campaign Legal Center is wrong for 6 reasons. Cases adopting this theory, including Gaspee Project, Helzer, and the Arizona Free Enterprise case, are erroneous and should be declared overruled.

Point 5: Since 1961, there has been a split of authority in lower courts, with about 1/3 of the cases refusing to follow scotus precedents of Talley McIntyre and ACLF. 60 years is too long a delay to constitute all deliberate speed. As the court did in Cooper v Aaron, it should make a strong unequivocable statement and resolve the split. Tables 2 and 1 list the cases on either side. Failure to have free speech undermines the integrity of the election process. Free elections are preservative of all other rights.

Ok, that's the general idea. 0.50 hours. Now back to reading the filing.