Buckley v Am Constitutional Law Found.

Decision Date12 January 1999
Docket Number97930
Citation119 S.Ct. 636,525 U.S. 182,142 L.Ed.2d 599
PartiesSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 119 S.Ct. 636 142 L.Ed.2d 599930 VICTORIA BUCKLEY, SECRETARY OF STATE OF COLORADO, PETITIONER v. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOUNDATION, INC., et al. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT [
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.

Colorado allows its citizens to make laws directly through initiatives placed on election ballots. See Colo. Const., Art. V, §§1(1), (2); Colo. Rev. Stat. §§1 40 101 to 1 40 133 (1998). We review in this case three conditions Colorado places on the ballot-initiative process: (1) the requirement that initiative-petition circulators be registered voters, Colo. Rev. Stat. §1 40 112(1) (1998); (2) the requirement that they wear an identification badge bearing the circulator's name, §1 40 112(2); and (3) the requirement that proponents of an initiative report the names and addresses of all paid circulators and the amount paid to each circulator, §1 40 121.

Precedent guides our review. In Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), we struck down Colorado's prohibition of payment for the circulation of ballot-initiative petitions. Petition circulation, we held, is "core political speech," because it involves "interactive communication concerning political change." Id., at 422 (internal quotation marks omitted). First Amendment protection for such interaction, we agreed, is "at its zenith." Id., at 425 (internal quotation marks omitted). We have also recognized, however, that "there must be a substantial regulation of elections if they are to be fair and honest and if some sort of order, rather than chaos, is to accompany the democratic processes." Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 730 (1974); see Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 358 (1997); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983). Taking careful account of these guides, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld some of the State's regulations, but found the three controls at issue excessively restrictive of political speech, and therefore declared them invalid. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer, 120 F.3d 1092 (1997). We granted certiorari, 522 U.S. ___ (1998), and now affirm that judgment.

I

The complaint in this action was filed in 1993 in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; it challenged six of Colorado's many controls on the initiative-petition process. Plaintiffs, now respondents, included American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit, public interest organization that supports direct democracy, and several individual participants in Colorado's initiative process. In this opinion we refer to plaintiffs-respondents, collectively, as ACLF.1 ACLF charged that the following prescriptions of Colorado's law governing initiative petitions violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee: (1) the requirement that petition circulators be at least 18 years old, Colo. Rev. Stat. §1 40 112(1) (1998);2 (2) the further requirement that they be registered voters, ibid.;3 (3) the limitation of the petition circulation period to six months, §1 40 108;4 (4) the requirement that petition circulators wear identification badges stating their names, their status as "VOLUNTEER" or "PAID," and if the latter, the name and telephone number of their employer, §1 40 112(2);5 (5) the requirement that circulators attach to each petition section6 an affidavit containing, inter alia, the circulator's name and address and a statement that "he or she has read and understands the laws governing the circulation of petitions," §1 40 111(2);7 and (6) the requirements that initiative proponents disclose (a) at the time they file their petition, the name, address, and county of voter registration of all paid circulators, the amount of money proponents paid per petition signature, and the total amount paid to each circulator, and (b) on a monthly basis, the names of the proponents, the name and address of each paid circulator, the name of the proposed ballot measure, and the amount of money paid and owed to each circulator during the month, §1 40 121.8

The District Court, after a bench trial,9 struck down the badge requirement and portions of the disclosure requirements, but upheld the age and affidavit requirements and the six-month limit on petition circulation. See American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. v. Meyer, 870 F. Supp. 995, 1001 1004 (Colo. 1994). The District Court also found that the registration requirement "limits the number of persons available to circulate and, accordingly, restricts core political speech." Id., at 1002. Nevertheless, that court upheld the registration requirement. In 1980, the District Court noted, the registration requirement had been adopted by Colorado's voters as a constitutional amendment. See ibid. For that reason, the District Court believed, the restriction was "not subject to any level of scrutiny." Ibid.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. See 120 F.3d 1092 (CA10 1997). That court properly sought guidance from our recent decisions on ballot access, see, e.g., Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997), and on handbill distribution, see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). See 120 F.3d, at 1097, 1103. Initiative-petition circulators, the Tenth Circuit recognized, resemble handbill distributors, in that both seek to promote public support for a particular issue or position. See id., at 1103. Initiative-petition circulators also resemble candidate-petition signature gatherers, however, for both seek ballot access. In common with the District Court, the Tenth Circuit upheld, as reasonable regulations of the ballot-initiative process, the age restriction, the six-month limit on petition circulation, and the affidavit requirement. See id., at 1098 1100, 1101.10 The Court of Appeals struck down the requirement that petition circulators be registered voters, and also held portions of the badge and disclosure requirements invalid as trenching unnecessarily and improperly on political expression. See id., at 1100, 1101 1105.

II

As the Tenth Circuit recognized in upholding the age restriction, the six-month limit on circulation, and the affidavit requirement, States allowing ballot initiatives have considerable leeway to protect the integrity and reliability of the initiative process, as they have with respect to election processes generally. See Biddulph v. Mortham, 89 F.3d 1491, 1494, 1500 1501 (CA11 1996) (upholding single subject and unambiguous title requirements for initiative proposals to amend Florida's Constitution), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1151 (1997); Taxpayers United For Assessment Cuts v. Austin, 994 F.2d 291, 293 294, 296 297 (CA6 1993) (upholding Michigan procedures for checking voters' signatures on initiative petitions).11 We have several times said "no litmus-paper test" will separate valid ballot-access provisions from invalid interactive speech restrictions; we have come upon "no substitute for the hard judgments that must be made." Storer, 415 U.S., at 730; see Timmons, 520 U.S., at 359; Anderson, 460 U.S., at 789 790. But the First Amendment requires us to be vigilant in making those judgments, to guard against undue hindrances to political conversations and the exchange of ideas. See Meyer, 486 U.S., at 421. We therefore detail why we are satisfied that, as in Meyer, the restrictions in question significantly inhibit communication with voters about proposed political change, and are not warranted by the state interests (administrative efficiency, fraud detection, informing voters) alleged to justify those restrictions.12 Our judgment is informed by other means Colorado employs to accomplish its regulatory purposes.

III

By constitutional amendment in 1980, see Colo. Const., Art. V, §1(6) (1980), and corresponding statutory change the next year, see 1981 Colo. Sess. Laws, ch. 56, §4, Colorado added to the requirement that petition circulators be residents, the further requirement that they be registered voters.13 Registration, Colorado's Attorney General explained at oral argument, demonstrates "commit[ment] to the Colorado law-making process," Tr. of Oral Arg. 10, and facilitates verification of the circulator's residence, see id., at 10, 14. Beyond question, Colorado's registration requirement drastically reduces the number of persons, both volunteer and paid, available to circulate petitions. We must therefore inquire whether the State's concerns warrant the reduction. See Timmons, 520 U.S., at 358.

When this case was before the District Court, registered voters in Colorado numbered approximately 1.9 million. At least 400,000 persons eligible to vote were not registered. See 2 Tr. 159 (testimony of Donetta Davidson, elections official in the Colorado Secretary of State's office);14 120 F.3d, at 1100 ("Colorado acknowledges there are at least 400,000 qualified but unregistered voters in the state.").15

Trial testimony complemented the statistical picture. Typical of the submissions, initiative proponent Paul Grant testified: "Trying to circulate an initiative petition, you're drawing on people who are not involved in normal partisan politics for the most part. . . . [L]arge numbers of these people, our natural support, are not registered voters." 1 Tr. 128.

As earlier noted, see supra, at 5, the District Court found from the statistical and testimonial evidence: "The record does show that the requirement of registration limits the number of persons available to circulate and sign [initiative] petitions and, accordingly, restricts core political speech." 870 F. Supp., at 1002. Because the requirement's source was a referendum approved by the people of Colorado, however, the District Court deemed the prescription "not subject to any level of [judicial] scrutiny." Ibid. That misjudgment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
495 cases
  • Crossley v. California, Case No.: 20-cv-0284-GPC-JLB
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • August 17, 2020
    ...recruiters on campus does not target conduct that is "inherently expressive").Plaintiffs cite Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc. , 525 U.S. 182, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999) in support. However, the distinctions between Buckley and the issues at hand are more salient th......
  • In re Verizon Internet Services, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • April 24, 2003
    ...Internet The Supreme Court has recognized a right of anonymity within the First Amendment. Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Found., 525 U.S. 182, 200, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999) (invalidating, on First Amendment grounds, a Colorado statute that required initiative petitione......
  • Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehab., & Pub. Safety v. Hobbs
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • September 4, 2020
    ...of the initiative process, as they have with respect to election processes generally." Buckley v. Am. Const. L. Found., Inc. ("ACLF II" ), 525 U.S. 182, 191, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999). ¶42 The United States Supreme Court has provided one framework for analyzing the constitutiona......
  • DSCC v. Simon, A20-1017
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • October 28, 2020
    ...of voting and ways in which they could vote. Applying the exacting scrutiny standard from Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. , 525 U.S. 182, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999), and Meyer v. Grant , 486 U.S. 414, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 100 L.Ed.2d 425 (1988), the district co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...& Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001), 402 Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999), 1512 Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 612, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), 393, 673-74, 742, 799, 1497-......
  • Do Not Knock? Lovell to Watchtower and Back Again
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 38-3, May 2010
    • May 1, 2010
    ...case, and local governments continue to 143 Watchtower , 536 U.S. at 166. 144 See, e.g. , Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 198 (1999). 145 See Watchtower , 536 U.S. at 167. 146 Id. Regarding the objection that patriotic Americans might have to a permit requireme......
  • The context of ideology: law, politics, and empirical legal scholarship.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 75 No. 1, December - December 2010
    • December 22, 2010
    ...141/0222 Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cent. Office, Inc., 524 U.S. 214 (1998). 142/0599 Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999). 143/0818 Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999). 144/0067 City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999). 144/0347 Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.......
  • Protecting Online Anonymity and Preserving Reputation Through Due Process
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 27-4, June 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...II. 19. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y, Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002); Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999); McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960). 2011] PROTECTING ONLINE ANONYMITY ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT