Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.
525 U.S. 182 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State regulations on the ballot-initiative process that severely inhibit core political speech, such as requiring petition circulators to be registered voters, to wear name identification badges, and to be identified in public disclosure reports, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments unless they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Facts:
- Colorado state law allows citizens to create laws directly through a ballot-initiative process.
- To place an initiative on the ballot, proponents must gather a specified number of signatures from registered voters.
- Colorado enacted a law requiring that individuals who circulate these petitions must be registered Colorado voters.
- The state also required that all circulators wear an identification badge displaying their full name.
- Additionally, for paid circulators, initiative proponents were required to file monthly and final reports disclosing the name, address, and total amount paid to each individual circulator.
- The American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. (ACLF) and other individuals involved in organizing petition drives found these requirements reduced the number of people willing and able to circulate petitions.
- Some potential circulators declined to participate due to fears of harassment from wearing a name badge, while others were ineligible because they were not registered to vote, sometimes as a form of political protest.
Procedural Posture:
- American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. (ACLF) and other plaintiffs filed suit against the Colorado Secretary of State in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, challenging several state election laws as unconstitutional.
- After a bench trial, the District Court struck down the name-badge requirement and portions of the disclosure rules but upheld the registered-voter requirement.
- Both parties appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's invalidation of the badge and disclosure rules, and additionally reversed the District Court by striking down the registered-voter requirement.
- The State of Colorado, as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Colorado's statutory requirements that ballot-initiative petition circulators be registered voters, wear name identification badges, and be publicly identified with their pay in disclosure reports violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments' protection of political speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, Colorado's regulations violate the First Amendment. Petition circulation is core political speech, and these restrictions are not narrowly tailored to serve the state's interests. The registered-voter requirement unconstitutionally reduces the pool of available speakers in the same way the ban on paid circulators did in Meyer v. Grant. The state's interest in ensuring circulators are subject to subpoenas is adequately served by the less restrictive affidavit requirement, which compels circulators to provide their name and address. The name-badge requirement forces circulators to identify themselves at the precise moment they are most vulnerable to harassment, chilling political speech without sufficient justification. Finally, the requirement to disclose the names and pay of individual paid circulators is not sufficiently related to the state's interest in informing voters about the financial backing of a measure; while disclosure of the payors is important, identifying the individual payees forces them to surrender anonymity without a compelling reason, especially since the risk of quid pro quo corruption is not present in ballot initiatives.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes, the challenged regulations are unconstitutional. However, the majority's reasoning departs from the proper analytical framework. Because all three regulations—the badge, registration, and reporting requirements—directly regulate core political speech, they should be subject to strict scrutiny, not a more flexible balancing test. Under a proper strict scrutiny analysis, none of the regulations are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, and thus all three are unconstitutional.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice O'Connor
Yes, in part, and no, in part. A flexible standard should apply, subjecting direct burdens on speech to strict scrutiny while reviewing reasonable, nondiscriminatory electoral process regulations more deferentially. The name-badge requirement is a direct burden on communicative activity and fails strict scrutiny. However, the registered-voter requirement is a permissible, neutral regulation of the electoral process, not a direct burden on speech, and it reasonably serves Colorado's interest in preventing fraud. Similarly, the disclosure requirement for paid circulators is a reasonable electoral regulation that only incidentally burdens speech and is justified by the state's substantial interests in combating fraud and informing the public.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, the voter-registration and disclosure laws are constitutional. While the name-badge requirement is unconstitutional, the Court's decision otherwise strikes down legitimate state laws designed to ensure local issues are decided by local voters and to prevent fraud. The requirement that circulators be registered voters is a reasonable measure to ensure that those involved in the state's law-making process are members of the state's electorate. The disclosure requirement for paid circulators is also constitutional because all circulators already must disclose their names and addresses via affidavit, so the minimal addition of disclosing their pay serves the important state interest of public information.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits a state's power to regulate the ballot-initiative process by reinforcing that petition circulation is 'core political speech' subject to a high level of First Amendment protection. By striking down regulations aimed at administrative integrity and fraud prevention, the Court established that restrictions reducing the number of available speakers will face exacting scrutiny. The ruling prioritizes the protection of political expression, including anonymous speech, over state interests that can be achieved through less burdensome means, such as the existing affidavit requirement. The fragmented opinions, however, reveal ongoing debate about the appropriate level of scrutiny for election regulations that do not directly restrict the content of speech but affect its administration.
Unlock the full brief for Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.