Meyer v. Grant
100 L. Ed. 2d 425, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 2489, 486 U.S. 414 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that criminalizes paying circulators of ballot-initiative petitions imposes a severe burden on core political speech that is not justified by state interests in preventing fraud or ensuring grassroots support, and thus violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Facts:
- Colorado state law permits citizens to place new laws or constitutional amendments on the ballot through an initiative process that requires obtaining a certain number of voter signatures within a six-month period.
- A Colorado statute, § 1-40-110, made it a felony to pay any person for circulating an initiative petition.
- Appellees, proponents of an amendment to the Colorado Constitution to deregulate motor carriers, began the process of obtaining the 46,737 signatures required to place their measure on the 1984 ballot.
- Based on their prior experience, appellees concluded that they would be unable to obtain the necessary signatures within the six-month deadline using only unpaid volunteers.
- Appellees desired to hire paid personnel to assist in circulating their petition but were prevented from doing so by the state's statutory prohibition.
- The process of circulating a petition involves interacting with the public, explaining the proposed measure, and discussing its merits to persuade people to sign.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellees, proponents of a ballot initiative, sued the Secretary of State and Attorney General of Colorado in the U.S. District Court, seeking a declaration that the state's ban on paid circulators was unconstitutional.
- The District Court upheld the statute and entered judgment for the State of Colorado.
- Appellees appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where a divided three-judge panel initially affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The Tenth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc (by the full court of appeals).
- The en banc Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the Colorado statute was unconstitutional.
- The State of Colorado (appellants) appealed this decision to 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:
Does a state law making it a felony to pay individuals who circulate petitions for a ballot initiative violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments' protection of free speech?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
Yes, a state law making it a felony to pay individuals who circulate petitions for a ballot initiative violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments' protection of free speech. The circulation of an initiative petition is core political speech, as it involves interactive communication concerning political change. The Colorado statute's prohibition on paying circulators restricts this political expression in two ways: 1) it limits the number of voices who can convey the proponents' message and the hours they can speak, thereby reducing the size of the audience they can reach; and 2) it makes it less likely the proponents will gather enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot, thus limiting their ability to make the matter a focus of statewide discussion. These restrictions on the quantity of speech are subject to exacting scrutiny. The State's asserted interests—ensuring grassroots support and protecting the integrity of the initiative process—are not compelling enough to justify the ban. The signature requirement itself adequately ensures a measure of public support, and the state failed to produce any evidence that paid circulators are more likely to engage in fraud than volunteers. Furthermore, Colorado has other, less restrictive statutes that directly punish fraudulent petition activities, such as forgery or paying people to sign.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes that circulating an initiative petition is 'core political speech' subject to the highest level of First Amendment protection ('exacting scrutiny'). By applying the logic from Buckley v. Valeo, the Court equated a ban on paying circulators with a direct limitation on the quantity of political speech, rather than a mere regulation of the initiative process. This precedent significantly curtails a state's ability to regulate the financial aspects of ballot-initiative campaigns, making it very difficult to justify outright bans on paid signature gathering. The ruling empowers campaigns, particularly those with financial resources but limited volunteer networks, to more effectively access the ballot, potentially increasing the number and variety of citizen-led initiatives.
