9th Circuit Says Compelled Disclosure of Internal Campaign Communications Violates First Amendment

On December 11, the 9th circuit ruled that groups organized to pass a ballot measure may not be forced to disclose their internal campaign messages. The controversy arose over the California campaign for Proposition 8 last year. Proposition 8, an initiative, banned same-sex marriages. After the measure passed, its opponents filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that a ban on same-sex marriages violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

As the trial proceeded in U.S. District Court, proponents of same-sex marriages asked the U.S. District Court to order the other side to produce its internal memos on campaign strategy. The District Court said the internal memos should be produced, but the 9th circuit has now countermanded that order. The 9th circuit said, “The potential chilling effect on political participation and debate is substantial”. The 38-page decision is here, and is a useful document describing earlier precedents that have ruled in favor of political privacy. The earliest federal precedents are from the 1950’s, when the U.S. Supreme Court stopped several southern states from forcing the NAACP to produce its membership lists, and lists of people who had contributed to it. Thanks to HowAppealing for the link.


9th Circuit Says Compelled Disclosure of Internal Campaign Communications Violates First Amendment — 7 Comments

  1. I think all states should be compelled by the US Supreme Court to put forward a ballot initiative which would determine whether Negroes can vote and another to determine whether women can own property.

    After all, civil rights should ALWAYS be determined by popular vote. That’s the way democracy works.

    Please support Sarah Palin for president. She understands this.

  2. How about the purge lists compiled by the various leftwing / rightwing party hack gangs regarding signing petitions for candidates and hot ballot questions and/or making donations (or even NOT making donations) for such candidates and ballot questions ???

    Any New Age bill of attainers for Palin, Bush II, Obama, Clinton, etc. etc. ???

    See the EVIL history of the old rotten English regimes – New EVIL king = attainer purge/murder of the supporters of the old EVIL king.

    Somewhat less evil in England since the 1689 Revolution — BUT the NO attainer stuff was put into the U.S.A. and many State constitutions out of abundant caution.

  3. Thats why we have a Republic and not a mass democracy. Laws protect us from the tyranny of the majority (mob rule).

  4. 3 –

    I disagree. It only takes 9 to make a “mob,” like the Supreme Court, or like any of the other courts that are forcing the gay agenda on the rest of of.

    Any time the people have had a chance to vote on gay marriage, it’s been turned down, like it should. Gays and Lesbians and other perverts should be put back in their closets where they belong, and if we put Sarah Palin in the White House, that’s exactly what will happen.

    In this case, the will of the majority is on the side of morals and righteousness…middle rural American values – the kind Sarah supports.

  5. Same-sex couples have won two statewide popular votes on civil unions/domestic partners, in Washington and in Arizona.

  6. Minority rule gerrymanders in ALL houses of ALL 50 State legislatures and in both houses of the gerrymander Congress — NONSTOP indirect minority rule since 4 July 1776 by the party hacks in the U.S.A.

    1. Democracy = Majority rule, direct or indirect

    2. monarchy/oligarchy (aka kings/queens, nobility, etc.) = minority rule, direct or indirect

    — known for about 2,500 plus years since the Ancient Greek regimes.

    Which type has caused the most EVIL — foreign wars, slavery, civil wars, inflations, depressions, etc. in the past 6,000 plus years of recorded history ??? Duh.

    Clue — Which type caused World WARS I and II by the EVIL in the so-called brains of the top govt persons involved ???

  7. Pingback: First Amendment Roundup: December 16, 2009 – Cincinnati Lawyers Finney, Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *