U.S. District Court Rules Against Anonymous Blogging About Candidates

Posted on by April 29, 2013
Reply

On September 9, 2012, a U.S. District Court ruled that Maine does not violate the U.S. Constitution when it bans anonymous blogs that make commentary about a candidate for public office. The court refused to stop the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics from fining Dennis Bailey for refusing to identify himself on his own blog, “The Cutler Files.” UPDATE: here is a copy of the decision. Thanks to Robbin Stewart for the link.

This is not new news, but because this outcome had not previously been reported either here, or in many other press outlets, it is being mentioned now even though it happened over six months ago. The decision is Bailey v State of Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, 1:11-cv-179. The Maine law exempts periodicals from the disclosure requirement. The Court ruled that Bailey’s webpage was not a true periodical, because it was set up to post damaging material about Eliot Cutler, an independent candidate for Governor of Maine, and that it was never intended to be a permanent blog. It said the blog was more like a “negative campaign flyer than a periodical publication.”

In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, that the U.S. Constitution protects anonymous speech about elections. The Maine decision distinguishes that by noting that the Ohio case involved speech about a ballot question, not a candidate. Also the Maine decision says that Citizens United v FEC upheld mandatory disclosure about the identity of speakers, concerning speech about candidates for public office. Bailey did not appeal the decision in his own case; probably one reason is that his fine was only $200.

California Bill, Restricting Initiatives, Advances

Posted on by April 27, 2013
Reply

On April 23, California AB 857 passed the Assembly Elections Committee by a party-line vote of 5-2, with all Democrats voting “yes” and all Republicans voting “no.” It says that statewide initiatives cannot qualify unless at least 20% of the signatures submitted were collected by unpaid volunteers. Petitions collected by paid circulators would be on yellow paper and would bear the legend “Warning to the Public: This Petition is Being Circulated by a Person Paid to Obtain Your Signature. Read the contents of this petition before signing.” That would be in 18-point type. Each page of an initiative petition would bear a unique page number.

Also, paid circulators could not work unless they had registered with the Secretary of State and had completed a state training course. Paid circulators would be required to wear a badge bearing a photo of the circulator, and his or her registration number. Signatures collected in which any of these laws are violated would not be valid. Employers of paid circulators would be required to keep records of payment, including hours worked, even though the employee wasn’t being paid by the hour or day. If such records cannot be produced by the employer, the signatures gathered by paid circulators would be invalid. AB 857 is supported by several labor unions.

The preamble to the bill says that under the current system, individuals and groups who have wealth now have the power to place initiatives on the ballot, which creates inequality. Of course that statement is correct. Ironically, the same statement could also be applied to candidate elections in California; candidates who are wealthy, or who have wealthy backers, have a very great advantage toward getting elected. However, California does not have public funding of candidates for state office, nor are there any bills to provide for public funding.

The part of the bill that requires at least 20% of the signatures to have been collected by unpaid workers probably is unconstitutional, under the 1988 unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion Meyer v Grant. Meyer v Grant struck down a Colorado law that prohibited paying circulators. The basis for the Meyer v Grant decision is not related to the rights of individual circulators to be paid to exercise free speech. Instead, the basis is that a ban on payment makes it more difficult for proponents of an initiative to qualify initiatives, and the decision says that having additional initiatives on the ballot increases political speech. The decision says any fears about a glut of initiatives can be regulated simply by increasing or otherwise regulating the number of signatures required.

British Columbia Holds Legislative Elections on May 14; Four Parties Have Candidates in a Majority of Districts

Posted on by April 27, 2013
Reply

British Columbia elects a new Legislative Assembly on May 14. Currently the party line-up is 45 Liberals, 36 New Democrats, and 4 independents. At the upcoming election, those two parties, plus the Conservative Party and the Green Party, have candidates in a majority of districts.

The Green Party hopes to elect at least four members, which would enable it to have a recognized caucus in the Assembly. See the Green Party’s goals here.

Candidates get on the ballot by paying a fee. The deadline was April 26, which is only 17 days before the election itself.