On April 28, the 8th circuit issued this 22-page opinion in 281 Care Committee v Arneson, 10-1558. In 2007, some groups opposed to certain local ballot measures to increase funding for public schools had sued in federal court, to overturn a Minnesota law that makes it a crime to knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth to make a false statement about a proposed ballot measure. They had sued after they had been accused of breaking the law. The U.S. District Court had dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds.

The 8th circuit said there are no procedural problems with this lawsuit, and sent the case back to the U.S. District Court for a decision on the merits. The 8th circuit wrote, “The First Amendment does not allow the courts of appeals to decide whether a category of speech, on the whole, tends to contain socially worthless information…We do not, of course, hold today that a state may never regulate false speech in this context. Rather, we hold that it may only do so when it satisfies the First Amendment test required for content-based speech restrictions: that any regulation be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.” This decision is a good sign for the pending lawsuits in various states in the 8th circuit against laws that make it illegal for out-of-state circulators to work. Such lawsuits are pending in South Dakota and Nebraska. Thanks to Rick Hasen’s ElectionLawBlog for the link.

On April 28, California Governor Jerry Brown spoke in Los Angeles and said he now favors putting an initiative on the ballot to ask voters if they wish to make certain tax changes. See this story. It will be interesting to see if the Democrats in the legislature, who are backing three separate bills to make it more difficult to put initiatives on the ballot, will now stop supporting those bills. The bills are SB168, to make it illegal to pay circulators on a per-signature basis; AB 481, to make all initiative circulators (volunteers and paid workers alike) wear buttons; and AB 651, to require elaborate paperwork for companies that hire paid circulators.

On April 28, U.S. District Court Judge Noel Hillman, a Bush Jr. appointee, refused to grant injunctive relief to a candidate for New Jersey State Senate, Carl Lewis. The New Jersey Constitution sets a 4-year residency requirement in the state, in order to run for State Senate. Candidate Carl Lewis, who is famous for his success in Olympic track events and who wants to appear on the June 2011 Democratic primary ballot, argued that the New Jersey constitutional provision violates the U.S. Constitution, but he did not prevail. Here is the 2-page order. Here is a newspaper story about the decision. Lewis also has a lawsuit in state court, arguing that he meets the residency requirement. Thanks to Oliver Hall and Heidi Fuller for this news.