McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
Argued October 12, 1994
Decided April 19, 1995
Full case nameJoseph McIntyre, executor of Estate of Margaret McIntyre, deceased, petitioner v. Ohio Elections Commission, et al.
Docket no.93-986
Citations514 U.S. 334 (more)
115 S. Ct. 1511; 131 L. Ed. 2d 426; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 2847
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
Prior67 Ohio St. 3d 391, 618 N.E.2d 152 (1993); cert. granted, 510 U.S. 1108 (1994).
SubsequentOn remand, 72 Ohio St. 3d 1544, 650 N.E.2d 903 (1995).
Holding
An Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityStevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
ConcurrenceGinsburg
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentScalia, joined by Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre stood outside of a middle school in Westerville, Ohio, and passed out anonymous pamphlets that opposed a proposed school district tax levy. The Ohio Elections Commission fined McIntyre $100 for violating a state law that prohibits the distribution of any kind of political or campaign literature that does not have the name and address of the person responsible for its contents. McIntyre appealed the fine in court. The county court reversed the fine, holding that because McIntyre did not attempt to mislead the public, the Ohio statute was unconstitutional as it applied to her actions. However, the state court of appeals reinstated the fine, referring to a 1922 decision by the Ohio Supreme Court as precedent, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed on April 19, 1995. In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the "freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment". As precedent, the Court referred to its decision in Talley v. California (1960), in which the Court found a similar law prohibiting anonymous leafletting unconstitutional. The Court's opinion emphasized the importance of anonymous speech, describing it as "not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent".

Margaret McIntyre died while her case was still pending in the state courts, and the executor of her estate continued her claim in the U.S. Supreme Court. In the Court's final decision, Justice Stevens wrote that even though the amount in controversy was only $100, the Court's grant of certiorari reflected its "agreement with [the executor's] appraisal of the importance of the question presented".

Background

Ohio statute and prior case law

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the federal government from abridging the freedom of speech, and the Fourteenth Amendment extends this prohibition to state governments under the incorporation doctrine.[1] Section 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Revised Code forbade the creation and distribution of any kind of publication "... designed to promote the adoption or defeat of any issue, or to influence the voters in any election ..." unless the publication contains the name and address of the person responsible for the content of the publication."[2] Previously, in a case called State v. Babst (1922), the Supreme Court of Ohio, the state's highest court, upheld the constitutionality of the "statutory predecessor" of section 3599.09(A).[3] However, in Talley v. California (1960), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a similar Los Angeles city ordinance prohibiting all anonymous leafletting was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment.[4]

Facts of the case
One of the anonymous leaflets passed out by Margaret McIntyre which became the subject of McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

On the evening of April 27, 1988, the superintendent of Westerville City School District held a public meeting at Blendon Middle School in Westerville, Ohio, to discuss a new school district tax levy. On the same day, an Ohioan named Margaret McIntyre stood outside the school and distributed leaflets to meeting attendants, asking them to vote no on the tax levy issue. Some of the leaflets did not identify her as the author, instead identifying the message as coming from "concerned parents and tax payers".[5] While she was distributing the leaflets, a school official who supported the tax proposal warned McIntyre that her anonymous leaflets were unlawful. Despite the warning, McIntyre continued to distribute the leaflets at a meeting the next day.[6] The tax levy issue failed to pass on its first try. In November 1988, in the third election on which the issue was presented, the tax levy was finally approved. Five months after the levy passed, the same school official who warned McIntyre about her anonymous leaflets filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission, accusing McIntyre of violating section 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Revised Code. The commission found her guilty and fined her $100.[6]

Lower court proceedings

McIntyre appealed the fine to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the fine, holding that because McIntyre "did not 'mislead the public nor act in a surreptitious manner'", section 3599.09(A) was unconstitutional as it applied to her actions. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed that court, putting back the fine. In a divided vote, the majority of the judges felt bound by the precedent set in State v. Babst (1922) by the Supreme Court of Ohio, which upheld the "statutory predecessor" of section 3599.09(A). The judge who dissented from the opinion argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's intervening decision in Talley v. California (1960) "compelled the Ohio court to adopt a narrowing construction of the statute to save its constitutionality".[7] The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, also by a divided vote. The majority of the state supreme court justices felt that the Ohio statute was different from the city ordinance in Talley, finding that section 3599.09(A) "has as its purpose the identification of persons who distribute materials containing false statements".[7] In a dissenting opinion, Justice J. Craig Wright wrote that section 3599.09(A) "'is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest and is, therefore, unconstitutional as applied to McIntyre.'"[8]

Supreme Court
Justice John Paul Stevens, the author of the majority decision in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

Margaret McIntyre died while the case was still being litigated in the state courts. Joseph McIntyre, the executor of McIntyre's estate, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, which the Court granted on February 22, 1994.[9][10] Justice Stevens later wrote, "Even though the amount in controversy is only $100", the Court's grant of certiorari "reflects our agreement with [the executor's] appraisal of the importance of the question presented".[9] Extensive amici briefs were filed in the case.

Opinion of the Court

Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. In striking down the law, the court considered some important reasons to allow anonymous speech that weighed in their decision.

  1. Enhance authority - "Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent."[11]
  2. Encourage open discourse - "The interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry."[12]
  3. Safety from retaliation - "The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible."[13]

In sum the Court said:

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. S. Mill, On Liberty, in On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

Dissent and concurrence

Justice Antonin Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist joined. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion, while Justice Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Subsequent law

Fifteen years later, the Supreme Court distinguished the McIntyre rule in Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010). In Doe, they held that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[14] This holding came out of the Washington Referendum 71 (2009), in which the people of Washington state confirmed Senate Bill 5688, a law extending the rights and obligations of domestic partnership in Washington.

A defendant in a defamation lawsuit attempted to use this case as a precedent that "sources have the right of anonymous speech under the First Amendment", but in 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the argument, distinguishing that case from McIntyre.[15] In that case, the defendant was held not to be a journalist for the purposes of privilege, but was she also not anonymous, as she had posted her identity.[16]

During the Albany, New York 2011 school budget campaign, anonymous flyers were mailed and telephones called that (unsuccessfully) aimed to defeat the Albany City School District budget.[17] It was later revealed that it was funded by "a charter-affiliated group ... connected to Tom Carroll," who was "founder of the Brighter Choice Foundation, which supports all of the city's 11 charter schools."[17] The opponents of the public schools spent $6,766 on postage for the mailings, while "the total cost of the professionally-produced postcards, as well as a telephone push poll, likely far exceeded $10,000."[17] This led to a bill being introduced into the New York State Legislature to require disclosure for political mailings that cost over $1,000.[17] The bill was written by majority legislators Member of the Assembly Sam Hoyt and Senator Kenneth LaValle.[17] That bill is pending as of June 2011.

Further reading

See also

References
Sources
  • McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)  This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
References
  1. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 336.
  2. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 338.
  3. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 339. State v. Babst, 104 Ohio St. 167, 135 N.E. 525 (1922).
  4. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 339. Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60 (1960).
  5. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 337.
  6. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 338.
  7. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 339.
  8. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 340.
  9. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 340–41.
  10. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 67 Ohio St.3d 391, 618 N.E. 2d 152, cert. granted, 510 U.S. 1108 (U.S. February 22, 1994).
  11. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 342.
  12. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 374.
  13. McIntyre, 514 U.S. 334 at 341.
  14. Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010).
  15. Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale (N.J. 2011), slip. op. at 37, fn. 5, citing McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 341-43, 115 S. Ct. 1511, 1516-17, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426, 436-37 (1995). Accessed June 7, 2011.
  16. Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale,, supra, slip. op. at 38, fn. 5.
  17. Scott Waldman (May 31, 2011). "Proposed law: Blast a school budget, attach your name; Legislators want more disclosure on efforts to sway school votes". Times Union. Retrieved June 7, 2011.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.