SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus McINTYRE, executor of ESTATE OF
McINTYRE, DECEASED v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION certiorari to the supreme court of ohio
No. 93-986. Argued October 12, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 After petitioner's decedent distributed
leaflets purporting to express the views of CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS'' oppos- ing a
proposed school tax levy, she was fined by respondent for violating 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code,
prohibits the distribu- tion of campaign literature that does not contain the name and address of
or campaign official issuing the literature. The Court of Common Pleas reversed, but the Ohio Court
peals reinstated the fine. In affirming, the State Supreme Court held that the burdens 3599.09(A)
on voters' First Amend- ment rights were reasonable'' and nondiscriminatory'' and therefore
Declaring that 3599.09(A) is intended to identify persons who distribute campaign materials
fraud, libel, or false advertising and to provide voters with a mechanism for evaluating such
court distinguished Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60, in which this Court invalidated an ordinance
prohibiting all anonymous leafletting. Held: Section 3599.09(A)'s prohibition of the distribution
mous campaign literature abridges the freedom of speech in viola- tion of the First Amendment. Pp.
(a) The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment, and, as Talley
extends beyond the literary realm to the advocacy of political causes. Pp. 7-9. (b) This Court's
make abundantly clear that the Ohio Supreme Court's reasonableness standard is significantly more
than is appropriate in a case of this kind. Although Talley concerned a different limitation than
and thus does not necessarily control here, the First Amendment's protection of ano- nymity
applies. Section 3599.09(A) is not simply an election code provision subject to the ordinary
set forth in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, and similar cases. Rather, it is a regulation
political speech. Moreover, the category of documents it covers is defined by their content-only
publications containing speech designed to influence the voters in an election need bear the
information. See, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 776-777. When a law
such speech, the Court applies exacting scrutiny,'' upholding the restriction only if it is
serve an overriding state interest. See, e.g., id., at 786. Pp. 9-14. (c) Section 3599.09(A)'s
speech ban is not justified by Ohio's asserted interests in preventing fraudulent and libelous
in providing the electorate with relevant informa- tion. The claimed informational interest is
insufficient to support the statute's disclosure requirement, since the speaker's identity is no
other components of a document's contents that the author is free to include or exclude, and the
name and address add little to the reader's ability to evaluate the document in the case of a
by a private citizen unknown to the reader. Moreover, the state interest in preventing fraud and
Ohio vindicates by means of other, more direct prohibitions) does not justify 3599.09(A)'s
prohibition of anonymous leaflets. The statute encompasses all documents, regardless of whether
arguably false or misleading. Although a State might somehow demonstrate that its enforcement
justify a more limited identification require- ment, Ohio has not met that burden here. Pp. 14-20.
Court's opinions in Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 792, n. 32-which commented in dicta on the prophylactic
requiring identification of the source of corporate campaign advertising-and Buckley v. Valeo, 424
75-76-which approved mandatory disclosure of campaign-related expenditures-do not establish the
constitutionality of 3599.09(A), since neither case involved a prohi- bition of anonymous campaign
literature. Pp. 20-23. 67 Ohio St. 3d 391, 618 N. E. 2d 152, reversed. Stevens, J., delivered the
the Court, in which O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J.,
concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Scalia, J., filed a
opinion, in which Rehn- quist, C. J., joined. Path:
vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cwrusc!courts From:
courts@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Newsgroups: freenet.govt.hermes.opinions,courts.usa.federal.supreme
SNIPPETS:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus McINTYRE, executor of ESTATE OF McINTYRE,
Argued October 12, 1994-Decided April 19, 1995 After petitioner's decedent distributed
the State Supreme Court held that the burdens 3599.09imposed on voters' First Amend- ment
Section 3599.09's prohibition of the distribution of anonymous campaign literature abridges
Although Talley concerned a different limitation than 3599.09and thus does not necessarily
the category of documents it covers is defined by their content-only those publications
The claimed informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the statute's
Moreover, the state interest in preventing fraud and libel does not justify 3599.09's
Moreover, the law serves to identify those who engage in fraud, libel or false advertising.
Justice Black recalled England's abusive press licensing laws and seditious libel
Indeed, as we have explained on many prior occasions, the category of speech regulated by the
the federal Act contains numer- ous legitimate disclosure requirements for campaign
That most other Americans shared this understanding is reflected in the Federalists' hasty
|
