of looking at content base but nonetheless that is looks to be the nice circuit law unless the supreme court has overruled that i'm not sure that so my question is is the sign straight to profit you don't even get there you look at the clientele but piece of the context preet seem to misunderstand this and say look we don't have any evidence here that the legislature was trying to target this kind of is there i want to be perfectly clear injunction were asking for would not take away from their words of arizona the ability to strike signatures even because the circulator didn't show up me ask you one question that bothers me when i read the district court's order when she gets to the it goes and you know it says that one point she that the district court recognizes that there's a content bas says i can't really can't decide it now it's it's there but in men there is some might be some problem here on content because of the focus on the initiative injunction proceeding where the district court was required to make a pretty quick call on whether or not you were likely to prevail in a she identified the content based issue but she said i think this needs a little bit more development before i'm willing i don't think she quite went that far she was very careful to say this content claim i just she said i think she did know it and clearly recognize that she said but i think that it needs more development before i'm willing to to meantime i think you have a continent based visually discriminatory law that is going to hurt arizona petitions arizona circulators arizona voters this cycle and i think that's one of the reasons we look at  well you're from the state it's the morning your hono as opposed to themselves there is a bigger thing going on in our district court right now as i understand there is on a law candidates can circulate petitions and sign them on line that can't be done with  landscape somewhat it makes it pretty clear you know the sign ordinance that had the categories in it bother the supreme court significantly less than what we have here you have the the the initiative petitions as well as the candidate editions and treated they're treated differently your honor i think that and it was read really exemplifies that distinction and we use that in when test but i was wondering if there's anything in the supreme court that says the content based way of getting to strict scrutiny isn't just that went leaders to be that that it's just part of the andersen burdic also from this case it's a mistake to look at pratt statement about circulators and initiatives and just look at it as just that statement the problem here is the disparate penalty on speech that has always been something that triggers strict scrutiny the plainly legitimate sweep argument doesn't apply to content based infirmities this is the point you can regulate sex and compliance you just can't regulate it based on the regulation on the back act i'm not even sure it was a direct regulation of speech it simply said you can pay them this way you can pay them that way there was no evidence before the court that actually her circulators and i  circulators probably got paid more after because if you're not getting paid on a signature basis you have to pay someone more to learn them in jeff hawkins you asked for rational basis reviews the frogger view is rejected  buckley the answer you were given is actually into insistent with the case the state cites libertarian party who stated which indicates we're more concerned about private nomination petitions because of the quid pro quo danger there with candidates which just