regulating the initiative process in chula vista one is the natural personal requirement requiring a proponent of an initiative to be an elector or and therefore a natural person not a corporation or association which the court below upheld second is the reveal yourself requirement were proponents of an initiative or den of five on this circulated version of the initiative position the petition  three judge panel struck down this requirement the reveal yourself acquiring that is contained in night ninety two zero seven which requires a proponent of the nation to have to be identified in the circulated version of the initiative petition that the this is and at the point of contact with the voter requirement which is unconstitutional under mcintyre m a you're not challenging the first two steps in the initiative process where the proponent identifies himself or herself are you know  macintyre headed down a fighter self as an opponent of the school bond initiative in other publications that she had done however when she was penalize for failing to disclose her identity on a handbill she challenge that and it was the right of anonymity at the point of contact with the voter so so it's a place and contact contacts right as opposed to a general claim of a first amendment right to anonymity well you don't given your right of attack anonymity in a particular circumstance because it's disclosed in another is what the court held and the court does distinguish the context the at the point of contact with the voter as the critical can textual situation where the court said that the interest in anonymity is is at its greatest its highest it's my understanding  that the proponents actually went on public television and appeared at city council meeting in order to advocate this suppose if they stepped outside after their public speech at the city council and  campaign finance reports and so you don't see any distinction between circulators and proponent for identification purposes no not for no no because each of their men are involved in an expressive activity they are arguing for people to and of course the circulator would be there too and you're not challenging the requirement of state law that in the election materials the proponent actually be identified at the bottom of the introduction to their statement no that's a different context and it's not the point of contact with the voter is when the discussion so i take the place i guess what's the burden on on the proponents first amendment right here that outweighs the state's interest in sharing the integrity of election well the the courts have identified a whole series of reasons and justifications for anonymity in this one it's but it but don't go and talk to us about general reasons get to this particular issue because this is judged tolman's question and really mind i'm happy that he asked that because i understand the adana g s of the official proponents are disclosed mainly because each initiative partition must bear a copy of the notice of intention and title and summary of the petition so we've already got two there it's already been disclosed twice now and they're just merely putting the copy of what was anonymity is that as is that it's highest and the particular proponents here have stated in the record that they one of them will never do this again it would be disclosed  the in the circulated version the other is not not sure if she she would so it is the injury simply chilling because yeah party that your argument also included fear of harassment and i'm trying to figure out what the nexus is between the violation that you're alleging and the general disclosure that already occurs in at least four or five different contexts trying to figure out well how how could they be harassed by tie it up but there's five respites one there's five the very first one is that it removes the danger of preconceived prejudice concerning the messenger that would alter the  the proponent to defend the proponent is asking the signer of the petition to give him certain powers and you want it to be anonymous it tends to whom are giving your powers to pursue this petition or not pursue it to defend it or not defend this information is available if somebody wants to once it is relevant to them it's available to clerk's office as available in the easier to asking the people who signed the petition to give quasar legislative authority to certain people who are the proponent and you want to conceal from them when they signed the petition that that's what they're doing no we want the proponents want to exercise their first amendment rights not to be compelled to provide information in a political speech presentation which is the argument for signing the petition they don't want the government requiring them to disclose but aren't they really aren't they really asking for a vote to make them a legislator or a type of legislator in california essentially to become in charge of legislation you know the supreme court is not not looked at nor is this court looked at it in the way you just as there's two lines of cases in this area there are candidate elections and campaigns and then there are ballot measures but are there but under california law under california law they merge in this context no because under state law under state law the proponent has certain legislative functions to to for example to put forward the arguments and to defending court and a number of other things so why aren't those other cases equally not the because of the this were in court just recently held in dover you read that because you give certain legal effect to and expressive act it doesn't change the fact it's an expressive that and the expressive act is the numerous ways in which the proponent is advocating to the elect or that they sign a petition which would is the would place it on  that the court said that without even that without the action of the proponent the proponent could decide not to place it on the ballot he's true he has certain legal authority but it doesn't change the fact that it is an expressive activity when he is asking that the petition be signed that is an expressive activity that is being but of course there are the first amendment rights but of course lots of discretion of activities may be limited to to determine what first amendment speech should be said what should be said in first amendment protected speech that's called compelled but speech by the government but it is a kind of candidate for office could a candidate for know that's an interesting question but i don't think it matters i've gone back and forth on that in my own mind whether that is true or not but but but at the bottom line is is completely irrelevant this is an expressive activity the court has said repeatedly including most recently in the case i'm very familiar with dovi read that it does not matter that you are giving a some sort of official there's something that somebody does in an signed the petition that was expressive activity and it certainly has big time legal effect if enough of them sign it the matter goes on the ballot that's much more power than the proponent has the proponent forward one can quit even getting the signatures he desires is important or has some official responsibility and therefore the only reason that these signatures are even on this petition is because somebody puts a copy of of frankly things you do not object to a copy of the notice of intention and the title in the summary of the petition with the initiative p in other words your people have put already their signatures on this and the only reason their signatures are on the petition itself is because the title says there must be a copy of their notice of intention title and summ a burden than the plaintiffs had in dovi read more of a burden yeah because in don't be read it suggests that the modest burden which was accompany wasn't even any that particular case that was more that would suggest that justice alito was opinion might be something rude look at but there's not even any evidence of that in this particular case is there no not there's plenty of reasons for anonymity include including what the supreme court in mcintyre a benefit that is preg prejudice the message by the identity of the messenger and that is sufficient reason but you know there's another line of talk from the united states supreme court as it increasingly allows contributions and expenditures in campaigns the court is very careful to say this does not mean that there cannot be compelled disclosure because the voter has an interest in knowing who's behind all of this so you've got a very strong competing line of talk at least that the voter has a real interest in knowing who's behind things well and citizens  disclaimer in mcintyre the very same disclaimer that was required and upheld for candidate communications in buffalo was struck down in mcintyre because it was a ballot measure it was made up for you to get it differently different line of cases do you think you wanted to reserve ten minutes but i want to know what you're going to get to your other argument that a corporation should be allowed to be a proponent not just a natural elector yes that thank you thank you for the question i'd be pleased to the chula vista of course requires that the proponent be an elect or a natural person in the ballot measure context this is viewed this would be viewed as a ballot access issue which where strict scrutiny is applied recent cases angle and in this circuit now group association is protected by the first amendment many cases on that including recently the roberts case and that the government cannot restrict political speech based upon the spent the speaker's corporate identity of citizens united in the well network's own and if you don't mind i want to ask what sounds like a ridiculous question but i'd be interested in your answer to it does a corporation have a constitutional right to be elected as a state legislator or member of the city council why not because they're not a natural legislative act and so if you're saying to me that a corporation does not have a right to be a legislator or i want to know why does a corporation a right to engage in a quasar legislative act of everything this person about what a proponent most of legislator they say i want to introduce this legislation to convince others to vote for it as the citizens acting as the legislature and then i want to carry it forward and make sure that it's and i don't and i think of the proper analogy but they don't aren't given specific duties as as proponents of initiatives are in california well but lobbyist if you're paid they got to get a license from the state they have those are limitations those are not duties in the same way th are that a legislator has duties i mean they just haven't you know impose them yet but i think the analogy is that all the proponent can do is ask people to agree and enough people have to agree to a matter on the ballot for voting that's like a lobbyist going to a legislator and say would you place this on the calendar for voting i think it's you know it's not a perfect in that allergy but i think this is just word games it's having alternative ways of speaking you know does not just meet the first amendment a burden that you can't speak in the way you want so and that was most recently and says you not and they   i want to address briefly something that came up during my posing councils are human and that is the status of mcintyre macintyre is a supreme court case that does stand for the proposition that under certain circumstances there is a constitutionally protected right to anonymous speech but i want to stress that in mcintyre we were dealing with a statewide statute that affected all i'm going to call here express advocacy  mcintyre was handing out leaflets i think was outside of a p t a meeting or some beating having to do with a local referendum we would call an initiative here and she was expressing a view vote for vote against it's a bad idea but that the statute the point i want to make is the statute covered all anonymous speech i want to contrast that to the situation here where this statute applies in only one situation it applies to the the name that is put on a and in an initiative petition you know as one of the justices of over here has said it is actually part of a statement of reasons it's a notice of intention that is filed with clerk first and then put on the petition but the point i want to make right at the beginning is that in some ways mrs macintyre from ohio and mrs kneebone who i had the privilege of posing here they have the same kneebone can go out anywhere she wants in chula vista during this campaign in a gauge anonymous speech what you can't do is ask the electorate in the city of tools just to sign her petition and give her statutorily granted rights without without revealing her identity do you agree that that petition proponent disclosure requirement infringes on the first amendment i wouldn't i wouldn't use that word i mean it is a disclosure require let me there's absolutely no there was a question i think in the in the panel opinion i you know i'll tamale you're going to say that it survives any level of scrutiny but that how we characterize the elector and the petition proponent you know is it is that expressive speeches that implicate the first amendment or i've taken a position in the brief the state has taken a position in the brief and we will stand by it now is the whole reason for this requirement to convey information it is to let at the point of contact people who are asked to sign a petition know who the proponent is well and when i ask you that this is where i would appreciate your elaboration  macintyre because the two bases you've advocated both protection of the electoral process and information were exactly the bases advocated in the law mcintyre and the court there said that you know you can't they they want to ensure that people readers don't prejudge a message simply because they don't like its proponent why isn't that even though at least pamphleteering analogous to the situation here because this is the legislative process here i mean i just think there is a categorical distinction between a universal ban in ohio me say i will only say this once that if i were in a california court right now this argument would be much easier because california has adopted the position that form analysis applies to an issue to petition no federal judge that i have explained to you so far has explained any interest in going down that path i don't want to walk away from what i just want to say that the state of california is position is that that is indeed the correct analysis you were just asked your preferred position that this is a quasar legislative action and therefore not subject to the fuse to member asked for the disclosure requirement it is our position that the first amendment does and your i would love let me just say that i would love as an advocate to say that we don't that this is not expressive activity and the first amendment doesn't apply and it says come up in several conversations and let me to the difficulty that i have as the advocate and i've taken a p on paper and i won't back down through here is that this is expressive activity california watch the signers to know who the proponent of an initiative is when they sign it and to me my my interpretation of that is that there is an expressive element to that that's that's where they are you line them to know because they are giving power to those people to not file a petition to not defend or t compelled speech for california to require as it does that every bill in the senate or the assembly have the proponents to sponsor i'm not quite sure what the name is and what they use the legislature but every bill must have the name of the senator or simply mine who is the proponent of that bill at the top and say the same analysis if the legislators said i don't want to put my name on the bill would you have a first amendment interest in not doing that  think i think we would be in a parallel universe i think we might be right here having us argument and i think the argument is that no the ultimately you lose that case because the state has a very obvious substantial interest in making sure that you don't lose it because the first amendment doesn't apply to a legislators in a legislative capacity where i've presented these arguments and let me only say on the act expression distinction state's position that the first half of the panel opinion here on whether and and and or an organization or corporation can be the proponent that the that that that is an act and there is no no first amendment transcript and the first amendment doesn't even apply in that case i am again repeating what i've said in my brief is that and you will tell me whether i'm right or wrong here but i do want to say that there is an expressive element in requiring the name of the proponent to be on the petition and it's an important expressive element because it because the if this as this petition is circulated the proponent has numerous legislative responsibilities so i mean that that's where i i define not being clear i'll try it again but i think there is first amendment does apply here but that any any task that would apply here that the cult california has a substantial very clear interest in this it's a tight fit because when somebody is signing a petition is the time when they're most likely to want to go and who the proponent is it will have the most effect at that point and there is a minute burden because their names are already where they have lost their their their part of status to begin with and they have as i think the as came up earlier the proponents in this case this is a classic example of how it works they have hurled themselves into the legislative public arena here it is difficult to think of any or any two proponents who are more publicly involved in this initiative than the than the two proponents there so i'm running trying to decide as to whether or not the first amendment requires something or forbidden something apply has no legal significance on that unless one meaning by apply doesn't mean we have to talk about the first amendment or we have to apply test about the first amendment when you say it doesn't apply doesn't tell me much one way or the other little issue is whether or not the first member requires or prevent something exactly and our position here is that the first amendment does not ticket back to church reinhart's question is it any different if if senator reinhardt once introduced a bill and senator tallman is trying to decide whether or not he's going to co sponsor the bill isn't it just as important that we know that it's senator rinehart who sponsoring the bill and how is that any different from the initiative process where the support of the registered voter is sought in signing the petition which will get the initiative on the ballot and it's objecting to having his name at the top of the bill i think we would wind up in court and the result would be that there is no first amendment right for anonymity when you are legislating because to the state has enormous interest in letting as this court has said several times in an how is that different from this we had two competing ballot measures in the last election the governor's and then proposition and a private citizen these both dealing with the same subject that when you sign one you want to know which one of it is because the proponent can throw it away after getting all the signatures indeed the provider has a statutory right not to submit the signatures so i think the proponent is asking you to trust him how to handle the initiative exactly why don't you have a right forget the first amendment why don't you have a right to know to whom you are giving legislative authority you do have a right regardless of the first amendment was that regardless of the first the regardless of the for yes regardless of the first amendment and if there is if there's a test year and i think the information i think in one thousand nine hundred eight there were five insurance initiatives on the ballot i mean that was the classic example where the identity of a proponent would be very different because there is not only brand x and brand why there was there were five brands on the ballot down but i agree with you completely and if i've said anything to think that rick that i disagree with you on that i apologize i mean does the first amendment apply say there's a test but there are there are substantial and state interests here that that mean that regardless of the first amendment that this that this  disclosure on the on the initiative petition is caught is consistent with the first amendment i hesitate to interject this no to what i think is political reality there's a fair amount of artificiality in the debate on both sides  we all know that any initiative can get on the ballot if there's enough money to pay the people to stand out in a safeway parking lot and we all know that people sign these for the most part maybe ninety nine percent of the time without even glancing at who the proponents are and i think it makes the argument on both sides artificial well in response i would say that what generally happens is  is not universally true there are some people who look at us like that i think we have to have to assume that what it whatever studies show or what whatever newspaper article say i mean the whole strict strict scrutiny test here i mean in dover you read for example i think justice alito particularly was explicit in saying that that the that they are requiring the disclosure of those things that years afterwards was was not likely to produce useful in terms of what i mean i say that in terms of just saying that this is not strict scrutiny this this is another test and i believe it meets the test and so i differentiate a proponent from mrs macintyre and that is ninety two out to the proponent decides when the process begins in ninety two zero five they ensure the electorate knows about it by publishing  it ninety six zero eight the election code places an obligation on them to manage and supervise signature gathering and particularly they have to sign a certificate that they will not knowingly allow signatures to be used for any purpose other than qualification of the of the initiative and finally after perry versus brown the california supreme court decision do have a right to assert the state's interest in any litigation that anonymity they both signed the ballot argument so that their name is in the ballot pamphlet and i will say it to the extent that there is a right to anonymity to this is complete there is a constitutionally protected right on the petition i wonder i just have to question whether that would apply to the names on the on the ballot arguments i think the same analysis of bligh's and i think it fails for the same reason but it gets state of california has a substantial interest in letting people know who the authors of ballot arguments are which is why it's statutory like your quote required that the authors of the ballot argument be identified by name on in development due honors or some time placed a court charles byrd on behalf of the norris parties i have the electoral issue the initiative is part of the legislative power that is called incapable of annihilation in the declaration of independence the founders who pledged their lives to that indestructibility of the people's legislative power and seven hundred seventy six could not even seven hundred eighty nine when they passed out of congress the bill of rights or potential adoption by the people have thought that the phrase the freedom of speech would compel the people to bring into the core of their legislative process in an intimate entities my friend has resided most of the duties of an initiative proponent it's important to me perhaps the most important phrase that mr bo barely an advocate at all and official proponent is carrying out the procedural steps that are necessary to put an initiative on the ballot and allow themselves and others to advocate the plaintiffs and the panel concurrence treat official proponents says if the democratic process had somehow granted the word in the concurrence is apportioned a partially expressive power to the people that is not so in fundamental american and california political theory the theories that  underlie the constitution and bill of rights the initiative and referendum powers are reserved powers they are part of what the people gave to themselves and did not delegate to the legislature the norris part position about the elector issue is that the wisest resolution of it is to is to hold that the first amendment does not provide any appropriate test for the for the issue right to be the official proponent of an initiative in the city of chill of vista plaintiffs rely substantially on joe for that theory but joe recites that it is appropriate for the state of washington ga use public disclosure in part to assure that only registered elect doors of the state of washington can sign an initiative in that state i think it's a fourth year i clear that when we're dealing with the official proponent not an advocate but the party who who performs the legislative functions itself tells us that the state of california and the city of chula vista in its charter this is not something we just adopted from the state constitution or statutes that both entities have a right to restrict those people who can be of fishel proponents and carry out the legislative procedural acts must be electors of the city i would add only one comment that bridge is to some small extent my elector issue and the issue that the state has argued based on the election code and that is in response to a comment partially question from judge fletcher i am a californian i have endured the initiative process at the statewide level since i was first eligible to vote in one thousand nine hundred sixty eight i remember notorious frauds like a coalition of growers placing the statewide ballot initiative that they called the farm workers initiative in an attempt to come to compete with california's new farm labor law so and i certainly understand the effect of money and media on statewide and issues of campaigns i am here representing the interests of the city of shoe a vista i stand for the council members the mayor the city because on the under the eleventh amendment the plaintiffs couldn't sue the city itself and i will say that these traditional notions of the of the formation myths of american government remain more important at the local level than they are at the statewide level where we can all speak of those notorious campaigns i would be pleased to respond to any questions that the court may have on the electoral issue if not i would be pleased to submit on that issue on behalf of the enormous parties and seeing there's about eight minutes left in this statement either submit as well or you thank you of course what's at issue here with respect to the identify yourself issue is the disclosure of the name of the proponent in the midst of a expressive activity that's compelled speech of the first amendment and subject to first amendment review it doesn't matter that the that the proponent that acts of a proponent are given a legal effect in fact be read we were farther down the stream toward the matter going on the ballot when the court held that the signing of the petition which the proponents  asking to be done but the signing of the petition was itself an expressive activity subject to first amendment review they didn't they rejected this explicit argument that well this is just part of the legislative process this is not a new argument this was rejected in dover you read in a context that is down the road then where we are in this case so now to go to they don't see any difference between merely as a citizen and that's a voter thing i would like this measure to be adopted because we as a people have been given that right you see no difference between that and saying i want to be the proponent of this and i may throw away the petitions if i feel like it i may defend them if i feel like it i will decide officially what arguments are presented to the voters and that's the  legislative process but we're farther down the road where the quinn the court said and that the first amendment and also supplies when they sign the petition it has legal consequences just like becoming a proponent and the signers can't be anonymous either you can ask the signers can't be anonymous either you can't know whether they are not the correct number of voters who've signed if you have one hundred fifty pages of anonymous anonymous an is no if you have no anonymous proponents we're not challenging that to file it with the clerk or you have to have it in the newspaper so there is no such thing as an anonymous why why do you not think that because why don't those people proponents have a right not to file with the clerk because it's not at the point of contact with the voter that that's when the interest for instance having the argument that is being presented right then and there to the voter be distorted by the revealing who the proponent is hey how about this how this started to your distorted or made clear hey hey how about the initiatives so they pass a statute that says using the same argument that you all using the number the number one when you you have to put in the petition the names of all the school board members because after all those are the ones that are going to be able to exercise the let the governmental power to spend this money how about if on the let's remove capital punishment the legislature you says list you know the top ten most egre rather than being a law of general applicability but but all this isn't about that consistent about and the content of the initiative any initiative of whatever content is subject to these procedural rules yet but the point is this  compel disclosure in my answer in my examples and in this instance it is judged under the first amendment it is not ignored it's not part of the first amendment it's about this may go to the balancing but do you concede they come up they say you want to send it up pardon me i've got to run down to the city clerk i certainly opportunity to sign the petition well but you know the money we're talking about is not a realistic i wouldn't think you'd want to rest your case  unrealistic kind of invision of how this actually happens on the ground where the the other thing i wanted to address if the person has a right to know when what they're signing at the time then why isn't the state you know he's right to require it on the piece of paper past this kind of scrutiny you know with all due respect you know you may feel that and believe that in your heart i don't know as has been well as your statement suggests and i'm not saying this to you personally someone may believe that in their heart but the supreme court has said no to that they said the exact opposite to that that it was the time of the contact with the voter when the interest was not on the side of the government deciding what information is going to be given to the voter but isn't this the time in which the speaker has the highest right to control his own statement well the reason we're asking the question is you flipped it because you in effect were giving the right to the voter which i thought the supreme court and mcintyre had made clear it was the anonymous speaker that actually held the upper hand but it was your answers to the previous questions that seem to have flipped that because you were suggesting that there might be a harder case or there might be certain rights of the voter but now you're coming back to what i think macintyre said which is the speaker being anonymous has a very high first amendment right so it's a really i guess you would not rely on your earlier comment that the voter might actually have some upper hand in this case not at the point of the contact not at the boy or contest when the rights of if i misspoke i'm sorry ok maybe we misunderstood if they cause that you were going down that path but it helps to have you clarify that the only other thing i would say because you all seem very interested in this is if you're in the legislative process of the first amendment apply it all arguments are statements out interpreted as suggesting that position well of course it does legislator cannot be prohibited for instance from advocating legislation he can be limited in time place and manner but if so can the new speaker but you cannot pass a law that says a legislator shall not go on the street corner legislature shall not do in the halls of congress are you legit advocate for legislation the first amendment would apply even though that is quote part of the legislative process by a public