Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290, 298, 102 S.Ct. 434, 70 L.Ed.2d 492 (1981) (stating that the risk of corruption in cases involving candidate elections is not present in a popular vote on a public issue). The mere fact that advocacy “may influence the electorate is hardly a reason to suppress it.” City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. at 298, 102 S.Ct. 434 (citation omitted). Because “ballot initiatives do not involve the risk of ‘quid pro quo’ corruption present when money is paid to, or for, candidates,” Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 119 S.Ct. 636, 648, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999), this Court does not find the anti-corruption interest to being sufficiently important to justify § 11.30’s chilling effect upon free speech. See also, Swaffer, 610 F.Supp.2d at 970 (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the asserted interest in providing 
 Holding statements: (A) holding minnesotas patterned sex offender senfence enhancement statute unconstitutional as applied to one defendant and noting our doubts as to whether the statute could ever be constitutionally applied (B) holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants (C) holding that a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute if the law is unconstitutional as applied to that particular litigant (D) holding pennsylvania state ethics act unconstitutional as applied to former judges (E) holding  1130 to be unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff
Output (English): holding that a litigant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute if the law is unconstitutional as applied to that particular litigant