Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 40

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

354 (ED Ark. 1959).  It is thus unsurprising that the Court 
found  that  Arkansas  teachers  would  feel  a  “constant  and 
heavy”  pressure  “to  avoid  any  ties  which  might  displease 
those  who  control  [their]  professional  destin[ies].”    Id.,  at 
486; see also Keyishian v. Board of Regents of Univ. of State 
of N. Y., 385 U. S. 589, 604 (1967) (“When one must guess 
what  conduct  or  utterance  may  lose  him  his  position,  one 
necessarily will steer far wider of the [impermissible] zone” 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted)).    Because  Arkansas’s 
purpose (ensuring teachers’ fitness) was “pursued by means
that  broadly  stifle  fundamental  personal  liberties,”  the 
Court demanded that Arkansas “more narrowly achiev[e]” 
its interest.  Shelton, 364 U. S., at 488. 

Now  consider  this  Court’s  approach  in  Reed.  Reed  in-
volved  a  facial  challenge  to  a  Washington  law  permitting 
the public disclosure of referendum petitions that included
signatories’ names and addresses.  561 U. S.,  at 190–191. 
The  Court  found  that  Washington  had  a  number  of  other 
mechanisms  in  place  to  pursue  its  stated  interest  in  pre-
venting  fraudulent  referendum  signatures.    For  instance, 
the secretary of state was charged with verifying and can-
vassing the names on referendum petitions, advocates and 
opponents of a measure could observe the canvassing pro-
cess, and citizens could challenge the secretary’s actions in 
court.  Id., at 198.  Publicly disclosing referendum signato-
ries  was  thus  a  mere  backstop,  giving  citizens  the  oppor-
tunity to catch the secretary’s mistakes.  Had Washington 
been required to achieve its interests narrowly, as in Shel-
ton,  it  is  unlikely  the  disclosure  requirement  would  have 
survived.4 

—————— 

4 For instance, the Court did not ask whether the public disclosure of 
signatories’  names  and  addresses  was  “in  proportion  to  the”  govern-
ment’s interest in policing fraud.  Ante, at 15 (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  Nor did it feel any need to respond to the dissent’s description