Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/120/1092/578527/
Timestamp: 2019-10-24 04:56:16
Document Index: 117764685

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 1', 'art. 5', '§ 4', 'art. 7', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.; David Aitken;jon Baraga; Craig C. Eley; Jack Hawkins; Lonnie Haynes;alden Kautz; Bill Orr, Individually and As the Parent Andguardian of William David Orr, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Natalie Meyer, Individually and As Secretary of State Forthe State of Colorado; Douglas Brown, Individually and Asdirector of Legislative Legal Services for the State Ofcolorado, Defendants-appellees.american Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.; David Aitken;jon Baraga; Craig C. Eley; Jack Hawkins; Lonnie Haynes;alden Kautz; William David Orr; Bill Orr, Individually Andas the Parent and Guardian of William David Orr, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Natalie Meyer, Individually and As Secretary of State Forthe State of Colorado; Douglas Brown, Individually and Asdirector of Legislative Legal Services for the State Ofcolorado, Defendants-appellants, 120 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 1997) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Tenth Circuit › 1997 › American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.; David Aitken;jon Baraga; Craig C. Eley; Jack Hawkins;...
American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.; David Aitken;jon Baraga; Craig C. Eley; Jack Hawkins; Lonnie Haynes;alden Kautz; Bill Orr, Individually and As the Parent Andguardian of William David Orr, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Natalie Meyer, Individually and As Secretary of State Forthe State of Colorado; Douglas Brown, Individually and Asdirector of Legislative Legal Services for the State Ofcolorado, Defendants-appellees.american Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.; David Aitken;jon Baraga; Craig C. Eley; Jack Hawkins; Lonnie Haynes;alden Kautz; William David Orr; Bill Orr, Individually Andas the Parent and Guardian of William David Orr, Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Natalie Meyer, Individually and As Secretary of State Forthe State of Colorado; Douglas Brown, Individually and Asdirector of Legislative Legal Services for the State Ofcolorado, Defendants-appellants, 120 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 1997)
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 120 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 1997) July 28, 1997
Before BRISCOE, SETH* , and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
We turn to plaintiffs' First Amendment issues. Plaintiffs argue the manner in which Colorado regulates the petition process is subject to exacting scrutiny because it significantly burdens political speech. They rely heavily on Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 108 S. Ct. 1886, 100 L. Ed. 2d 425 (1988), in which proponents challenged a Colorado law making it unlawful to pay any consideration for the circulation of initiative or referendum petitions. Meyer acknowledged "circulation of a petition involves the type of interactive communication concerning political change that is appropriately described as 'core political speech.' " Id. at 421-22, 108 S. Ct. at 1891-92. The Court applied exacting scrutiny to strike down the challenged law, concluding it restricted political expression by limiting the number of voices conveying the proponents' message and making it less likely the proponents would gather the required number of signatures to place their issue on the ballot. Id. at 422-23, 108 S. Ct. at 1892-93.
"Common sense, as well as constitutional law, compels the conclusion that government must play an active role in structuring elections." Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433, 112 S. Ct. 2059, 2063, 119 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1992). The Supreme Court has upheld "generally-applicable and evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity of the electoral process itself." Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 n. 9, 103 S. Ct. 1564, 1570, 75 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1983). At least one other circuit has extended similar deference to regulations governing initiative petitions. See Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts v. Austin, 994 F.2d 291, 297 (6th Cir. 1993) (applying a more relaxed standard to "nondiscriminatory, content-neutral limitations on the [people's] ability to initiate legislation"); cf. Biddulph v. Mortham, 89 F.3d 1491, 1501 n. 10 (11th Cir. 1996) (finding balancing of state interest against voter burden used in candidate-access cases not needed in initiative-access cases in upholding state initiative regulations against challenges of non-discriminatory burdensomeness). Colorado has a strong interest in ensuring both candidate elections and ballot issues are run fairly, efficiently, and honestly. See Timmons, 520 U.S. at ----, 117 S. Ct. at 1367 ("States certainly have an interest in protecting the integrity, fairness, and efficiency of their ballots and election processes.").
520 U.S. at ----, 117 S. Ct. at 1366 (internal citations omitted). Thus, the rigorousness of our inquiry depends upon the extent to which the challenged law burdens plaintiffs' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
C.R.S.A. § 1-40-108(1) provides, in part, that " [n]o petition for any ballot issue shall be of any effect unless filed with the secretary of state within six months from the date that the title, submission clause, and summary have been fixed and determined." The gist of plaintiffs' argument is that the six-month limit is arbitrary and excludes some measures from being placed on the ballot. Defendants argue the deadline is necessary to preserve an orderly ballot and, in any case, is not as onerous as other limits approved by the Supreme Court, cf. American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 786-87, 94 S. Ct. 1296, 1308-09, 39 L. Ed. 2d 744 (1974) (upholding Texas law allowing access to ballot if minor party candidate files petition within 55 days of general primary election).
The six-month deadline is a neutral ballot access regulation. By definition, ballot access restrictions prevent some measures from being placed on the ballot. However, this feature is insufficient by itself to require strict scrutiny. Cf. Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433, 112 S. Ct. at 2063 (noting "the mere fact that a State's system 'creates barriers ... tending to limit the field of candidates from which voters might choose ... does not of itself compel close scrutiny' "). The court found, and the record indicates, that by planning and proper preparation of the ballot, title proponents enjoy ample time to circulate petitions.
Although some measures might fare better under a longer or indeterminate period, the current deadline is not a significant burden on the ability of organized proponents to place a measure on the ballot. " [T]he State's asserted regulatory interests [need only be] 'sufficiently weighty to justify the limitation' imposed on the [Plaintiffs'] rights." Timmons, 520 U.S. at ----, 117 S. Ct. at 1366. Our inquiry does not require " [e]laborate, empirical verification of weightiness" of the State's asserted justifications. Id. Defendants assert several interests: preserving the integrity of the state's elections, maintaining an orderly ballot, and limiting voter confusion. The regulation here advances these interests by establishing a reasonable window in which proponents must demonstrate support for their causes. The six-month deadline is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory ballot access regulation; it does not offend the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
C.R.S.A. § 1-40-111(2) requires circulators to sign specifically described affidavits and is "generally-applicable" (Celebrezze, 460 U.S. at 788 n. 9, 103 S. Ct. at 1570 n. 9). It provides:
A state has a strong, often compelling, interest in preserving the integrity of its electoral system. See Timmons, 520 U.S. at ----, 117 S. Ct. at 1366. Circulators play an important role in ballot issue elections--they are solely responsible for gathering the number and type of signatures required to place an issue on the ballot. Indeed, as we have previously noted, circulators are, in effect, entrusted with personal responsibility to prevent irregularities in the petition process. See Loonan, 882 P.2d at 1388; Committee on Better Health Care, 830 P.2d at 894; C.R.S.A. § 1-40-116(a). The affidavits "ensure that circulators, who possess various degrees of interest in a particular initiative, exercise special care to prevent mistake, fraud, or abuse in the process of obtaining thousands of signatures of only registered electors throughout the state." Loonan, 882 P.2d at 1388-89. Given the responsibility circulators bear in ensuring the integrity of elections involving ballot issues, and given the fact that the affidavit requirement is a reasonable, nondiscriminatory restriction, we conclude plaintiffs' challenge fails.
Section 1-40-112(1) prescribes who may circulate: "No section of a petition for any initiative or referendum measure shall be circulated by any person who is not a registered elector and at least eighteen years of age at the time the section is circulated." The district court held 1-40-112(1) was unreviewable because the petition process is not a right granted by the United States Constitution. In Meyer, we rejected that argument, explaining even though the initiative and referendum process is not guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Colorado's choice to reserve it does not leave the state free to condition its use by impermissible restraints on First Amendment activity. 828 F.2d at 1456. Cf. Taxpayers United for Assessment Cuts, 994 F.2d at 295 (concluding although federal Constitution does not require a state to create initiative procedure, if it does, it cannot impose restrictions that violate Constitution); Henry v. Connolly, 910 F.2d 1000, 1004 (1st Cir. 1990) (same). Furthermore, it is irrelevant that the statutory restriction is based upon a constitutional provision enacted by petition. The voters may no more violate the United States Constitution by enacting a ballot issue than the general assembly may by enacting legislation. Cf. Citizens Against Rent Control, 454 U.S. at 295, 102 S. Ct. at 436.
The registration requirement has a discriminatory effect. It bars persons who are not registered voters from circulating petitions, thereby excluding that group of persons from participating in core political speech. See Meyer, 486 U.S. at 421-22, 108 S. Ct. at 1891-92. Colorado acknowledges there are at least 400,000 qualified but unregistered voters in the state. The mandatory exclusion of unregistered circulators also limits the number of voices to convey the proponent's message, limiting the audience the proponents can reach and making it less likely they will be able to gather the required number of signatures to place a measure on the ballot. Cf. Meyer, 486 U.S. at 422-23, 108 S. Ct. at 1892-93. Consequently, we apply exacting scrutiny.
Section 1-40-112(1) also places an age restriction on circulation. We are mindful that "neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone." In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 13, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 1436, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1967). We also recognize, however, that age commonly is used as a proxy for maturity. See, e.g., U.S. Const. art I, § 2, p 2 (establishing age requirement for election to House of Representatives); § 3, p 3 (Senate); art. II, § 1, p 4 (President). Cf. U.S. Const. amend. XXVI (extending vote to eighteen-year-olds). Not surprisingly, Colorado places age restrictions on voting and candidacy. Colo. Const. art. 5, § 4 (establishing age requirement for members of General Assembly); art. 7, § 1 (establishing age requirement for voters). While candidacy is not a fundamental right, voting is. Cf. Burdick, 504 U.S. at 433, 112 S. Ct. at 2063 (voting); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 142-43, 92 S. Ct. 849, 855-56, 31 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1972) (candidacy). Subject to the Twenty-sixth Amendment, it seems states generally may place an age requirement on the right to vote without having to satisfy exacting scrutiny. Cf. Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289, 297, 95 S. Ct. 1637, 1642, 44 L. Ed. 2d 172 (1975) (examining challenge unrelated to age). Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that persons under eighteen have a stronger interest in circulating than they do in voting. The age requirement is a neutral restriction that imposes only a temporary disability--it does not establish an absolute prohibition but merely postpones the opportunity to circulate. Exacting scrutiny is not required. Because maturity is reasonably related to Colorado's interest in preserving the integrity of ballot issue elections, plaintiffs' First Amendment challenge fails. Cf. Stiles v. Blunt, 912 F.2d 260, 267 (8th Cir. 1990) (maturity and life experience significant factors in setting minimum age for candidates), cert. denied 499 U.S. 919, 111 S. Ct. 1307, 113 L. Ed. 2d 241 (1991).
Second, defendants argue exacting scrutiny is unwarranted because there is no constitutionally protected right to circulate anonymously. However, " [t]he First Amendment affords the broadest protection to ... political expression in order ' [t]o assure [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.' " Buckley, 424 U.S. at 14, 96 S. Ct. at 632 (quoting Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 484, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1308, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957)). It is also clear that circulation is core political expression. Meyer, 486 U.S. at 421-22, 108 S. Ct. at 1891-92. The Supreme Court has protected anonymous political expression and association. See, e.g., McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com'n, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S. Ct. 1511, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1995) (invalidating law restricting anonymous election-related hand billing); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 63, 80 S. Ct. 536, 538, 4 L. Ed. 2d 559 (1960) (invalidating law prohibiting distribution of "any handbill in any place under any circumstances" unless it contains names and addresses of those who prepared, distributed, or sponsored it); Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516, 80 S. Ct. 412, 4 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1960) (striking down ordinance that organization disclose its membership list); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 78 S. Ct. 1163, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1488 (1958) (overturning civil contempt for failing to disclose membership list). The Court protects anonymity because "fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance." Talley, 362 U.S. at 65, 80 S. Ct. at 539. As the Court has explained, our nation's tradition of anonymous political expression "is perhaps best exemplified by the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation." McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 342, 115 S. Ct. at 1517.
On the other hand, the Court also has upheld disclosure requirements that deprive some speakers of anonymity. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 60-84, 96 S. Ct. at 654-65 (upholding disclosure requirements of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971). Cf. First Nat. Bank of Boston, 435 U.S. at 792 n. 32, 98 S. Ct. at 1424 n. 32 (noting source of corporate political advertising may be required as means of disclosure). Although exhaustive, the disclosures examined in Buckley are not akin to the identification badges at issue here. The disclosures in Buckley were limited to candidate elections, were triggered only where the speaker spent money, and were further removed from the moment of speech. Even in Buckley, however, the Court acknowledged that "significant encroachments on First Amendment rights of the sort that compelled disclosure imposes cannot be justified by a mere showing of some legitimate governmental interest." Buckley, 424 U.S. at 64, 96 S. Ct. at 656. Thus, the Court subjected the disclosure requirements to exacting scrutiny. Id. at 64-69, 96 S. Ct. at 656-58. To the extent defendants attempt to avoid exacting scrutiny, their second argument is unpersuasive.
Defendants argue the badge requirement serves a compelling interest, aiding the state's efforts to prevent fraud by enabling the public to identify individuals who make false or fraudulent statements while circulating. Thus, defendants essentially argue the badges enable the state to pursue more efficiently individuals who engage in misconduct. Although the state has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its elections (see, e.g., Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Com., 489 U.S. 214, 231, 109 S. Ct. 1013, 1024, 103 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1989)), "the First Amendment does not permit the State to sacrifice speech for efficiency" (Riley, 487 U.S. at 795, 108 S. Ct. at 2676). Additionally, "the risk of fraud or corruption, or the appearance thereof, is more remote at the petition stage of an initiative than at the time of balloting." Meyer, 486 U.S. at 427, 108 S. Ct. at 1894. Therefore, " [a]lthough the State has every right to take strong measures to prevent ... dishonest activities by petition circulators, the State may do so only by measures tailored to attack those problems within clearly recognized areas permitted by the Supreme Court." Grant, 828 F.2d at 1454.
McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 356, 115 S. Ct. at 1524 (internal citation omitted).
Defendants argue the badge requirement is the type of "limited identification requirement" McIntyre suggested might be constitutional. Defendants rely on Buckley, which upheld compelled disclosure of certain expenditures and their uses in candidate elections. Requiring circulators to identify themselves against their will is more intrusive than simply disclosing an expenditure. Whereas contributing to a campaign is only a generalized demonstration of support, circulating a petition, and the advocacy it entails, more clearly identifies the circulator with the precisely defined point of view he or she is personally encouraging others to support. Spending money to advance an unpopular viewpoint is a more detached form of support and is less likely to precipitate retaliation than circulating a petition. Cf. McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 354, 115 S. Ct. at 1523 (distinguishing expenditure from distributing handbill).
As previously noted, defendants argue the badge requirement is necessary to enable the state to identify and punish fraud. Section 1-40-112(2) is not narrowly tailored to serve the state's asserted interest. Conditioning circulation upon wearing an identification badge is a broad intrusion, discouraging truthful, accurate speech by those unwilling to wear a badge, and applying regardless of the character or strength of an individual's interest in anonymity. Additionally, the badges are but one part of the state's comprehensive scheme to combat circulation fraud. Article 40 provides other tools that are much more narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest. See C.R.S.A. §§ 1-40-130, 1-40-131 (criminalizing certain conduct); 1-40-132 (authorizing secretary of state to void a petition). See also C.R.S.A. §§ 1-40-110 (requiring every page to contain a warning to potential signers); 1-40-118 (providing for written protest). Although requiring circulators to wear identification badges may enhance the state's ability to impose other penalties, it does not follow, and it is unestablished, that the badges are a necessary component of the state's arsenal. Cf. Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191, 199, 112 S. Ct. 1846, 1851, 119 L. Ed. 2d 5 (1992) (explaining that " [t]o survive strict scrutiny ... a State must do more than assert a compelling state interest--it must demonstrate that its law is necessary to serve the asserted interest").
Section 1-40-121 places disclosure requirements on paid circulators and is "generally-applicable" (Celebrezze, 460 U.S. at 788 n. 9, 103 S. Ct. at 1570 n. 9). It provides as follows:
The court invalidated 1-40-121(1) to the extent it requires the proponents of a petition to provide "the name, address, and county of voter registration of all circulators who were paid to circulate any section of the petition" in reporting the amounts paid to circulators. The court invalidated 1-40-121(2) in its entirety. We apply exacting scrutiny. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 64, 96 S. Ct. at 656.
Section 1-40-121 is a broad disclosure provision. It compels disclosure of the name of a paid circulator regardless of the amount he or she received to circulate. The State analogizes 1-40-121 to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 disclosure provision upheld in Buckley. Buckley acknowledged that "compelled disclosure, in itself, can seriously infringe on privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment." Id. at 64, 96 S. Ct. at 656. However, Buckley identified three interests "sufficiently important to outweigh" the infringement on the "privacy of association and belief guaranteed by the First Amendment." Id. at 64, 96 S. Ct. at 656. First, campaign finance disclosure informs voters of the candidate's place in the political spectrum and alerts them "to the interests to which a candidate is most likely to be responsive." Id. at 67, 96 S. Ct. at 657. Second, "disclosure requirements deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption." Id. Third, "disclosure requirements are an essential means of gathering the data necessary to detect violations of the contribution limitations." Id. at 68, 96 S. Ct. at 658.
Unlike the statute in Buckley, 1-40-121 imposes no monetary threshold--a circulator must be identified by name and address regardless of whether he or she received 10 cents or $10,000. Cf. Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, 459 U.S. 87, 93, 103 S. Ct. 416, 420, 74 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1982). The statutes at issue in Buckley and Brown are dissimilar from 1-40-121 for another reason--they regulate candidate elections but 1-40-121 does not. Cf. Brown, 459 U.S. at 89 n. 2, 103 S. Ct. at 419 n. 2 and Buckley, 424 U.S. at 63, 96 S. Ct. at 655 with C.R.S.A § 1-40-121. Section 1-40-121 applies only to the circulation of initiative and referendum petitions. None of the three interests the Court found sufficient in Buckley are relevant here. The first and third are inapplicable because 1-40-121 addresses expenditures, not contributions. The second is inapplicable because "quid pro quo" concerns are not present here. Cf. Bellotti, 435 U.S. at 790, 98 S. Ct. at 1423 (explaining " [r]eferenda are held on issues, not on candidates for public office. The risk of corruption perceived in cases involving candidate elections ... simply is not present in a popular vote on a public issue."). Defendants' attempts to analogize 1-40-121 to Buckley are unpersuasive.
We must read the statute as it has been interpreted by Colorado's highest court. United States v. Gaudreau, 860 F.2d 357, 361 (10th Cir. 1988). In Loonan v. Woodley, 882 P.2d 1380 (Colo.1994) (en banc), the Colorado Supreme Court considered and rejected a vagueness challenge directed at the "read and understand" requirement. Plaintiffs argued, in part, that the requirement was vague because lay circulators had no way to determine whether their "understanding" was legally sufficient. Loonan dismissed their argument, explaining as follows:
Under the statute, a circulator may be penalized only for signing the affidavit without "reasonably believing that the statements made in the affidavit are true." § 1-40-130(1) (d). Understanding [the law governing circulation] ... requires nothing more than that a circulator believe that he or she knows what a circulator can and cannot do. This prohibition would ensnare only those circulators who made no attempt to understand their duties. The "read and understand" language mandated in the circulator's affidavit accordingly provides fair notice of the prohibition because it accommodates the subjective belief of the circulator.
The Ninth Amendment provides that " [t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." U.S. Const. amend. IX. Plaintiff Bill Orr, appearing pro se, argues the right to circulate initiative and referendum petitions is an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment. He implicitly argues it is incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. He points to no controlling authority in support. His argument is unpersuasive.
The late Honorable Oliver Seth, United States Senior Circuit Judge, heard oral argument in this case but did not participate in the final decision. The practice of this court permits the remaining two panel judges, if in agreement, to act as a quorum in resolving the appeal. United States v. Wiles, 106 F.3d 1516 (10th Cir. 1997)