Opinion ID: 2303773
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State's Interest in Accuracy

Text: [¶21] The State asserts that its general interest in accuracy and truth in the political process constitutes a compelling state interest. Although the government's interest may be a laudable one, great care is in order whenever the government seeks to restrict campaign speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned that any claim by a state that it is `enhancing the ability of its citizenry to make wise decisions by restricting the flow of information to them must be viewed with some skepticism.' Eu, 489 U.S. at 228, 109 S.Ct. 1013 (quoting Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208, 221, 107 S.Ct. 544, 93 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986)). A state cannot substitute its judgment as to how best to speak for that of speakers and listeners. Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 791, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988). [4] [¶22] Applying this admonition, the Supreme Court of Washington struck down, as facially invalid, a law similar to 21-A M.R.S. § 1014-A. State ex rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n v. 119 Vote No! Comm., 135 Wash.2d 618, 957 P.2d 691 (1998). The Washington statute prohibited any person from sponsoring, with actual malice, a political advertisement containing a false statement of material fact. Id. at 693 (citing Wash. Rev.Code § 42.17.530(1)(a) (1988)); see also Rickert v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 161 Wash.2d 843, 168 P.3d 826 (2007) (invalidating on similar grounds a subsequent amendment to the statute limiting prohibited statements to those made about a candidate for public office). In evaluating the constitutionality of the Washington statute, the court distinguished the statute from those reviewed in cases such as Burson, 504 U.S. 191, 112 S.Ct. 1846, where the Court upheld a statute that restricted potential voter intimidation by those campaigning physically too close to the voting booths. 119 Vote No! Comm., 957 P.2d at 698. [¶23] Maine's section 1014-A is similar to the Washington statute struck down by that state's Supreme Court. The statute before us effectively puts the State in the position of requiring proof of accuracy in advance of a campaign statement. This requirement does not serve to protect voters from the confusion of a chaotic and oppressive physical voting environment. Rather, it attempts to protect voters from potentially misleading or inaccurate speech, the precise action that First Amendment jurisprudence guards against. [¶24] In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of a state's efforts to protect voters from confusion and undue influence by preventing intimidation in the doorway of the polling place is designed to protect the very act of voting. Burson, 504 U.S. at 199, 112 S.Ct. 1846. It cannot be read to provide the government with the authority to guard the public against any statement it determines might potentially be misleading. See Eu, 489 U.S. at 228-29, 109 S.Ct. 1013. The mere possibility of voter confusion is insufficient to establish a compelling state interest. See Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. ___, ___, 128 S.Ct. 1184, 1193, 170 L.Ed.2d 151 (2008). To the contrary, a compelling state interest is much more apparent where the activity prohibited by statute interferes with the act of voting itself and the activity does not merely relate to intangible `influence' such as the printed materials employed by Mowles here. Burson, 504 U.S. at 209 n. 11, 112 S.Ct. 1846. [¶25] When the government undertakes to tell politicians what they can and cannot say in the course of an election, we must all be cautious. The government may restrict the speech of political candidates only when it can clearly advance a compelling reason for the restriction. Avoiding substantive confusion among the voters regarding political issues simply does not present such a compelling interest. Indeed, it has been said that the appropriate cure for misleading political speech is more speech. Linmark Assocs., Inc. v. Twp. of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85, 97, 97 S.Ct. 1614, 52 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977) (citing Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377, 47 S.Ct. 641, 71 L.Ed. 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring)). [¶26] In the absence of a compelling state interest, we need not opine on the further question of whether the provisions of section 1014-A are narrowly tailored to achieve the statute's general purpose of assuring accurate communications. See, e.g., McIntyre, 514 U.S. at 348-49, 115 S.Ct. 1511.