McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 12, 1994
Decided April 19, 1995
Full case name Joseph McIntyre, executor of Estate of Margaret McIntyre, deceased, petitioner v. Ohio Elections Commission, et al.
Holding
An Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer
Concurrence Ginsberg
Concurrence Thomas
Dissent Scalia, joined by Rhenquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I
Ohio Code § 3599.09 (A)

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech. Justice Scalia dissented, to which Chief Justice Rehnquist joined. Justice Ginsberg also concurred. Justice Thomas wrote what was, for him, a very rare concurrence, but he is known to support free speech.

Contents

Background

Margaret McIntyre, a taxpayer, passed out pamphlets that opposed a proposed school tax. The Ohio Elections Commission found her guilty of violating Ohio Code § 3599.09(A), which forbade "the distribution of campaign literature that does not contain the name and address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature."[1] The Board fined her.[1]

McIntyre appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which reversed. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed that court, putting back the fine. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court. She petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted writ of certiorari. Extensive amici briefs were filed in the case. In the meanwhile, the taxpayer was by then deceased, but her executor continued the litigation.[1]

Subsequent law

Fifteen years later, the Supreme Court distinguished the McIntyre rule in Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. ___ (2010). In Doe, they held that the disclosure of signatures on a referendum does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2] This holding came out of the Washington Referendum 71 (2009), in which the people of Washington state confirmed Senate Bill 5688, a law extending the rights and obligations of domestic partnership in Washington.

A defendant in a defamation lawsuit attempted to use this case as a precedent that "sources have the right of anonymous speech under the First Amendment", but in 2011, the New Jersey Supreme Court rejected the argument, distinguishing that case from McIntyre.[3] In that case, the defendant was held not to be a journalist for the purposes of privilege, but was she also not anonymous, as she had posted her identity.[4]

During the Albany, New York 2011 school budget campaign, anonymous flyers were mailed and telephones called that (unsuccessfully) aimed to defeat the Albany City School District budget.[5] It was later revealed that it was funded by "a charter-affiliated group ... connected to Tom Carroll," who was "founder of the Brighter Choice Foundation, which supports all of the city's 11 charter schools."[5] The opponents of the public schools spent $6,766 on postage for the mailings, while "the total cost of the professionally-produced postcards, as well as a telephone push poll, likely far exceeded $10,000."[5] This led to a bill being introduced into the New York State Legislature to require disclosure for political mailings that cost over $1,000.[5] The bill was written by majority legislators Member of the Assembly Sam Hoyt and Senator Kenneth LaValle.[5] That bill is pending as of June 2011.

See also

Related cases

References

  1. ^ a b c d 514 U.S. 334 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
  2. ^ Doe v. Reed courtesy of the Supreme Court website. Accessed June 7, 2011.
  3. ^ Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale (N.J. 2011), slip. op. at 37, fn. 5, citing McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 341-43, 115 S. Ct. 1511, 1516-17, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426, 436-37 (1995). Accessed June 7, 2011.
  4. ^ Too Much Media, LLC v. Hale,, supra, slip. op. at 38, fn. 5.
  5. ^ a b c d e Scott Waldman (May 31, 2011). "Proposed law: Blast a school budget, attach your name; Legislators want more disclosure on efforts to sway school votes". Times Union. http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Proposed-law-Blast-a-school-budget-attach-your-1402289.php. Retrieved June 7, 2011. 

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужен реферат?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Brandenburg v. Ohio — Supreme Court of the United States Argued February 27, 1969 Decided June 9, 1969 …   Wikipedia

  • Osborne v. Ohio — Supreme Court of the United States Argued December 5, 1989 Decided April 18, 1990 …   Wikipedia

  • Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission — Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 17, 19 …   Wikipedia

  • First Amendment to the United States Constitution — First Amendment redirects here. For other uses, see First Amendment (disambiguation). United States of America This a …   Wikipedia

  • Law, Crime, and Law Enforcement — ▪ 2006 Introduction Trials of former heads of state, U.S. Supreme Court rulings on eminent domain and the death penalty, and high profile cases against former executives of large corporations were leading legal and criminal issues in 2005.… …   Universalium

  • Mike McIntyre — Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from North Carolina s 7th district Incumbent Assumed office …   Wikipedia

  • Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. — Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 24, 1990 Decided June …   Wikipedia

  • Schenck v. United States — Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 9–10, 1919 Decided March 3 …   Wikipedia

  • Miller v. California — Davis v. California Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 18–19, 1972 Reargued November …   Wikipedia

  • Coates v. Cincinnati — Supreme Court of the United States Argued January 11, 1971 Decided June 1, 1971 …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”