Neil Reiff discusses the implications of Speechnow.org v Federal Elections Commission in a published comment in JURIST. In the comment, Mr. Reiff examines the momentum of recent campaign finance decisions and forecasts the impact of recent decisions on the changing political landscape.
Mr. Reiff writes, “The Speechnow.org decision (which also upheld political committee reporting requirements for independent expenditure committees) will bring more independent spending into the light by inducing committees to avoid the subterfuges of “issue advocacy” while subjecting their activity to the reporting regime of federal campaign finance law.”
Mr. Sandler will participate in a panel on “The Future of Voter Protection,” with Hannah Fried, the Director of the DNC’s voter protection program. To view the conference agenda, click here.
John Hardin Young spent an entire week in February 2010, in Manila meeting with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and other stakeholders and advise on complaints adjudication as the entire country shifts to Optical Scan Ballot technology for the upcoming May 2010 general election. Mr. Young and Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson also met with high-ranking members of the judiciary, as well as prominent civil society groups, academics, and other election stakeholders.
Joe Sandler and Liz Howard filed an Amicus Brief in the Doe v. Reed case on behalf of several direct democracy scholars and the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. This case involves the constitutionality of public disclosure the persons who sign petitions for ballot initiatives and referenda.
Application of the “exacting scrutiny” standard is not appropriate in this case. Even assuming that the mere act of signing a referendum or initiative petition is “core political speech,” Petitioners have not shown that public disclosure of the names of signers in any way burdens that speech. Such disclosure does not “compel” any speech beyond the mere fact that a voter has signed the petition. Disclosure does not infringe “privacy of identity, association and belief,” as Petitioners suggest, because there is no reasonable expectation or assumption of privacy or secrecy: any voter who signs a petition knows that her signature, name and address, and the fact that she is signing, is being put on paper in the hands of a stranger, in a public place, in front of others, and will be submitted to a government agency. Further, public disclosure of petitions is widespread and routine in states that allow ballot initiatives and referenda. Nor does disclosure create any risk of intimidation or harassment of signers. Of the approximately 600,000 voters who signed referendum petitions in the State of Washington in the last decade, Petitioners have failed to identify a single individual who claims to have been harassed or intimidated as a result of mere disclosure of her signature. More than a million names of signers of petitions for referenda and initiatives opposing gay marriage have been posted on the internet. Yet there is no evidence that any of these signers, has faced any threat of retaliation or harassment by reason of that disclosure.
Even if public disclosure of petition signatures is to be subjected to “exacting scrutiny,” the State’s disclosure of the signatures under the Public Records Act serves sufficiently important governmental interests to find such disclosure constitutional. First, fraud is a widespread, significant problem in signature gathering for ballot measures. Public disclosure has in fact proven essential and indispensable in exposing such fraud in a number of states.
Second, it has been commonplace for signature-gatherers to mislead and trick voters into signing referenda and initiative petitions those voters would not have signed had they been informed of the actual content of the ballot measures. Numerous voters have discovered such deception, and have been able to remove their names or disassociate themselves from the measure, only because their signatures were disclosed publicly. In fact, there is no way that a voter duped into signing a petition can exercise that right in the absence of public disclosure.
Third, public disclosure serves an important interest in informing voters about ballot measures. Scholarship indicates that “information brokers” such as the media and interest groups can analyze and disseminate information about who is signing petitions and how they are being collected in a way that can provide “cues” to voters, to enable those voters to make more reasoned and informed decisions about whether to support a ballot measure.
In “Beware the Fortunetellers” Mr. Sandler and Mr. Reiff discuss the fallout of last week’s Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United v. FEC. The authors argue that although the ruling will have vast implications for the future of campaign finance, that future is not as written in stone as many pundits would have the general public believe.
The DNC, represented by Joseph Sandler of Sandler, Reiff & Young, prevails in an historic appellate case over the party’s decision to unseat Florida’s delegates. The Washington Post, 5/28/2008. Mr. Sandler also appeared on CNN to discuss the ruling. Full text here.
Jim Lamb provided insight into the effect Virginia’s campaign finance laws have on the upcoming election in Virginia. Listen to Peter Overby’s coverage or read the full text at NPR’s website.
Joseph Sandler, Neil Reiff, and James Lamb were once again named in Washingtonian Magazine’s listing of Washington’s Best Lawyers (the top 1%) in the political law category (under the heading “On the Campaign Trail”). Sandler Reiff & Young is one of only two law firms to have three lawyers on the list in this category.
Jack Young of Sandler, Reiff & Young said Virginia statute does not allow a recount panel to reconsider ballots that had previously been disqualified. By Michael Laris and Anita Kumar, The Washington Post, January 22, 2009. Read the full text here.
