| McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
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]
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.