Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, April 20, 1995 TAG: 9504200085
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: The Washington Post
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The court rejected, 7-2, an Ohio statute - similar to those in many states - that required election literature to contain the name and address of the person responsible for it. The court majority broadly endorsed robust and free political speech and said the right to remain anonymous is part of the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee.
``Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court. ``Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.''
Stevens' opinion was brimming with references to anonymous literature and political speech, including the Federalist Papers, which were published under the name Publius. He compared anonymous political speech to ``the secret ballot, the hard-won right to vote one's conscience without fear of retaliation.''
But dissenting justices said the decision lacked a legal standard that might differentiate more extensive and expensive campaign advertising.
``It may take decades to work out the shape of this newly expanded right-to-speak incognito, even in the elections field,'' wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined in his dissent by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. They questioned whether, under the ruling, a government newsletter would have to print anonymously written letters or cities would have to give parade permits to groups that refuse to disclose their identity.
Lawyer David Goldberger, who won Wednesday's case, said Scalia's examples defied common sense.
``The court struck down a blunderbuss statute,'' he said. ``It left plenty of latitude for a state to regulate when it needs to.'' He said cities could argue, for example, that they have a compelling public-safety interest in requiring would-be paraders to reveal their identity to prepare for crowd control.
Ohio state officials, who had argued that the signature requirement prevented fraud and libel in campaign materials, said they would try to redraft the statute.
``We think we can still go after fraud and [focus on] campaign organizations,'' said Ohio Assistant Attorney General Mark R. Weaver. Referring to the particular facts of Wednesday's case, he said, ``We clearly won't be able to regulate individuals circulating flyers in non-candidate elections.''
Federal Election Commission spokesman Sharon Snyder said the ruling is not likely to impinge its requirements for campaign contribution and spending disclosure.
Wednesday's case began in 1988 when Margaret McIntyre, with the help of her son and his friend, gave homemade leaflets to people attending a School Board meeting in Westerville, Ohio. The leaflets protested a proposed school tax levy and were signed ``Concerned Parents and Taxpayers.'' McIntyre ignored a school official's warning that she was violating Ohio's election law and continued to pass out the handbills then and at another meeting the next evening.
The tax levy passed a few months later, and the school official filed a complaint against McIntyre. The Ohio Elections Commission fined her $100 for passing out the unsigned leaflets. McIntyre's appeal eventually went to the Ohio Supreme Court, which upheld the fine, saying the state's interest in identifying people who might distribute false or fraudulent statements outweighed free-speech concerns.
McIntyre died of cancer in May 1994, but her family carried the case on to the Supreme Court.
by CNB