{
  "id": "RL30067",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30067",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 102095,
      "date": "1999-02-16",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:47:02.806941",
      "title": "State Regulation of the Initiative Process: Background and Analysis of Issues in Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., et al.",
      "summary": "From its inception, the United States has fostered and encouraged unfettered discussion and\ndebate\nregarding political issues facing the nation. Indeed, the First Amendment affords the greatest\nprotection to political expression, to assure the free interchange of ideas. Coupled with this respect\nfor free speech and political expression, though, is the sometimes contrary notion that states possess\nauthority to regulate the electoral process in order to avoid campaign related disorder.\n  Due to the increased popularity of the use of ballot initiatives and referendums as a tool for\npolitical change, and resulting state efforts to regulate these activities, these two lines of legal\nthought have been the source of significant conflict. While the Supreme Court has always served as\na stalwart protector of First Amendment rights relating to political expression, its prior decisions\ndealing with the topic related mainly to areas of pure speech, leaving significant questions regarding\nhow these rights would be interpreted in light of a state's interest in preserving the integrity of its\nelectoral processes.\n  The Supreme Court addressed this conflict in  Buckley v. American Constitutional Law\nFoundation, Inc., et al.,  a case arising from the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.\nSpecifically,\nthe Court analyzed the constitutionality of provisions enacted by the State of Colorado requiring that\npetition circulators be registered voters, to wear identification badges, and mandating the disclosure\nof amounts disbursed to paid circulators. While the Court had handed down previous rulings\npertaining to state regulation of the electoral process and associated First Amendment free speech\nconsiderations, it had not spoken directly on the applicability of such rulings to the initiative process.\nJustice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court that such provisions constituted an\nunconstitutional restriction on First Amendment freedoms regarding political expression, and was\njoined by Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, with a concurring opinion by Justice\nThomas. Justice O'Connor dissented from the Court's holding regarding the registration and\ndisclosure requirements, and was joined by Justice Souter. Chief Justice Rehnquist also submitted\na dissenting opinion in opposition to the Court's disposition of the disclosure and registration issues.\nThe Court's decision extends First Amendment rights acknowledged in prior cases, and elaborates\nupon permissible state regulation in the initiative and referendum process, while leaving several\nquestions regarding the scope of such state control unanswered.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30067",
          "sha1": "4177659f5b87a88dbca3e278899402d0f491994c",
          "filename": "files/19990216_RL30067_4177659f5b87a88dbca3e278899402d0f491994c.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19990216_RL30067_4177659f5b87a88dbca3e278899402d0f491994c.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}