## Facts

- Colorado’s initiative system regulated petition circulators and initiative proponents through multiple statutory requirements.
- American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. and others challenged several provisions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as violating the First Amendment.
- The litigation ultimately focused on three requirements affecting initiative-petition circulation:
  - Circulators had to be registered voters.
  - Circulators had to wear identification badges displaying their names and whether they were paid or volunteers.
  - Proponents had to file detailed reports about paid circulators, including identifying information and compensation amounts, with ongoing reporting during the campaign.
- The State defended the requirements as measures to deter fraud, ensure accountability, and protect the integrity of the initiative process.
- The court of appeals invalidated the registered-voter requirement and key parts of the badge and paid-disclosure rules, while leaving other mechanisms (including circulator affidavits) in place.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of the three contested requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether a State may require initiative-petition circulators to be registered voters consistent with the First Amendment.
2. Whether requiring circulators to wear name badges that disclose identity and paid/volunteer status violates the First Amendment.
3. Whether requiring detailed, ongoing public disclosures about paid circulators and their compensation violates the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the three provisions.
- The registered-voter requirement was unconstitutional because it reduced the pool of potential circulators and thereby limited core political expression without adequate justification.
- The name-badge requirement was unconstitutional because it compelled immediate identification of speakers during face-to-face political advocacy and was not shown to be necessary given less burdensome accountability tools.
- The detailed paid-circulator disclosure regime was unconstitutional to the extent it imposed broad, intrusive, and ongoing reporting burdens not sufficiently tied to a demonstrated need beyond existing integrity protections.

## Legal Principles

- Circulating an initiative petition is “core political speech,” receiving heightened First Amendment protection.
- Regulations that reduce the number of available speakers or constrain the “quantum of speech” in the initiative process are subject to close scrutiny and must be closely fitted to sufficiently important governmental interests.
- A State’s anti-fraud and accountability interests do not justify measures that unnecessarily burden political advocacy where less restrictive mechanisms can serve the same ends.
- Compelled, real-time identification of speakers engaged in political advocacy raises serious First Amendment concerns, including deterrence of participation.
- Disclosure requirements tied to election administration must be limited in scope; broad public reporting obligations that significantly burden political association or expression require strong justification and careful tailoring.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Colorado’s registered-voter restriction for petition circulators, its name-badge mandate, and its extensive paid-circulator reporting requirements imposed unjustified burdens on core political speech and therefore violated the First Amendment, while leaving room for narrower integrity measures such as post-circulation affidavits.


Buckley v. Am. Const. L. Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999)