## Facts

- Ohio enacted Ohio Rev. Code § 3599.111, making it a felony to compensate petition circulators on a per-signature or per-volume basis, permitting compensation only based on time worked.
- Citizens for Tax Reform (CTR), an Ohio political advocacy group, sought to place a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment on the November 2005 general-election ballot.
- Before the statute’s effective date, CTR contracted with a professional petition-management firm to gather signatures using a per-signature compensation model.
- After the statute took effect, the firm stated it could no longer operate under the per-signature arrangement, demanded substantially more money to continue, and reported that effective circulators were reluctant to work under the time-only compensation restriction.
- CTR and its treasurer alleged the compensation restriction increased costs, reduced the availability and productivity of circulators, and thereby burdened petition-circulation activity protected by the First Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio Rev. Code § 3599.111’s prohibition on paying petition circulators per signature or per volume imposes a significant burden on core political speech under the First Amendment.
2. Whether the statute is narrowly tailored to serve Ohio’s interest in preventing fraud in the petition process.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for CTR and upheld a permanent injunction against enforcement of § 3599.111.
- The court held that petition circulation is core political speech and that § 3599.111 imposed a significant burden on that speech by restricting a commonly used and effective compensation method.
- The court accepted fraud prevention as an important state interest but concluded Ohio failed to show a sufficiently close connection between per-signature compensation and fraud.
- The court determined the statute was not narrowly tailored given the availability of less speech-restrictive anti-fraud tools and the weakness of the State’s evidentiary showing.

## Legal Principles

- Circulating initiative and election-related petitions constitutes core political speech protected by the First Amendment.
- A regulation that materially reduces the number of speakers, the amount of speech, or the audience reach in the petition-circulation context triggers heightened scrutiny.
- When the State restricts the mechanisms that enable petition circulation, it must show the restriction is narrowly tailored to an important (or compelling) interest; speculation or generalized concerns about fraud are insufficient.
- Evidence offered to justify speech-restrictive election laws must demonstrate a meaningful fit between the regulated practice and the harm; otherwise, the law fails narrow tailoring.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit invalidated Ohio’s per-signature/per-volume compensation ban for petition circulators because it significantly burdened protected petition-circulation speech and was not narrowly tailored to the State’s fraud-prevention interest.


Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters, 518 F.3d 375 (6th Cir. 2008)