## Facts

- Nebraska law regulated petition circulation for ballot initiatives, referenda, party recognition, and independent-candidate ballot access.
- Nebraska limited petition circulators to state residents, effectively barring nonresidents from circulating petitions.
- Nebraska required each petition sheet circulated by a paid circulator to display, in red ink and 16-point type, a notice stating it was “circulated by a paid circulator”; no comparable notice applied to volunteer circulators.
- A nonprofit supporting petition drives, Nebraska voters who circulated or sought to circulate petitions, and political-party entities supporting party-recognition efforts challenged both provisions.
- Plaintiffs alleged the residency ban shrank the available pool of circulators, increased costs, and impaired their ability to qualify measures, candidates, and parties for the ballot.
- Plaintiffs also alleged the paid-circulator notice compelled stigmatizing speech and chilled paid circulation.
- The Secretary of State defended the provisions as protecting petition-process integrity, deterring fraud, and informing signers.
- After a preliminary-injunction phase and full record development, the court issued a merits decision addressing both challenged requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether Nebraska’s residency requirement for petition circulators violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing an unconstitutional burden on petition circulation as core political speech.
2. Whether Nebraska’s mandatory “paid circulator” notice on petition sheets violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments as compelled speech, content-based discrimination, or unequal treatment of paid versus volunteer circulation.

## Decision

- The court held the residency requirement unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement of the ban on out-of-state petition circulators.
- The court upheld the paid-circulator disclosure requirement and rejected First Amendment and equal protection challenges to that notice.

## Legal Principles

- Petition circulation is core political speech; laws restricting who may circulate petitions can trigger heightened scrutiny because they directly burden political expression and association.
- A categorical exclusion of a class of speakers (nonresidents) from circulating petitions is unconstitutional where the state’s interests (e.g., fraud prevention, accountability, service of process) can be achieved through less restrictive measures.
- Disclosure requirements that mandate factual, informational statements on petition materials may be sustained when they do not bar circulation, are reasonably related to informing signers and deterring fraud, and do not impose a severe burden on petition activity.
- Differential regulation of paid and volunteer circulation does not violate equal protection where the state offers a sufficient justification tied to legitimate informational and anti-fraud interests.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Nebraska’s blanket ban on nonresident petition circulators as an unjustified burden on core political speech, but it upheld a conspicuous notice requirement identifying petitions circulated by paid circulators as a permissible informational and anti-fraud measure.


Citizens in Charge v. Gale, 810 F. Supp. 2d 916 (D. Neb. 2011)