Facts
- Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets at a public school meeting opposing a proposed school tax levy.
- Some leaflets identified her by name; others were signed only “CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS.”
- She authored the leaflets, arranged printing, and distributed them largely on her own, with limited help placing copies on car windshields.
- There was no claim that the leaflets were false, misleading, or libelous.
- After a school official warned the unsigned leaflets violated Ohio law, McIntyre continued distributing them.
- A complaint was later filed alleging violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 3599.09(A), which required certain election-related literature to include the name and address of the person or campaign official responsible.
- The Ohio Elections Commission found a violation and imposed a $100 fine.
Issues
- Whether Ohio Rev. Code § 3599.09(A), as applied to anonymous campaign leaflets, abridges freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Whether a compelled identification requirement for election leaflets is a content-based restriction on core political speech subject to exacting scrutiny.
- Whether Ohio’s asserted interests in preventing fraud and informing voters justify the statute’s breadth.
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ohio Supreme Court in a 7–2 decision.
- The Court held that § 3599.09(A)’s attribution requirement for campaign literature violated the First Amendment.
- The Court treated the law as regulating core political speech and as content-based because coverage turned on whether the document was designed to influence voters.
- Applying exacting scrutiny, the Court held Ohio’s interests were legitimate but the statute was not narrowly tailored.
- The Court emphasized that the statute banned anonymity even when the speech was truthful and nondefamatory, and Ohio had less speech-restrictive tools to address fraud and libel.
Legal Principles
- The First Amendment protects the choice to speak anonymously, including in political advocacy and election-related issue debate.
- A law that requires identification on political leaflets based on their election-influencing content is a content-based burden on core political speech.
- Content-based burdens on core political speech are reviewed under exacting scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.
- Broad prophylactic bans on anonymous election literature are unconstitutional when they suppress substantial protected speech without targeting only false, deceptive, or libelous communications.
- States may address election-related fraud or defamation through more targeted measures than universal attribution mandates.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated Ohio’s mandatory name-and-address requirement for certain campaign leaflets, holding that compelled identification for small-scale political pamphleteering impermissibly burdens protected anonymous speech and fails exacting scrutiny when not narrowly tailored to address fraud or similar wrongdoing.