Facts
- Colorado required initiative sponsors to collect signatures equal to at least 5% of qualified voters within six months to place a constitutional amendment on the general election ballot.
- Colorado law made it a felony to pay, offer to pay, or receive payment for circulating an initiative, referendum, or recall petition.
- Sponsors associated with “Coloradans for Free Enterprise” sought to place an initiative on the ballot to deregulate Colorado’s motor carrier (trucking) industry.
- After beginning with volunteer circulators, the sponsors concluded they could not gather the required 46,737 signatures within the statutory period without hiring paid circulators.
- The sponsors sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the payment ban violated the First Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment).
- Colorado justified the ban as protecting the integrity of the initiative process, including ensuring grassroots support and preventing fraud.
Issues
- Whether Colorado’s felony prohibition on paying initiative petition circulators unconstitutionally restricts political speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Whether the State’s asserted interests in initiative integrity, grassroots support, and fraud prevention justify a categorical ban on paid petition circulation.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Tenth Circuit (en banc) and held the payment ban unconstitutional.
- Circulating an initiative petition was deemed “core political speech,” triggering exacting scrutiny.
- The ban burdened political expression by reducing the number of speakers and limiting the audience reached through direct, one-on-one advocacy.
- The ban also reduced the likelihood the initiative would qualify for the ballot, thereby limiting statewide debate on the proposal.
- The State failed to show the categorical felony ban was necessary or narrowly tailored to its interests; less restrictive means could address fraud and integrity concerns.
Legal Principles
- Circulating an initiative petition involves advocacy and discussion of political change and is “core political speech” receiving the highest First Amendment protection.
- Restrictions that significantly burden core political speech are subject to exacting scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to serve a sufficiently important governmental interest.
- A state’s authority to structure (or even eliminate) an initiative process does not include authority to restrict political discussion about initiative proposals.
- The availability of other, more burdensome channels of communication does not cure a law that restricts an especially effective and economical method of political advocacy.
- Generalized integrity and fraud-prevention interests do not justify a categorical ban when existing requirements and narrower tools (e.g., verification and penalties for actual fraud) can address those concerns.
Conclusion
The Court held that Colorado’s felony ban on paying petition circulators imposed a substantial burden on core political speech and was not adequately justified under exacting scrutiny, so it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.