Facts
- James E. Mills, editor of a Birmingham daily newspaper, published an editorial on election day urging voters to support a proposed change in Birmingham’s municipal government structure.
- Alabama charged Mills under § 285 of the Alabama Corrupt Practices Act, which criminalized “electioneering” or soliciting votes for or against a proposition on the day of an election.
- Mills challenged the charge on state and federal constitutional grounds, arguing the statute abridged freedom of speech and of the press.
- The trial court sustained Mills’s demurrer and dismissed the complaint as unconstitutional.
- The Alabama Supreme Court reversed, held the editorial violated the statute, upheld the statute as a reasonable police-power regulation, and remanded for trial.
- Mills sought U.S. Supreme Court review; Alabama argued there was no “final judgment” because the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
- Whether the Alabama Supreme Court’s reversal and remand was “final” for purposes of U.S. Supreme Court review under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
- Whether the First and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to criminalize a newspaper editorial published on election day urging voters to support or oppose a ballot proposition.
Decision
- The Court held it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 because, given the state court’s rulings and Mills’s concession that he published the editorial, conviction on remand was effectively inevitable.
- On the merits, the Court reversed the Alabama Supreme Court and held § 285 unconstitutional as applied to Mills’s election-day editorial.
- The Court ruled that criminalizing election-day editorial advocacy on public issues violates the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the Court’s constitutional holding.
- Justice Harlan disagreed only on jurisdiction, concluding the remand prevented finality under § 1257.
Legal Principles
- The First Amendment’s protection of speech and press includes strong protection for discussion of governmental affairs and electoral choices.
- A state may not impose a criminal ban on election-day editorial advocacy urging voters to take a position on issues submitted for a vote.
- A state-court decision may be treated as “final” under 28 U.S.C. § 1257 when further proceedings are essentially ministerial and the outcome is effectively predetermined by the state court’s legal rulings.
Conclusion
The Court held that Alabama could not constitutionally punish a newspaper editor for publishing an election-day editorial urging voters to support a ballot proposition, because suppressing political advocacy at the time of voting violates the First Amendment as applied to the states, and it exercised jurisdiction despite a state-court remand where conviction was effectively assured.