## Facts

- During the 1991 campaign over Washington Initiative 119 (“Death with Dignity Act”), the 119 Vote No! Committee opposed the initiative.
- The Committee distributed a one-page printed political advertisement urging voters to reject Initiative 119 and asserting the measure would allow doctors to end patients’ lives without adequate safeguards.
- Initiative proponents complained to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC), which referred the matter for enforcement.
- The State (through the PDC) alleged the Committee violated RCW 42.17.530(1)(a), which barred sponsoring, with “actual malice,” a political advertisement containing a false statement of material fact.
- The State sought civil penalties under the statutory enforcement scheme (including monetary penalties and related relief).
- The trial court dismissed the State’s enforcement action on the ground that the particular advertisement did not contain materially false statements under the statute.
- The ACLU intervened and sought a declaratory judgment that RCW 42.17.530(1)(a) was unconstitutional; the trial court rejected the facial challenge.
- The Washington Supreme Court consolidated the State’s appeal and the Committee/ACLU appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 42.17.530(1)(a), which prohibits sponsoring (with actual malice) political advertising containing a false statement of material fact, is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment in the context of initiative campaigns.
2. If the statute is constitutional, whether the Committee’s particular advertisement violated RCW 42.17.530(1)(a).

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court held RCW 42.17.530(1)(a) facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment as applied to initiative campaign speech.
- Because the statute was invalid, the court did not decide whether the Committee’s advertisement violated the statute.
- The statutory invalidation foreclosed further enforcement against the Committee under RCW 42.17.530(1)(a) for the challenged political advertising.

## Legal Principles

- Political advocacy in an electoral campaign, including initiative campaigns, is core First Amendment speech subject to exacting scrutiny when regulated by the government.
- The government generally may not act as an arbiter of truth in political debate by penalizing purportedly false campaign statements, even when liability is limited to “material fact” falsity, “actual malice,” and clear-and-convincing proof.
- Statutory schemes that chill political speech by exposing speakers to enforcement risk and penalties for contested campaign assertions impose unconstitutional burdens on protected expression.
- A facial First Amendment challenge may succeed where a statute’s structure authorizes censorial enforcement that is incompatible with robust political debate in initiative campaigns.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court invalidated RCW 42.17.530(1)(a) on its face in the initiative-campaign context, holding that the State cannot constitutionally police alleged false statements in political advertising through a malice-based enforcement regime, and therefore did not reach the merits of the Committee’s specific leaflet.


State ex rel. Pub. Disclosure Comm’n v. 119 Vote No! Comm., 135 Wash. 2d 618, 957 P.2d 691 (Wash. 1998)