52 F.4th 381
8th Cir.2022Background
- South Dakota enacted SB 180 (2020), imposing pre-circulation public disclosure and ongoing-update requirements on paid ballot‑petition circulators: name, home address, email, phone, government ID, voter‑registration state, petition sponsor, and sex‑offender status; signatures gathered by noncompliant paid circulators are voided.
- SB 180 requires the disclosures be available in a public directory upon request while petitions are being circulated (i.e., before verification); paid circulators and sponsors must update information within seven days.
- Dakotans for Health (DFH), a ballot‑question committee seeking ~34,000 signatures for a 2022 constitutional amendment, uses paid circulators and alleges SB 180 will chill recruitment and reduce its ability to gather signatures.
- DFH sued state officials and obtained a district‑court preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of SB 180; the state appealed.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: it held DFH has standing and is likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim because SB 180’s targeted, pre‑circulation disclosures to a public directory are not narrowly tailored to the State’s asserted interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek prospective First Amendment relief | DFH: statute will chill paid circulators, decreasing DFH's signature‑gathering capacity; concrete injury and redressable by injunction | SD: DFH lacks concrete injury because restrictions target circulators, not the committee | Held: DFH has standing; its and circulators' interests are intertwined and injury is concrete and redressable |
| Whether SB 180 violates the First Amendment (facial challenge/overbreadth) | DFH: pre‑circulation public disclosures chill core political speech and are overbroad | SD: disclosure requirements are modest and substantially related to election integrity and fraud prevention | Held: Likely unconstitutional on its face as overbroad; burdens core political speech and discriminates against paid circulators |
| Level of scrutiny and tailoring (exacting scrutiny applied) | DFH: law severely burdens core political speech and is not narrowly tailored | SD: requirements substantially relate to important interests in integrity, transparency, and verification | Held: Applying exacting scrutiny, the statute is not narrowly tailored—mismatches include singling out paid circulators, pre‑circulation public disclosure, sex‑offender disclosure, and onerous update/voiding rules |
| Preliminary injunction (irreparable harm, equities, public interest) | DFH: harms to ballot access and core speech are irreparable; balance and public interest favor injunction | SD: State’s interest in initiative integrity weighs against injunction | Held: Injunction appropriate—DFH likely to succeed, would suffer irreparable harm, and equities/public interest favor enjoining SB 180 pending further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (holding restrictions on paid circulators burden core political speech)
- Buckley v. Am. Constitutional Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (invalidating compelled on‑the‑spot identification of circulators; protects circulator anonymity during solicitation)
- Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010) (disclosure regimes must be substantially related to important governmental interests)
- Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021) (exacting scrutiny requires a substantial relation and narrow tailoring; courts must assess mismatch between interest and disclosure regime)
- SD Voice v. Noem, 987 F.3d 1186 (8th Cir. 2021) (discussion of petition‑circulator disclosures and First Amendment protection)
- Miller v. Thurston, 967 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 2020) (state interest in protecting initiative process integrity is important but regulation must fit the interest)
- Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (standards for granting preliminary injunctions in this circuit)