Justice v. Hosemann
829 F. Supp. 2d 504
N.D. Miss.2011Background
- Plaintiffs, a group of friends lacking formal organization, seek to pool funds to advocate for Initiative 31 by purchasing posters and distributing flyers.
- Initiative 31 would restrict eminent domain transfers in Mississippi and be decided in the November 2011 election.
- Under Mississippi campaign finance laws, spending or contributions over $200 would trigger registration as a political committee and disclosure requirements.
- Mississippi requires a statement of organization, treasurer designation, and ongoing reporting with names, addresses, occupations, and employers of contributors and expenditures.
- Plaintiffs filed Oct. 20, 2011 seeking declaratory judgment and an injunction; a TRO/preliminary injunction request was briefed and argued Nov. 1, 2011.
- The court denied the TRO/preliminary injunction, finding no substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What level of scrutiny applies to disclosure laws? | Strict scrutiny should apply to speech burdens. | Exacting scrutiny applies to disclosure requirements. | Exacting scrutiny applies. |
| Is Mississippi's informational interest sufficient under exacting scrutiny? | Informational interest is limited or insufficient for ballot measures. | Informational interest is important/compelling for ballot measures. | Informational interest is important/compelling. |
| Do registration/disclosure thresholds pass constitutional muster under rationality review? | Thresholds (e.g., $200) are too low and burdensome. | Thresholds are rational and within range of similar states. | Thresholds are not wholly without rationality. |
| Have plaintiffs shown substantial likelihood of success on the merits? | Mississippi disclosure laws are unconstitutional as applied. | Disclosures survive exacting scrutiny and are substantially related to a valid interest. | Plaintiffs failed to show substantial likelihood of success. |
| Should the court issue a TRO/preliminary injunction given equities and timing? | Injunction is necessary to prevent chilling of speech before the election. | Delay and equities weigh against extraordinary relief. | Injunction denied; late filing weighs against relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876 (U.S. 2010) (disclosure burdens are subjected to exacting scrutiny, not strict)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1976) (disclosure serves informational interest; no expenditure ceiling)
- Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (U.S. 2010) (exacting scrutiny requires substantial relation to important interest)
- Buckley v. American Const. Law Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1999) (disclosure helps voters evaluate campaigns; informs on funding sources)
- Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2010) (Colorado's election-issue disclosures distinguished; thresholds criticized)
- Brumsickel v. Miles, 624 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (disclosure upheld as related to informing electorate)
- Bowen v. Bowen, 599 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (thresholds and tailoring found permissible for disclosure in ballot measures)
- McKee v. National Organization for Marriage, 649 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2011) (deference to legislative thresholds in disclosure regimes; Buckley I standard)
- Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church v. Unsworth, 556 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) (informational interest supports reporting requirements in ballot contexts)