432 F.Supp.3d 991
D.S.D.2020Background:
- Plaintiffs (SD Voice and Cory Heidelberger) challenged South Dakota House Bill 1094 (enacted Mar. 21, 2019; effective July 1, 2020) seeking a permanent injunction under the First Amendment.
- HB 1094 redefined "petition circulator" to include anyone who "solicits petition signatures" for statewide ballot measures and required pre-circulation registration with the Secretary of State, issuing an ID number.
- Section 3 imposed extensive disclosure: name, current/prior physical address, email, phone, voter-registration state, driver-license state, occupation, pay status/rate, and sex-offender status; false statements void collected signatures.
- Section 4 required the Secretary of State to maintain a public directory (available on request for a fee) of registered circulators and related campaign information.
- Plaintiffs argued the law is viewpoint-discriminatory, content-based, substantially overbroad, and not severable; district court held a bench trial and permanently enjoined enforcement.
- Court found no evidence of widespread prior fraud or administrative necessity to justify the burdens, and concluded the unconstitutional provisions could not be severed from the Act.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viewpoint discrimination / content-based restriction | HB 1094 singles out proponents/solicitors of signatures and burdens only pro-petition speech | Law regulates process/actors, not viewpoint; aims to ensure integrity and administration | Law is viewpoint-discriminatory; strict scrutiny applies and state fails to justify it |
| Disclosure / exacting scrutiny | Pre-circulation, detailed disclosures and searchable directory will chill speech and enable harassment | Disclosure advances administrative efficiency and compliance (residency, age, sex-offender checks) | Disclosure regime is not narrowly tailored; state failed to show substantial relation to interests (Buckley analogous) |
| Overbreadth | Even if facially neutral, the law would prohibit substantial protected speech by those advocating signatures | Law narrowly targets circulators and administrators of petition process | Court treated law as viewpoint-based; but stated that if neutral it would be substantially overbroad |
| Vagueness | — | Definitions (e.g., "solicit") are unclear and could chill speech | Court found statute not unconstitutionally vague; ordinary meaning of "solicit" applies |
| Severability | Strike unconstitutional parts; preserve remaining administrative changes | Sections are separable; Legislature intended piecemeal reforms | Unconstitutional provisions are not severable; entire Act invalidated |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (viewpoint discrimination principle)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (content- and viewpoint-based restrictions trigger strict scrutiny)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (speaker-based restrictions scrutinized)
- Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (challenged circulator identification/disclosure; allowed post-circulation affidavit but struck pre-circulation badge/name rules)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (time, place, manner narrow-tailoring requirement)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (substantial-overbreadth standard)
- Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622 (strict-scrutiny framework for speaker-preference laws)
- Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761 (government must show harms are real and regulation materially alleviates them)
- Calzone v. Summers, 942 F.3d 415 (8th Cir. describing exacting-scrutiny disclosure standard)
- Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. on disclosure and substantial relation to important interests)