SD Voice v. Noem, 380 F. Supp. 3d 939

Background

Initiated Measure 24 (IM 24), approved by South Dakota voters in 2018 and codified at SDCL § 12-27-18.2, bars contributions to statewide ballot question committees from nonresidents, out-of-state political committees, and entities not filed with the Secretary of State for the prior four years; violations carry civil and criminal penalties.
The ban applies only to ballot question committees; candidates, candidate committees, PACs, parties, and independent expenditures by nonresidents remain largely unrestricted.
Plaintiffs (including media, advocacy groups, and donors) sued state officials seeking injunctions, alleging IM 24 violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commerce Clause; the court consolidated the merits and preliminary-injunction hearing.
Evidence showed significant historical reliance by ballot committees on out-of-state funding (e.g., support for "Marsy's Law"). Plaintiffs claimed IM 24 would severely impair their ability to fund advocacy and association.
The state defended IM 24 as protecting "democratic self-government" by limiting political influence from persons who cannot vote on state ballot questions.
The court found IM 24 ambiguous (e.g., undefined term "statewide ballot question committee," uncertain treatment of volunteer expenses) and concluded the measure was both unconstitutional and underinclusive in serving its stated aims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. First Amendment — speaker-based contribution ban	IM 24 unlawfully restricts political speech and association by banning a class of speakers (nonresidents) from contributing to ballot committees, abridging advocacy and association.	IM 24 is a contribution regulation aimed at protecting state democratic self-government; should be reviewed under a lesser (rigorous/exacting) standard.	Court: Ban targets a disfavored speaker class and triggers strict/exacting scrutiny; IM 24 is not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest and violates the First Amendment.
2. Vagueness and scope of regulation	IM 24 is vague (e.g., "statewide ballot question committee") and could criminalize ordinary volunteer activity and in-kind support, chilling speech.	Defendants contended the measure's terms are administrable and enforceable by state officials.	Court: IM 24 raises serious vagueness concerns that could chill protected activity.
3. Commerce Clause — interstate commerce burden	Contributions are economic transfers affecting interstate commerce; IM 24 discriminates on its face against out-of-state economic actors and money flows.	The law regulates political process to protect local self-government, not economic protectionism.	Court: IM 24 is facially discriminatory and therefore invalid under the Commerce Clause.
4. Equal Protection / standing	Plaintiffs contended the law discriminates against nonresidents and abridges rights of similarly situated persons; multiple plaintiffs claimed concrete injury.	Defendants challenged plaintiffs' standing and argued classifications are permissible.	Court: Plaintiffs had standing; no need to reach separate Equal Protection analysis after First Amendment and Commerce Clause rulings.

Key Cases Cited

Mills v. State of Ala., 384 U.S. 214 (protection of free discussion of governmental affairs)
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (distinguishing contribution vs. expenditure limits; associational freedoms)
Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (government may not restrict speech by disfavored speakers)
McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 572 U.S. 185 (review of contribution limits; quid pro quo corruption as permissible interest)
Free & Fair Election Fund v. Mo. Ethics Comm'n, 903 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. decision applying exacting scrutiny to contribution regulations)
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (balancing test for burdens on interstate commerce)
Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573 (discriminatory state laws favoring in-state interests are per se invalid)
NAACP v. State of Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (freedom of association principles)
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing framework)
Sec'y of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947 (chill/standing in free-speech challenges)