NO ON E, SAN FRANCISCANS OPPOSING THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PRODUCTION ACT; EDWIN M. LEE ASIAN PACIFIC
DEMOCRATIC CLUB PAC SPONSORED BY NEIGHBORS FOR A
BETTER SAN FRANCISCO ADVOCACY; AND TODD DAVID,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
DAVID CHIU, SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION, BROOKE
JENKINS, AND CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, The Hon. Charles R. Breyer
(Dist. Ct. No. 3:22-cv-02785-CRB)
amicus brief of redacted
draft only do not file. needs work.
[notes added 1/20/24 3:41]
This is a case about compelled speech. San Francisco has added an additional disclaimer regulation to the state's already onerous and unconstitutional disclaimer policy. The state's policies are not directly at issue here.
The re-issued panel opinion is oddly silent about 303 Creative, but instead relies on a faulty understanding of dicta in citizens united, as urged by the campaign legal center.
[note to self: read clc's filings in CU, see if they agreed then with what they argue now. ok, they wanted to uphold austin, but did not address disclosure.
The campaign legal center is a voice for the "reform" faction which favors disclosure of speech by rich white men, and tends to oppose any speech rights for corporations owned by rich white men. they could be called the pro-censorship faction.
they have been having some success with selling a version of citizens united as having effectively reversed talley and mcintyre, which is false. this false theory was adopted in mederos, an arizona case, and helzer v alaska.
]
[resume]
If the san francisco ordinance violates either the state or federal constitutions, it is void. Here, it violates both.
[fix] the controlling cases under either California or federal law.
303 LLC v Elenis (2023) answers the second question.
The California constitution has at least two relevant clauses, the privacy clause, and the speech clause. Schuster, 1980, is a controlling case under the speech clause of the state constitution.
In 1960, in Talley v California, the United States Supreme Court ruled that disclaimers, such as those in this case, cannot be required under the first amendment.
A disclaimer requirement would be racist,Talley, Bates, NAACP v Alabama, and sexist, McIntyre v Ohio, Bates v Little Rock.
Following Talley, and later McIntyre, California courts have struck down disclaimer rules multiple times. Canon City, Drake, Bongiorni, Schuster, Griset.
Meanwhile NIFLA v Becerra and AFP v Bonta are related California cases which held on federal grounds. NIFLA is a disclaimer case. Bonta is a disclosure case. NIFLA found it unnecessary to reach the question of standard of review, since the regulation was unconstitutional under either standard.
Bonta changed the standard in disclosure cases, but this is not a disclosure case. As a pure speech case it gets strict sctrutiny under Reed v Town of Gilbert.
California is one of at least 13 states that have found a right to anonymous speech under their state constitutions. a similar number of cases have been decided, but only on federal grounds.
6 reasons why citizens united is not compelling.
These cases include AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, ID, IL, IN, LA, MA, ME, MO, ND, NY, and [OH], at least 14 states.
[reorder by date or alphabetical]
1 Commonwealth v Dennis, 368 Mass. 92, 329 N.E.2d 706 (1974),
2 Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998)
3 Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908),
4 Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968),
5 Illinois v White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987),
6 In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974),
7 Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995),
8 Louisiana v. Fulton, 337 So.2d 866 (La. 1976),
9 New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974),
10 Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973),
11 Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042,
12 State of Louisiana v. Burgess, 543 So.2d 1332 (1989),
13 State v. N. Dakota Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 1978),
14 Tattered Cover (CO),
15 Washington ex rel. Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 1998), [did this case address state claims?]
16 Peter Zenger’s case, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/zenger/zenger.html (1735)
Oregon Attorney General Opinion 8266.
17. In re Ind. Newspapers, Inc., No. 49A02-1103-PL-23, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 21, 2012).
18. Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. May 14, 2014) (California constitutional right to privacy).
[19. Ohio, a lockstep state, considers McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission as determinative of the state constitutional issue.]
20. Brush and Nib v Phoenix, (AZ 2019)
On the other side of the ledger, State v Acey in Tennessee and Peterslie v N Carolina declined to follow Talley. These cases are neither controlling nor persuasive.
Additionally, I have found some 50 cases that found either that disclaimer rules are unconstitutional, or that the constitution protects anonymous speech, Table II. These two lists overlap.
1 ACLU v Heller, 378 F3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004),
2 American Civil Liberties Union of Ga. v. Miller, 977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D. Ga. 1997),
3 Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000),
4 Broward Coalition v Browning, 2008 WL 4791004 (N.D. Fl 2008),
5 City of Bogalusa v. May, 212 So.2d 408 (La. 1968),
6 Commonwealth v Dennis, 368 Mass. 92, 329 N.E.2d 706 (1974),
7 Cyberspace v Engler, (E.D.MI 2001)
8 Doe v 2theMart, 140 F.Supp.2d 1088, 29 Media L. Rep. 1970 (2001),
9 Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998)
10 Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908),
11 Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 69 Cal. App. 4th 818, 82 Cal. Rptr.2d 25 (1999), reversed on other grounds,
11.5. [Hansen v. Westerville City Sch. Dist., Nos. 93-3231, 93-3303, 1994 WL 622153 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 1994), unpublished opinion, cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 2611 (1995). [facts behind mcintyre case.]
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/43/43.F3d.1472.93-3303.93-3231.html, ]
12 Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968), 14, 23
13 Illinois v White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987),
14 In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974),
15 Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995),
16 Louisiana v. Fulton, 337 So.2d 866 (La. 1976),
17 Michael James Berger, aka Magic Mike v. City of Seattle, (9th Cir. 6/24/2009),
18 Mulholland v. Marion County Election Bd. (S.D. Ind __)
19 New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974),
20 Ogden v. Marendt, 264 F.Supp. 2d 785 (S.D. Ind. 2003) (S.D. Ind 2004),
21 Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973),
22 People v Drake, (Cal.),
23 People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Sup. Ct. 1962), 13
24 Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974), 42 L.Ed.26 33 dismissed as moot.
25 Rosen v. Port of Portland, 641 F.2d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir.1981),
26 Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042, 14, 23
27 ShrinkMO v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1422,
28 Smithers v Fla. Elections, http://www.fec.state.fl.us/decisions/Smithers96-85.PDF,
29 State of Louisiana v. Burgess, 543 So.2d 1332 (1989),
30 State v. N. Dakota Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 (N.D. 1978),
31 Stewart v Taylor, 953 F.Supp.1047 (S.D.Ind.1997),
32 Tattered Cover (CO),
33 Texas v. John Doe, 61 S.W.3d 99, (Tx.App. 2001)
34 Town of Lantana v Pelczynski, 290 So. 2d 566 (Fla. App. 1974),
35 Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000),
36 Virginia Society for Human Life Inc. v. Caldwell, 152 F3d 268 (4th Cir. 1998),
37 Washington ex rel. Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 1998),
38 West Virginians for Life v Smith, 919 F. Supp 954 (S.D.W.Va. 1996), 960 F Supp 1036 (1996), 39 Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, (10th Cir. 1999),
40 Yes to Life PAC v. Webster, http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/Hornby/2000/DBH_02072000_2-99cv318_YES_PAC_V_WEBSTER.pdf ,
41 Peter Zenger’s case, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/zenger/zenger.html
42 Zwickler v. Koota, 290 F. Supp. 244 (E. D. N. Y. 1968), vacated on mootness grounds sub nom. Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (1969),
Oregon Attorney General Opinion 8266.
Citizens for Responsible Gov't State PAC v. Davidson, 236 F.3d 1174, (10th Cir. 2000)
43. In re Ind. Newspapers, Inc., No. 49A02-1103-PL-23, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 21, 2012).
44. Dendrite
45. Doe v Cahill (Del.)
46. Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App. May 14, 2014) (California constitutional right to privacy).
47. In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2011)
48. Hartman v O'Connor 1:20cv163 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 29, 2021)(judicial speech withstood strict scrutiny)
49. Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Kelley, 291 F.Supp.2d 1052, 1069 (D.Minn. 2003), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 427 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2005).
50. Riley v. Jankowski, 713 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)