Difference between revisions of "Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''''Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger''''' is the name of a lawsuit filed in 1998 against [[North Dakota Initiative and Referendum Law|North Dakota's]] law restricting [[paid circulator]]s.  The plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit were the [[Initiative & Referendum Institute]], [[U.S. Term Limits]], John Michael, Ralph Muecke, Americans for Sound Public Policy, and [[Progressive Campaigns, Inc.]].  The lawsuit was filed against [[North Dakota Secretary of State|North Dakota Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger]].
+
{{law}}{{TOCnestright}}'''Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger''' is the name of a lawsuit filed in 1998 against [[North Dakota Initiative and Referendum Law|North Dakota's]] law restricting [[paid circulator]]s.  The plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit were the [[Initiative & Referendum Institute]], [[U.S. Term Limits]], John Michael, Ralph Muecke, Americans for Sound Public Policy, and [[Progressive Campaigns, Inc.]].  The lawsuit was filed against [[North Dakota Secretary of State|North Dakota Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger]].<ref name=ruling>[http://www.iandrinstitute.org/New%20IRI%20Website%20Info/I&R%20Research%20and%20History/I&R%20Legal%20History/I&R%20and%20the%20Courts/Major%20Court%20Decisions/IRI%20v.%20North%20Dakota/8th%20Circuit%20Decision.pdf ''I&R institute'', "Copy of the court ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit," accessed May 4, 2014]</ref>
  
The lawsuit was unsuccessful.  An appeal of the original judgment to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals was also unsuccessful.
+
The lawsuit was unsuccessful.  An appeal of the original judgment to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals was also unsuccessful.<ref name=ruling/>
  
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
  
The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgement to have two provisions of North Dakota's law declared null and void as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  The two provisions that were challenged were:
+
The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgement to have two provisions of North Dakota's law declared null and void as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  The two provisions that were challenged were:<ref name=ruling/>
  
 
* A provision requiring that [[circulator|petition circulators]] be residents of North Dakota.  (See [[Residency requirements for petition circulators]]).  This provision had been added to the [[North Dakota Constitution]] in 1979.
 
* A provision requiring that [[circulator|petition circulators]] be residents of North Dakota.  (See [[Residency requirements for petition circulators]]).  This provision had been added to the [[North Dakota Constitution]] in 1979.
 
* A provision prohibiting initiative sponsors from paying circulators on a "per-signature" basis.  This statute was adopted by the North Dakota legislature in 1987.
 
* A provision prohibiting initiative sponsors from paying circulators on a "per-signature" basis.  This statute was adopted by the North Dakota legislature in 1987.
  
The challenged law, N.D. Cent. Code §16.1-01-12(11), stated in part:
+
The challenged law, N.D. Cent. Code §16.1-01-12(11), stated in part:<ref name=ruling/>
  
 
<blockquote>“It is unlawful for a person to…[p]ay or offer to pay any person, or receive payment or agree to receive payment, on a basis related to the number of signatures obtained for circulating an initiative, referendum, or recall petition. This subsection does not prohibit the payment of salary and expenses for circulation of the petition on a basis not related to the number of signatures obtained, as long as the circulators file their intent to remunerate prior to submitting the petitions…”</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>“It is unlawful for a person to…[p]ay or offer to pay any person, or receive payment or agree to receive payment, on a basis related to the number of signatures obtained for circulating an initiative, referendum, or recall petition. This subsection does not prohibit the payment of salary and expenses for circulation of the petition on a basis not related to the number of signatures obtained, as long as the circulators file their intent to remunerate prior to submitting the petitions…”</blockquote>
Line 18: Line 18:
 
The Eighth Circuit upheld the original ruling, saying that, "As the state has a compelling interest in preventing fraud and the regulation does not unduly restrict speech, we conclude that the residency requirement is constitutional."
 
The Eighth Circuit upheld the original ruling, saying that, "As the state has a compelling interest in preventing fraud and the regulation does not unduly restrict speech, we conclude that the residency requirement is constitutional."
  
In addressing North Dakota's [[residency requirement]], the court maintained that the law did not unconstitutionally infringe on core first amendment rights because:
+
In addressing North Dakota's [[residency requirement]], the court maintained that the law did not unconstitutionally infringe on core first amendment rights because:<ref name=ruling/>
  
 
<blockquote>"Many alternative means remain to non-residents who wish to communicate their views on initiative measures."</blockquote>
 
<blockquote>"Many alternative means remain to non-residents who wish to communicate their views on initiative measures."</blockquote>
Line 25: Line 25:
  
 
* [[Laws governing petition circulators]]
 
* [[Laws governing petition circulators]]
* [[Residency requirements on petition circulators]]
+
* [[Residency requirements for petition circulators]]
 +
* [[Chandler v. City of Arvada]]
 +
* [[Frami v Ponto]]
 +
* [[Pay-per-signature]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
Line 32: Line 35:
 
*[http://www.iandrinstitute.org/REPORT%202006-1%20Paid%20Petitioners.pdf Paid Petitioners after ''Prete'']
 
*[http://www.iandrinstitute.org/REPORT%202006-1%20Paid%20Petitioners.pdf Paid Petitioners after ''Prete'']
  
[[Category:North Dakota]]
+
==References==
[[Category:Ballot access legal cases]]
+
{{reflist}}
 +
[[Category:Ballot measure lawsuits, North Dakota]]
 +
[[Category:Lawsuits about residency requirements]]
 +
[[Category:Pay-per-signature lawsuits]]
 +
[[Category:Ballot measure lawsuits, 1998]]

Latest revision as of 13:35, 4 May 2014

Ballot law
BallotLaw final.png
State laws
Initiative law
Recall law
Statutory changes
Court cases
Lawsuit news
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges
Laws governing
local ballot measures
Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger is the name of a lawsuit filed in 1998 against North Dakota's law restricting paid circulators. The plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit were the Initiative & Referendum Institute, U.S. Term Limits, John Michael, Ralph Muecke, Americans for Sound Public Policy, and Progressive Campaigns, Inc.. The lawsuit was filed against North Dakota Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger.[1]

The lawsuit was unsuccessful. An appeal of the original judgment to the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals was also unsuccessful.[1]

Background

The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgement to have two provisions of North Dakota's law declared null and void as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The two provisions that were challenged were:[1]

The challenged law, N.D. Cent. Code §16.1-01-12(11), stated in part:[1]

“It is unlawful for a person to…[p]ay or offer to pay any person, or receive payment or agree to receive payment, on a basis related to the number of signatures obtained for circulating an initiative, referendum, or recall petition. This subsection does not prohibit the payment of salary and expenses for circulation of the petition on a basis not related to the number of signatures obtained, as long as the circulators file their intent to remunerate prior to submitting the petitions…”

Judicial reasoning

The Eighth Circuit upheld the original ruling, saying that, "As the state has a compelling interest in preventing fraud and the regulation does not unduly restrict speech, we conclude that the residency requirement is constitutional."

In addressing North Dakota's residency requirement, the court maintained that the law did not unconstitutionally infringe on core first amendment rights because:[1]

"Many alternative means remain to non-residents who wish to communicate their views on initiative measures."

See also

External links

References