Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 11:59, 20 May 2009 by Swad (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
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.

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

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

“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:

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

See also

External links