Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Texas are holding elections next week. Find out what's on your ballot in our latest report.

Difference between revisions of "Meyer v. Grant"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
* [ Text of the Supreme Court decision in Meyer v. Grant]
* [ Text of the Supreme Court decision in Meyer v. Grant]
[[Category:Ballot access lawsuits, Colorado]]
[[Category:Ballot measure lawsuits, Colorado]]
[[Category:Initiative rights, Colorado]]
[[Category:Direct democracy measures, Colorado]]
[[Category:Pay-per-signature lawsuits]]
[[Category:Ballot measure lawsuits, 1988]]
[[Category:Ballot measure lawsuits in federal court]]
[[Category:Lawsuits about signature requirements]]

Revision as of 05:40, 26 September 2011

Ballot law
BallotLaw final.png
State laws
Initiative law
Recall law
Statutory changes
Ballot Law Update
Current edition
Court cases
Lawsuit news
Ballot access rulings
Recent court cases
Petitioner access
Ballot title challenges
Superseding initiatives
Signature challenges
Laws governing
local ballot measures
Meyer v. Grant is a key decision of the United States Supreme Court asserting the right of proponents of ballot measures to pay circulators to collect signatures. It was decided on June 6, 1988, on an appeal from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The ruling was unanimous; the court's decision was written by Justice Stevens.

Paul Grant et al, the plaintiffs, were challenging a Colorado statute that made it a felony to pay petition circulators. The plaintiffs had attempted to qualify for the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would have removed motor carriers from the jurisdiction of Colorado's Public Utilities Commission. The federal district court in which the case was first heard upheld the Colorado statute. This decision was appealed by the plaintiffs to the Tenth Circuit, which reversed the lower court, and ruled that the Colorado statute was an unconstitutional infringement on the 1st amendment rights of the plaintiffs.

The state of Colorado then appealed the Tenth Circuit's verdict to the U.S. Supreme Court. The highest court agreed with the Tenth Circuit that the Colorado statute "abridges appellees' right to engage in political speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments."

See also

External links