When Arizona resident Mark Reed planned to vote while wearing a “Tea Party” t-shirt, government officials wanted to keep him out of the polls. The Goldwater Institute argued that Tea Party shirts were constitutionally protected free speech, no different than shirts promoting unions or other advocacy groups. The courts agreed, requiring election officials to use uniform, objective standards without violating the constitution.
- Press Releases
- In the News
- OpEds & Blogs
Judge grants preliminary injunction citing "Law 101"Posted on August 12, 2009 | Type: In the News
CAREFREE – After obtaining emergency relief in the form of a temporary restraining order in July, Ryan Ducharme returned to Maricopa County Superior Court on Monday for a hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Ray Klemp, who owns the building which houses town hall and the post office in Carefree, from interfering with Ducharme’s collection of recall petition signatures outside the building.
Obama And The Fairness DoctrinePosted on November 22, 2008 | Type: Op-Ed | Author: Clint Bolick
Our president-elect speaks with a moderate and reassuring tone on many of his policy views. But on some issues, the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress may have different ideas and likely will hand Barack Obama bills that are further left than his pronouncements.
Americans' right to organize and speak about politics needs renewed protectionPosted on October 22, 2008 | Type: Blog | Author: Bradley Smith
Most Americans probably assume they can gather with friends and neighbors to say whatever they want about politics to whoever is willing to listen. They presume that the First Amendment protects their right to get together and buy yard signs, publish newsletters, or pay for radio or TV ads urging people to vote for or against a candidate -- and to do so free of government interference.
Special privileges or free speech for all?Posted on October 16, 2008 | Type: Blog | Author: Nick Dranias
In a unanimous decision last week, the Arizona Supreme Court determined that the state Constitution's guarantee of free speech furnishes even greater protection from government regulation than the First Amendment. The Court ruled in State v. Stummer that laws regulating the hours of speech-oriented businesses, like bookstores, cannot be implemented unless the government demonstrates that they are needed to prevent significant negative "secondary effects," such as crime. No prior decision articulates this principle as clearly.
Look Who's Talking NowPosted on March 24, 2008 | Type: Blog | Author: Benjamin Barr
State-sponsored messages on license plates raise constitutional questions