Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deter

518 F.3d 375 (2008)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deter

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
518 F.3d 375 (2008)

JC

Facts

[Editor’s Note: The casebook The Law of Direct Democracy (Henry S. Noyes ed., 1st ed. 2014) erroneously gives the title of this case as “Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deter.” The correct title is “Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters.”] Ohio allowed ballot initiatives but enacted a statute that made it a felony for petition circulators to be paid on any basis other than time worked. Citizens for Tax Reform (plaintiff) (CTR) was a group of Ohioans who had engaged a consulting firm to obtain signatures on an initiative petition for a 2005 vote on a constitutional amendment. CTR was to pay the firm on a per-signature basis, but after Ohio’s circulator-payment statute was enacted, the consulting firm repudiated its agreement and estimated a fee of an additional $300,000 to obtain the signatures, on the ground that its top circulators were either uninterested or reluctant to work in Ohio under the existing terms. CTR then filed a petition for a temporary restraining order, seeking a declaration enjoining the state from enforcing the statute. Ohio Secretary of State Joseph Deters (defendant) opposed this filing. The trial court ruled for CTR and issued the restraining order. The parties then filed competing motions for summary judgment. CTR argued that the ban significantly impinged on free-speech rights under the First Amendment and was analogous to a total ban on compensation that had previously been found unconstitutional. The state argued that the ban was less broad and was analogous to a handful of circuit cases that had upheld pay-per-signature bans on the basis that the extent of collision with the First Amendment was smaller and that an adequately pled state interest justified the limitation. However, the state did not explicitly connect petition fraud to pay-per-signature schemes. The trial court denied the state’s motion for summary judgment and granted CTR’s motion, and the state appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McKeague, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership