Independence Institute v. Gessler

936 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (2013)

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

Independence Institute v. Gessler

United States District Court for the District of Colorado
936 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (2013)

JC

Facts

Colorado passed a statute limiting compensation of ballot-initiative petition circulators per signature or petition-section signing to not more than 20 percent of the circulators’ total pay. This statute went afoul of various parties involved in the petition-circulation process, and a group of those parties including Independence Institute (collectively, Independence Institute) (plaintiffs) filed suit challenging the so-called hybrid-payment limitation, arguing that the restriction was an impermissible restriction under the First Amendment of free political speech. The state, through Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler (defendant), defended the restrictions as necessary based on the state’s interest in avoiding fraudulent petition activity. An extensive amount of evidence was entered into the record. Testimony indicated that the pool of petition circulators tended to be either (1) low-volume, high-validity professionals who obtained few signatures and essentially circulated petitions as an additional income source; (2) medium-volume professionals who usually worked part-time and averaged 15 to 30 signatures per hour; and (3) high-volume itinerant professionals who traveled from state to state in search of their primary income from petition circulation. The petition industry required at least a week or two to train new workers, and most trainees did not become effective petition circulators. Additionally, evidence indicated that most itinerant professionals would avoid working in Colorado under the hybrid model because they could earn more money elsewhere. In such an environment, more workers would be required by those attempting to circulate petitions, and the work would be less efficient. A total cost increase of at least 18 percent would be expected under the hybrid model. Additional evidence was entered regarding validity rates, most of which seemed to indicate little to no impact on validity between pay-per-hour and pay-per-signature workers. However, most of the petitions with lower validity rates were not connected with itinerant professional circulators or fraud but were often the rest of new circulators learning the details of the job. The government argued that the incentive to commit fraud would be stronger under a pay-per-signature model, and that this justified a minimal impact upon free-political-speech rights. Independence Institute argued that the limitation should be considered through the lens of strict scrutiny and should fail.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Brimmer, 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 815,000 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 815,000 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 815,000 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