Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger

241 F.3d 614 (2001)

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

Initiative & Referendum Institute v. Jaeger

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
241 F.3d 614 (2001)

JC

Facts

North Dakota’s constitution allowed for ballot initiatives but was amended in 1979 to allow only state residents 18 years old or older to circulate initiative petitions. In 1987, a statute prohibited payment of petition circulators on a signature-based payment standard but did allow them to otherwise be paid. The 1987 statute had been passed due to issues in a 1986 initiative signature campaign, including students being paid for signing and names being taken from the phone book. In 1994, about 17,000 signatures were invalidated due to per-signature payments. A group of citizens and organizations including Initiative & Referendum Institute (collectively, the institute) (plaintiffs) filed suit for declaratory judgment seeking a ruling that the 1979 amendment and the 1987 statute were unconstitutional as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The institute posited that the residency requirement unduly chilled free-speech rights by making it harder to obtain initiative approval and by prohibiting nonresidents from political speech via participation in the petition process. The institute also argued that the prohibition against per-payment circulation fees chilled First Amendment free-speech rights and that the amendment and statute violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating citizens differently than lobbyists, despite a legislative stoppage on lobbyists from working on a contingency basis to secure specific outcomes. North Dakota Secretary of State Alvin Jaeger (defendant) defended the amendment and statute as being less than a severe burden on free speech and thus deserving of less than strict scrutiny in considering both the per-signature payment ban and the residency requirement. The state specifically argued that any free-speech implications, which were minimal because payment was not completely banned, were subject to the state’s interest in avoiding fraud. The state argued that likewise, the residency requirement inflicted minimum prejudice regarding free-speech concerns, as most initiatives passed the signature requirement easily and any North Dakota voter could circulate a petition. The trial court ruled for the state, and the institute appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Heaney, 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 814,000 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 814,000 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 814,000 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