Meyer v. Grant

486 U.S. 414 (1988)

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

Meyer v. Grant

United States Supreme Court
486 U.S. 414 (1988)

JC

Facts

Colorado required advocates of a ballot initiative to submit the measure to the State Legislative Council and the Legislative Drafting Office. After a title, summary, and submission clause were prepared, there was a six-month period to obtain a required number of signatures for the initiative to appear on the ballot. The required total number was not less than five percent of the total number of voters from the prior preceding general election. Colorado required that the petition circulators be registered voters and that they sign statements verifying the signatures collected. Colorado also prohibited paid circulators. Ballot-initiative advocates for a change to the Colorado constitution sought a vote on removing motor carriers from the Colorado Public Utilities Commission’s jurisdiction. Paul Grant (defendant) was one of these advocates. After the title, summary, and submission clause were completed, the advocates feared they would not have time to obtain enough signatures before the election. They thus filed suit against Colorado Secretary of State Natalie Meyer (plaintiff), arguing that the prohibition against paid circulators violated their First Amendment rights. The trial court found that the prohibition against using paid circulators did not burden the advocates’ First Amendment rights, because the limitations did not impair the advocates’ expression or ability to place initiatives on a ballot. The court also found that the state had interests in not allowing paid circulators: namely, ensuring that initiative measures actually had sufficient public support and eliminating the temptation for paid circulators to pad petition statistics. An appellate court reversed, finding First Amendment implications in the limitation on the ability of petition circulators to spread ideas and in the limitation on the pool of possible petition circulators. Meyer appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, 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