Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Doe v. Reed

Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentDisclosure requirementsReferendum petitionsElection lawFirst Amendmentexacting scrutinypublic disclosure

Facts

Washington allows citizens to challenge state laws by referendum, and a petition must include each signer's name, address, and county before being submitted to the secretary of state for verification and canvassing. Washington construes its Public Records Act to make submitted referendum petitions available for public inspection and copying. After Protect Marriage Washington submitted a petition seeking a referendum on a law expanding rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners, several parties requested copies of the petition, and some groups announced plans to post signer information online. Certain signers and the petition sponsor objected, claiming that disclosure would violate the First Amendment.

Issue

Whether Washington's disclosure of referendum petitions under its Public Records Act, as a general matter and not just as to this particular petition, violates the First Amendment rights of petition signers.

Rule

Compelled disclosure of referendum-petition signatory information implicates the First Amendment and is reviewed under exacting scrutiny. Under that standard, there must be a substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest, and the strength of the governmental interest must reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on First Amendment rights. A broad challenge to disclosure of referendum petitions generally fails where the State shows that disclosure is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process and the challengers do not show comparable burdens for typical petitions.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon requires anyone who signs a statewide veto referendum petition to provide a name, address, and county. After the petition is filed, the records become available for public inspection under Oregon's general public-records law. A group of signers sues in federal court, arguing that because signing the petition expresses a political position, any disclosure must survive strict scrutiny.

Which standard should the court apply to the signers' First Amendment challenge to the disclosure requirement?

Explanation. The majority held that signing a referendum petition is expressive activity, so compelled disclosure implicates the First Amendment. But because the law imposes a disclosure requirement in the electoral context rather than prohibiting speech, the proper standard is exacting scrutiny, not strict scrutiny. Under that standard, there must be a substantial relation between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest.