Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPolitical SpeechAnonymous SpeechElection RegulationFirst Amendmentanonymous pamphleteering

Facts

Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets opposing a proposed school tax levy at public meetings concerning an upcoming referendum. Some leaflets identified her as author, while others were unsigned and attributed only to "CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS." There was no suggestion that her statements were false, misleading, or libelous, and she acted independently with only minor help from her son and a friend. After a school official complained, the Ohio Elections Commission found that her unsigned leaflets violated Ohio's statute requiring identification on campaign literature and imposed a $100 fine.

Issue

Does an Ohio statute that prohibits the distribution of anonymous campaign literature designed to influence voters in an election abridge freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment? More specifically, may the State require identification on election-related leaflets distributed by an individual acting independently where the message is not false or libelous?

Rule

An author's decision to remain anonymous is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. When a law burdens core political speech, including anonymous election-related leafletting, the law is subject to exacting scrutiny and will be upheld only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.

🔒

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.

In Columbus, Ohio, Nina Patel prints 200 leaflets urging voters to reject a proposed city transit tax at an upcoming referendum. A state statute makes it unlawful to distribute any election-related handbill unless it lists the name and home or business address of the person responsible for it, and Nina is fined for handing out unsigned copies.

If Nina challenges the statute under the First Amendment, which standard should a court apply under the majority's approach?

Explanation. The majority treated anonymous leafletting about an election as core political speech, not merely election mechanics. Because the statute directly regulates the content of election-related expression and compels identifying information, it is subject to exacting scrutiny and is valid only if narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.