Supreme Court of the United States

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

April 19, 1995514 U.S. 334

Summary

The Court, in an opinion by Stevens joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, held that Ohio's prohibition of anonymous campaign literature violated the First Amendment and reversed the Ohio Supreme Court's judgment sustaining McIntyre's fine. Compelled identification on political leaflets regulates the content of core political speech and requires exacting scrutiny; Ohio's informational interest was insufficient, and its broad prohibition was not narrowly tailored to preventing fraud and libel. Ginsburg concurred separately to emphasize that the decision left open identification requirements in other, larger circumstances. Thomas concurred in the judgment, concluding that the original understanding of the freedom of speech and press protected anonymous political writing. Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, dissented, relying on longstanding legislative practice and the usefulness of identification requirements in protecting electoral integrity.

Holding

  • What constitutional standard governs the compelled identification of authors of election-related leaflets?. A requirement compelling identification on election-related writings regulates the content of core political speech and is subject to exacting scrutiny, requiring narrow tailoring to an overriding state interest.
  • Whether Ohio's interests justify its prohibition of anonymous campaign literature.. Ohio's broad prohibition violates the First Amendment and cannot sustain the penalty for McIntyre's anonymous leafleting.

Docket 93-986

Cited authorities

  • 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 13
  • 140 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1373
  • 1917 Ariz. Sess. Laws 62
  • 1913 Fla. Laws 268
  • 1917 Ill. Laws 456
  • 1911 Kan. Sess. Laws 221
  • 1912 La. Acts 447
  • 1890 Mass. Acts 342

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF