[EL] Government speech restriction meets voting rights?

[Steve Klein]

I wrote a piece in the *Detroit News*
<http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/01/22/michigan-election-gag-order/79214120/>
over the weekend having some fun with the parallels between a recent
campaign finance bill passed in Michigan that broadly prohibits government
speech and the electioneering communication prohibition before *Citizens
United*.

Basically, the new law is so broad it prevents a Michigan school district
from sending a mailer merely mentioning an election (usually over increased
school taxes) within 60 days of said election. Being a Michigan native, I
recall such elections were often single-issue and held on weekdays far
removed from the typical election cycle. The law prohibits far more
government speech than this, but this is the scenario that's made the
rounds in criticism of the new law.

On the policy side, I think it's overbroad and as silly a prohibition as
the old BCRA ban, but haven't delved into whether and how much the First
Amendment comes into play. I use *Citizens United* as a parallel, but
acknowledge it's not directly applicable to tax-funded speech.

I'm more curious, considering the school tax scenario, if voting
rights come into play? What good is a vote if public bodies are prohibited
from expending any public funds to mention it within the relevant time
period? Growing up, I believe one of the only ways anyone even knew the
vote was happening was thanks to mailings from the school district. And
that was back when there was a hometown paper with more than three local
stories in it.

(FWIW, I have no dog in this fight and am not fishing for legal theories.)

-- 
Steve Klein
Attorney*
Pillar of Law Institute
www.pillaroflaw.org

**Licensed to practice law in Illinois and Michigan*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160127/e26af558/attachment.html>