[EL] TN election law reform PAC: 2, State of TN: 0

[Scoville, George S.]

Yesterday, the Davidson County Chancery Court in Nashville sided with Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws in our latest constitutional lawsuit, holding that a Tennessee statute that criminalized knowingly false criticism of candidates violates the First Amendment in all respects.  Our release (below) has a summary of our constitutional arguments.  My favorite line from the court's order:  "For its analysis and authorities the Court cannot improve upon the Plaintiff's memoranda."  Shoot me a note off-list if you'd like a copy of our summary judgment brief, the court's order, or the direct mail piece or an exemplar digital ad that were the subject of the lawsuit.  The State is almost certain to appeal, although the AG's office hasn't indicated yet whether or not they will.

Hope all are safe, healthy, and well.

All my best,
George


TSEL Lawsuit Overturns Unconstitutional Criminal Law That Selectively Banned Criticism of Candidates
[cid:image001.png at 01D66747.16F1E9A0]tn4sense.org/press/tsel-lawsuit-overturns-unconstitutional-criminal-law-that-selectively-banned-criticism-of-candidates<https://tn4sense.org/press/tsel-lawsuit-overturns-unconstitutional-criminal-law-that-selectively-banned-criticism-of-candidates/>
July 30, 2020
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NASHVILLE - The Davidson County Chancery Court ruled today that a criminal state statute violated Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws and other Tennesseans' First Amendment right to knowingly falsely criticize candidates for state office.

The statute at issue, Tennessee Code Annotated § 2-19-142, made it a Class C misdemeanor to "publish or distribute or cause to be published or distributed any campaign literature in opposition to any candidate in any election if such person knows that any such statement, charge, allegation, or other matter contained therein with respect to the candidate is false."  In Tennessee, a Class C misdemeanor carries maximum penalties of a $50 fine, 30 days in jail, or both, for each violation.

TSEL designed direct mail pieces and digital advertisements about Tennessee House Representative Bruce Griffey<https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/03/tennessee-republican-lawmaker-files-bill-chemically-castrate-sex-offenders/2803880001/>, saying that he was "literally Hitler" for introducing legislation that would provide for the chemical castration of certain criminal defendants, and Tennessee House Representative Rick Staples<http://onthehill.tnjournal.net/questions-mount-about-rep-rick-staples-campaign-spending/>, accusing him of spending campaign funds on everything from snorkeling trips to exotic açaì bowls.  TSEL knew these statements were false, but they did not send the mailers or run the digital ads for fear of prosecution.

So with the help of the Stanton Foundation First Amendment Clinic at Vanderbilt Law School<https://law.vanderbilt.edu/courses/433#:~:text=The%20Stanton%20Foundation%20First%20Amendment,press%20and%20freedom%20of%20assembly.>, led by Professor Gautam S. Hans, TSEL sued the State of Tennessee to challenge the statute on First Amendment grounds.

Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle awarded summary judgment to TSEL, declaring the law unconstitutional without a trial.

"This plainly unconstitutional law struck at the very purpose of the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause," said TSEL Executive Director and Treasurer George Scoville.  "The framers of our Constitution believed that robust public speech and debate would be essential to self-government.  This law tried to put its thumb on the scale, favoring the very people who enacted it-Tennessee state lawmakers-to the detriment of members of the voting public, who also have a reciprocal right to hear political communications and decide for themselves what matters in an election, including what is true or false."

In her opinion, Chancellor Lyle adopted all of TSEL's arguments on the merits of their constitutional challenge.

First, the statute unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.  That is, it treated speakers who oppose a candidate differently than it treated speakers who support a candidate.

Similarly, the statute punished only false speech that criticized a candidate.  In other words, Tennesseans could lie all they wanted about a candidate as long as they were supporting him or her.

Third, no government is well enough equipped to distinguish truth from falsity.  As such, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that a statement's mere falsity does not deprive it of First Amendment protection.

Fourth, the statute prohibited far more speech than it could conceivably legitimately punish.

Finally, the statute also violated the Tennessee Constitution.

"Tennesseans have a constitutional right to mock and satirize politicians, and candidates for office cannot lawfully use the threat of a criminal prosecution to inhibit criticism," said TSEL General Counsel Daniel Horwitz.  "Tennesseans For Sensible Election Laws is proud to have won this important case and made Tennessee's democratic process freer once again<https://tn4sense.org/commentary/tennesseans-for-sensible-election-laws-wins-appeal-state-officials-permanently-barred-from-deciding-who-can-speak-about-politics-and-when/>."

"A statute like this has grave implications for political discourse," said TSEL Director of Strategy Fred Culver.  "When you think about sending campaign mail to hundreds or thousands of voters, or running an online ad campaign that could reach thousands more, the threat of fines and jail time for each utterance essentially freezes speakers like TSEL out of participating in the debate.  We are thankful for the free speech warriors who came before us that made it easy for Chancellor Lyle to knock this one out of the park."

The State of Tennessee has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the Chancery Court's ruling.  But for now, TSEL and all other Tennesseans are free to criticize candidates for office, even if that criticism is knowingly false, when the candidates behave badly.  Join us!<https://secure.piryx.com/donate/iVBrOgbR/TSEL/>



[cid:image002.jpg at 01D66747.16F1E9A0]
George S. Scoville III Attorney at Law
Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C.
424 Church Street, Suite 2500 | P.O. Box 198615 | Nashville, TN 37219
Tel: 615-259-1366 | Fax: 615-259-1389
Web Page<https://www.lewisthomason.com> | My Bio<https://https:/www.lewisthomason.com/attorneys/george-s-scoville-iii/>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission and any document, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, are confidential and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of any of the information contained in, or attached to this e-mail transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by forwarding this message to the original sender or by telephone at 800-335-3930 and then delete this message and its attachments from your computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200731/92a3b1dd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200731/92a3b1dd/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 56878 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200731/92a3b1dd/attachment.jpg>