Today a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of an Indiana statute that prohibits printing, publishing or distributing a "slate" of candidates in a primary election without each candidate's written consent. The state asserted three interests for the infringement on the plaintiff's claimed First Amendment rights: the prevention of campaign fraud, the integrity of the election process through preservation of party stability, and the protecting candidate's interest in not associating with other candidates or groups.

As for the first interest, the court held that the statute was not narrowly tailored to prevent fraud. Among other things, the court said the statute would bar sending an e-mail urging a friend to "vote for Smith and Jones." Even read less broadly, the court said that "one-way expressions of support are a common fact of life in politics, and, contrary to the Defendants, do not involve factual misrepresentations.

As for the second interest, promoting the stability of the two-party system, the court said that the statute did not interfere with party autonomy (distinguishing CDP v. Jones).

As for the third interest, the court held: "If the candidate wishes to publicly disassociate himself from the slate, he is free to do so, but the state exceeds its powers when it stifles that speech on his behalf."

The case is Ogden v. Marendt, 1:03-cv-415-JDT-TAB, (S.D. Indiana, April 21, 2002). Thanks to Ed Feigenbaum for passing it along. It is not yet posted on the web.