Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 12:34:11 -0500
From: Ed Feigenbaum <EDF@ingrouponline.com>
Subject: Indiana Supreme Court considers disclaimer disclosure definition
Sender: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
To: election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
Organization: INGroup
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
X-Spam-Level: XXXX
X-Authentication-warning: majordomo.lls.edu: majordomo set sender to
 owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu using -f

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has certified an interesting question of state law to the Indiana Supreme Court in Majors v. Abell, which has accepted and will answer the question. Oral argument was held on the question this morning.

I apologize for neglecting to get you the live webcast link yesterday.

You should be able to catch it on-line in an archived broadcast:

http://www.IN.gov/judiciary/education/rtsp://realvideo.ind.net:7070/real/SupremeCourt/05292003_0900am.rm

Robbin Stewart, a listserv member, is counsel for the plaintiff-appellants in this matter. J. J. Gass, Associate Counsel at the Brennan Center, filed an amicus brief and successfully negotiated Indiana's byzantine time zones to appear at ortal argument.

The question is this:

Is the term "persons" in Ind. Code Secs. 3-9-3-2.5(b)(1) and (d) limited to candidates, authorized political committees or subcommittees of candidates, and the agents of such committees or subcommittees, or does it have a broader scope and if so, how much broader?

The U.S. Court of Appeals is asking the Indiana Supreme Court about the statute that requires people who finance political advertising for the election or defeat of a candidate to include notice of the identity of the persons who paid for the advertisement on the advertisement. The federal appellate panel wants to know if the statute requires all people who pay for political advertising to identify themselves on the advertisement, or if the statute only pertains to candidates and their organizations. The U.S. Court of Appeals has expressed its opinion that if the statute applies to all people who pay for political advertising, then it may violate the First Amendment.

This case challenging the Indiana statute was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Brian Majors, a 1998 candidate for county assessor in Vanderburgh County, and other political candidates ö as well as some non-candidates ö challenged this statute as an abridgement of free speech, and therefore, in violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the suit, because the non-candidates did not have standing and the candidatesâ action was moot. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held, however, that the plaintiffs did have standing to bring the action; that the action was not moot; and certified the question of whether the Indiana statute applied to all individuals, or was limited to candidates and their organizations, to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Instead of deciding what the statute means on its own, the U.S. Circuit Court has asked the Indiana  Supreme Court to decide what the statute means, since questions of Indiana law are decided by Indiana courts. The federal appeals panel will then decide the federal question of whether the statute violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment based upon the Indiana Supreme Courtâs decision on what the Indiana statute means.

The Court-furnished case summary can be found at:

http://www.IN.gov/judiciary/education/summaries/2003/may/majors-v-abell_explanation.html

another is here:

http://www.IN.gov/judiciary/education/summaries/2003/may/majors-v-abell.html

You can view the statute in question here:

http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title3/ar9/ch3.html#IC3-9-3-2.5

The Indianapolis Star and Evansville Courier & Press both had reporters at the oral argument and should have stories Friday.