High Court Rules Anti-Abortion Group Can Sue Over Election ‘Truth-Telling’ Law

A group challenging an Ohio election law that makes it a crime to make 鈥渇alse statements鈥 about a candidate鈥檚 record during a campaign has standing to challenge the constitutionality of that law, according to today鈥檚 unanimous Supreme Court decision.

Health Care In The States

The , written by Justice Clarence Thomas, did NOT strike down Ohio鈥檚 false statement law. But it did hold that the demonstrated 鈥渁 sufficiently imminent injury鈥 from potential prosecution under the law that it can challenge it in federal court.

Michael Carvin, the attorney who argued the case before the court for the Susan B. Anthony List, told reporters in a conference call that he anticipates as a result of the ruling, however, Ohio鈥檚 measure and similar 鈥渢ruth-telling commissions鈥 in more than a dozen other states 鈥渨ill be struck down鈥 as a violation of free speech rights.

The case arose during the 2010 mid-term elections, when the group, which describes itself as 鈥渄edicated to electing candidates and pursuing policies that will reduce and ultimately end abortion,鈥 targeted a number of anti-abortion Democrats who voted for the Affordable Care Act. The SBA List contends that the health law 鈥渟upports taxpayer-funded abortion,鈥 despite promises to the contrary and an issued by President Barack Obama.

In an attempt to stop billboards accusing him of voting for taxpayer-funded abortions from being erected by the group, then-Rep. Steve Driehaus filed a complaint — at the height of the campaign season — with the Ohio Election Commission, which found 鈥減robable cause鈥 that the statements were false.

Driehaus lost the election, and withdrew his complaint, but the SBA list and another group, the , sued the election commission anyway. They argued that the law violates the Constitution鈥檚 guarantee of free speech, and that it 鈥渃hilled鈥 them from making assertions about candidates due to fear of prosecution.

The Supreme Court agreed, as far as allowing them to pursue their claim. 鈥淭he burdens that Commission proceedings can impose on electoral speech are of particular concern here,鈥 said the opinion. 鈥淢oreover, the target of a false statement complaint may be forced to divert significant time and resources to hire legal counsel and respond to discovery requests in the crucial days leading up to an election.鈥

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, told reporters the victory would likely free the group to pursue its agenda not just in Ohio, but in other states with similar laws.

鈥淰oters ought to retain the ultimate right to determine the truth or falsity of claims,鈥 she said. 鈥淭he threat of jail time or fines that put you out of business; that is a chill.鈥

But the implications of the 鈥渇alse statement鈥 laws on free speech led to a wide range of organizations supporting the SBA List鈥檚 right to sue. Among the most notable 鈥渇riend-of-the-court鈥 briefs was one co-written by humorist P.J. O鈥橰ourke that riffed on the idea of as coined by comedian Stephen Colbert.

鈥淒riehaus voted for the Obamacare, which the Susan B. Anthony List said was the equivalent of voting for taxpayer-funded abortion,鈥 said the brief in a footnote. 鈥淎mici are unsure how true the allegation is given that the health care law seems to change daily, but it certainly isn鈥檛 as truthy as calling a mandate a tax.鈥

More from 麻豆女优 Health News