-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - From today's (February 23) New York Times (quoted without permission): By Linda Greenhouse WASHINGTON, Feb. 22: The Supreme Court agreed today to decide whether states can ban the distribution of anonymous campaign literature. The case is an appeal by an Ohio woman who was fined under the state's election law for distributing leaflets, signed only by "concerned parents and taxpayers," urging the defeat of a local tax referendum. At stake is the constitutional balance between the free speech rights protected under the First Amendment and a state's interest in guarding against election fraud. Half of the states, including Connecticut and New Jersey, have laws similar to Ohio's. While the Supreme court has never discussed anonymous leaflets in the context of election laws, it did rule in 1960 that the organizers of a consumer boycott directed at racially biased mechants could not be required to identify themselves on their literature. Historically, persecuted or unpopular groups have "been able to criticized oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all," the court said in that decision, Talley v. California. On the other hand, the Court has granted the states more latitude to restrict speech as part of election regulations, recently upholding bans on write-in voting and on electioneering near polling places. The Ohio Supreme Court, in ruling last year to uphold the ban on anonymous leaflets, said the state law was consistent with the Supreme Court's view that speech could be limited to deter voter fraud. Interesting, eh? faust's dog -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQBpAgUBLWxKQIp26HwU0zr9AQGxfQKZAec+cnCSOHjLSsQjJxQbd1u5IRNw3/Jr H3IltqoypEPRa1H7LYoVQ7RNmiGrcL2730JmABCS3C56k5x/T/IZBeyFtCGussso vscFrB2NGxRCH8Ho =UPD9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----