RSS 2.0 FeedWashington Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Against False Political Statements
by Doug MataconisThe Washington State Supreme Court has struck down as unconstitutional a law that purported to bar political candidates from making false statements about their opponents in an election campaign:
OLYMPIA — A sharply divided state Supreme Court has ruled that a law that bars political candidates from deliberately making false statements about their opponents violates the First Amendment right of free speech.
In a 5-4 ruling, the high court affirmed a state Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the law. The measure was enacted by the Legislature in 1999, a year after a similar ban on false statements involving initiatives and other ballot measures was thrown out by the state Supreme Court.
State Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, invoked the law in 2002 after his Green Party challenger, Marilou Rickert, distributed a flier that asserted Sheldon voted to shut down a state institution in his district. In fact, he voted against a budget that included closure of the Mission Creek youth camp, although critics said he didn’t do enough to support the facility.
He filed a complaint with the state Public Disclosure Commission, which investigated and imposed the maximum fine, $1,000. By then, Sheldon had easily won re-election. The commission action was upheld in Superior Court, but overturned by the appeals bench.
The Supreme Court majority said the new law “like its predecessor, is unconstitutional on its face.”
“The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment,” Justice James Johnson wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders and Susan Owens.
This seems to be a wise and sensible decision. While we might all agree that it would be better if politicians didn’t shade the truth or distort their opponents records, it is simply inappropriate for the state to be the one who determines when an inappropriate line has been crossed. That’s what the electoral process is for.
In fact, the problem with state regulation of “truth” in political campaigns couldn’t be more apparent than it is in the case that was before the Court here. Apparently, an opponent mis-stated the complaining politicians position on an issue. Was it a deliberate misstatement or, as is often the case in political campaigns, a different interpretation of the facts ? And why should the Courts be the one to make determinations like these ?
Are slander and libel no longer tortious offenses that enable a grieved party to seek redress for damages caused by the act of another?
Or do they just not apply to public figures?
Comment by Brian T. Traylor — October 5, 2007 @ 10:41 pmI think that they are, but this law apparently specifically targeted political speech and Doug is right that it’s the voters’ decision to make and not the legislature’s. I will disagree with his dislike for the Court’s role, however.
Comment by UCrawford — October 5, 2007 @ 10:54 pm