“Publius and the Petition: Doe v. Reed and the History of Anonymous Speech”

Chesa Boudin has written this student note for the Yale Law Journal.  Here is the abstract:

This Note argues that signatures on petitions intended for use in direct democracy processes such as ballot initiatives should be subject to public scrutiny and disclosure. They should not benefit from free speech protections allowing for anonymity. Signatures used in these proceedings should not be considered petitions or speech at all, but rather lawmaking. Through historical, doctrinal, and prudential analysis, this Note distinguishes between core First Amendment rights, which might include signatures on a general petition with no legislative implications or minority associational rights, and speech-like activity that forms part of the regulated lawmaking process.

I’m looking forward to reading this!


Comments are closed.