Ninth Circuit Upholds Ban on Paying Initiative Petition Signature Gatherers on a Per-Signature Basis

The case is Prete v. Wiliams. The Eighth circuit had reached the same conclusion in 2001. Both courts relied upon an anti-fraud interest of the state. For a discussion, see Lowenstein & Hasen at 437.

comment after the fold

Demorep writes:

From my friendly 1900’s dictionary --

abridge-

1. to reduce in scope, extent, etc. : shorten

2. to shorten by using fewer words but keeping the main content; condense

3. to lessen or curtail (rights, authority, etc.)

4. [Rare] to deprive (of rights, privileges, etc.)
---------------------------
See First Amendment; 14th Amdt, Secs. 1 and 2; 15th Amdt, Sec. 1; 19th Amdt, para. 1; 24th Amdt, Sec. 1; 26th Amdt, Sec. 1.

What does ANY 1789 dictionary say about *no*, *abridge* or *abridging* -- regardless of scores (hundreds ?) of First Amendment speech and press JUNK opinions by the appointed party hack MORON Supremes ?

ALL the JUNK opinions must be overruled if the rights in the First Amendment are going to survive.
------
What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall) 277, 325 (1867); U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 778, 829 (1995).

A law must be tested by its operation and effect. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 708-709 (1931); U.S. Term Limits, Inc., supra, 514 U.S., at 831.

Posted by Rick Hasen at February 23, 2006 09:11 AM