No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BONN CLAYTON, Petitioner, v. HARRY NISKA, and OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Minnesota Court Of Appeals --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ERICK G. KAARDAL MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, P.A. 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: 612-341-1074 Facsimile: 612-341-1076 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Petitioner ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED In Minnesota, citizens face civil prosecution for making false political statements. Under the existing Minnesota statutory scheme, prosecutions occur for indirect and implicit false claims of political support. Despite recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Minne- sota state courts continually uphold the constitution- ality of Minnesota’s statutory bans on false political speech. The question presented is: Whether a state statute banning false politi- cal speech is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest when such ban co- vers both implicit and indirect claims of po- litical support. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW Petitioner Bonn Clayton was the respondent- defendant in the initial proceedings in the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The admin- istrative complaint was filed by the Respondent Harry Niska who was the OAH complainant-plaintiff. On appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the Office of Administrative Hearings was included as a party to the appellate proceedings because of the court’s procedural rules and because the constitution- ality of a state statute, Minnesota Statute § 211B.02, was at issue. CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Petitioners are not and do not represent a nongovernmental corporation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED................................... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW ..... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ....... ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. v PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI .......... 1 OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 JURISDICTION ................................................... 1 STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ........... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................. 2 A. Factual Background .................................. 5 B. Legal Proceedings ...................................... 8 C. Court of Appeals Opinion .......................... 10 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 12 Prosecutions based upon false claims of po- litical support is contrary to political speech protections ........................................................ 14 A. Minnesota’s prohibition of false political speech cannon survive strict scrutiny ....... 16 B. Processing for symbolism or ideas at- tributed to political parties cannot occur under Minnesota statutes, thus is consti- tutionally underinclusive .......................... 20 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 23 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page APPENDIX Minnesota Court of Appeals, Opinion, March 10, 2014 ............................................................ App. 1 Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, Findings of Fact, Conclusion, and Order, March 12, 2013 ............................................... App. 24 Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, Order on Motion to Reassess Penalty Amount Based on Court of Appeals’ Ruling, September 24, 2014 ........................................ App. 72 Minnesota Supreme Court, Denial of Petition for Review, June 25, 2014 .............................. App. 78 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CONSTITUTION: U.S. Const. amend. I .......................................... passim CASES: 281 Care Comm. v. Arneson, 638 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 15 281 Care Comm. v. Arneson, 2014 WL 4290372 (8th Cir. 2014) ................................................. passim Brown v. Entm’t Merchants Ass’n, 131 S.Ct. 2729 (2011) .............................................................. 20 Brown v. Hartlage, 456 U.S. 45 (1982) ...................... 19 Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) ................... 17 Cantwell v. Conn., 310 U.S. 296 (1940) ..................... 21 Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989) ................................... 17 McCutcheon v. Fed. Election Commn., 134 S.Ct. 1434 (2014) .............................................................. 15 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) .............................................. 15, 16, 17, 21 Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) .................... 15 Niska v. Clayton, Case No. A13-0622, 2014 WL 902680 (Minn. App. 2014) ................. 1, 10, 11, 12, 18 Nord v. Walsh County, 757 F.3d 734 (8th Cir. 2014) ........................................................................ 13 RAV v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) ............. 21 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 416 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2005) .............................. 16, 17, 20 Riley v. Jankowski, 713 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. App. 2006) ................................................................. 3 Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S.Ct. 2334 (2014) .............................................................. 13 Susan B. Anthony List, et al. v. Driehus, et al., 2014 WL 4472634 (Sept. 11, 2014) ......................... 13 Susan B. Anthony List, et al. v. Driehus, et al., No. 13-193 (June 16, 2014) ....................................... 3 Schmitt v. McLaughlin, 275 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. 1979) ........................................................................ 11 Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) ..................... 11 United States v. Alvarez, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012) ................................................... 2, 3, 10, 12, 13 United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) ......... 17 STATUTES: Minn. Stat. § 211B.01, subd. 2 ..................................... 9 Minn. Stat. § 211B.02 ......................................... passim Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 ................................................... 9 Minn. Stat. § 211B.32, subd. 1 ..................................... 9 Minn. Stat. § 211B.32, subd. 2 ..................................... 9 Minn. Stat. § 211B.33, subd. 1 ..................................... 9 Minn. Stat. § 211B.33, subd. 2 ..................................... 9 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Minn. Stat. § 211B.35, subd. 1 ..................................... 9 Minn. Stat. § 211B.35, subd. 2(d) ................................. 9 Minn. Stat. § 211B.35, subd. 2(e) ................................. 9 Minn. Stat. § 211B.36, subd. 5 ..................................... 9 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioners respectfully pray that a writ of certio- rari issue to review the judgment and opinions below. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- OPINIONS BELOW The court of appeals opinion is reported at Niska v. Clayton, Case No. A13-0622, 2014 WL 902680 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. June 25, 2014). App. at 1-23. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JURISDICTION The date of the Minnesota Supreme Court denial of review was June 25, 2014. The U.S. Supreme Court granted an extension to file this petition to October 15, 2014. Dkt. No. 14A302. Jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED In this case, Petitioner claims the following ban on political speech is not narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. 211B.02 FALSE CLAIM OF SUPPORT. A person or candidate may not knowingly make, directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying that a candidate or ballot 2 question has the support or endorsement of a major political party or party unit or of an organization. A person or candidate may not state in written campaign material that the candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of an individual without first getting written permission from the individ- ual to do so. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATEMENT OF THE CASE Political speech, including false claims of political support, is not a category of speech exempt from First Amendment protection. Yet, Minnesota state courts will not find such prosecutorial statutes unconstitu- tionally overbroad. In this case, the lower court upheld a statute banning false claims of political support under strict scrutiny, citing this Court’s decision in United States v. Alvarez, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012), which does not apply to political speech. Although the lower court decision is unpublished, the offending statute suppresses political speech by threat of civil and criminal prosecution. In Alvarez, this Court struck down the initial Stolen Valor Act which criminalized false claims about the receipt of military