Friday, April 1, 2005 | 9:14 a.m.
U.S. District Judge Lloyd George has struck down as unconstitutional a state law that gave the Nevada Ethics Commission the power to fine those it believed had made a false, malicious statement to harm a candidate's campaign. The Nevada Press Association, the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada and several state legislators sought to have the law declared unconstitutional. They argued that the law not only impeded and chilled free speech, but that it also violated due process rights.
While George didn't expressly rule that the law violated the First Amendment, he did acknowledge that the law could chill constitutionally protected free speech, resulting in a person being "more likely to engage in self censorship." One of the most egregious examples of the law's out-of-control enforcement occurred in 2001, when the editor of the High Desert Advocate newspaper was the target of an Ethics Commission investigation. The journalist's offense? He wrote an editorial that criticized a candidate running for mayor in Wendover.
Another defect in the law was that it didn't afford enough due process protections. The law was established, ostensibly, to provide a quick remedy for candidates who believed they had been wronged by a malicious statement from a political opponent. But, from a due process perspective, this attempt at a speedy remedy meant that the accused didn't have enough time to respond to the accusation. As George noted, the alleged violator only had two days to file a response, and that response must include evidence and arguments.
What all of the failings of this unconstitutional law point out is just how wrong it is to give state agencies the power to regulate political speech. There isn't a perfect remedy to ensure that candidates don't lie or shade the truth during a campaign, but the best antidote is a free and unfettered press, which can help the public sort out fact from fiction on the campaign trail.
archive
