Institute for Free Speech: Arizona’s Proposition 211 Creates “An Indefensible Burden” on Free Speech Rights

New amicus brief details how Arizona’s donor disclosure law runs afoul of the state constitution, violating Arizonans’ right to “freely speak, write, and publish”

February 28, 2025   •  By IFS Staff   •    •  

Phoenix, AZ — Restricting more people, more speech, and more time: Arizona’s Proposition 211 expands on previous donor disclosure laws in nearly every way—and violates the Arizona Constitution.

That’s why the Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief yesterday in Center for Arizona Policy, Inc. v. Arizona Secretary of State urging the Arizona Supreme Court to review the serious constitutional problems surrounding Arizona’s Proposition 211.

The Institute argues that Proposition 211 imposes sweeping disclosure rules unlike anything seen before, expanding on previous laws in almost every way. The brief notes that “[b]y expanding every part of an ordinary disclosure rule, Proposition 211 ‘accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree.’” As a result, “that shift in kind turns a series of individually problematic provisions into a cataclysmic free speech violation.”

“Proposition 211 is a drastic evolution in compelled disclosure—and one that should not survive constitutional scrutiny,” the brief explains. It emphasizes that Arizona’s Constitution provides even broader protections for free speech than the First Amendment does, describing how the law infringes on the right to “freely speak, write, and publish” protected under Article II, § 6 of the Arizona Constitution.

The Institute’s brief articulates a framework for analyzing disclosure laws based on who must be identified, what speech is covered, where that speech occurs, and when that speech happens. It argues that courts must account for “the cumulative impact that these various decisions have on free speech.”

“Even if it’s constitutional to require that advocacy groups disclose a limitless chain of indirect donors for engaging in ‘campaign media spending,’ or to label all speech that refers to a candidate for office six months before an election as campaign-related, combining those two rules together creates an indefensible burden on ‘the individual right to freely speak, write, and publish,’” the brief notes.

To read the Institute’s amicus brief in Center for Arizona Policy, Inc. v. Arizona Secretary of State click here.

About the Institute for Free Speech

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment.

IFS Staff

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap