Citizens in Charge

After a hearing last week in Omaha, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bataillon denied a request from the state chapter of the Libertarian Party to block enforcement of Nebraska’s ban on people from other states helping collect signatures on a petition. Relying on the flawed 2001 decision by the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in IRI v. Jaeger, the judge indicated that he believed those challenging the law would not face severe harm if the law stays in place until after a full trial.

The case challenging Nebraska’s residency law is Citizens in Charge v. Gale, which argues that the law harms citizens’ First Amendment rights by reducing free speech.

The Jaeger case, stemming from a North Dakota law, is one of only two where residency requirements have been upheld in federal court. Bans on out of state petition circulators have been ruled unconstitutional in at least ten other states. In their decision striking Ohio’s residency law in Citizens for Tax Reform v. Deters, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that they did “not find Jaeger persuasive.” The appeals court in Jaeger also ignored a decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals striking an Illinois residency requirement in Krislov v. Rednour, even though that case had been decided a few months earlier. None the less, since Nebraska lies in the Eighth Circuit, Judge Bataillon found Jaeger to be the controlling precedent case.

Judge Battillon’s ruling does not mean that the residency law has been upheld, simply that the judge has refused to put part of the law on hold pending a full trial. When the case does go to trial there will be an opportunity to present evidence of the harm caused to citizens’ First Amendment rights by restricting who can help circulate a petition. A date has not yet been set for a full trial.

Author’s Note: The link provided to the Lincoln Journal-Star above contains a factual error: the suit has been filed on behalf of Citizens in Charge, not Citizens in Charge Foundation.