10-568 Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan

Listen to this article

United States Supreme Court

CIVIL OPINIONS

Constitutional Law

Free speech; ethics laws

A state law requiring public officials to recuse themselves from voting on, or advocating the passage or failure of certain measures is not unconstitutionally overbroad.

Restrictions on legislators’ voting are not restrictions on legislators’ protected speech. A legislator’s vote is the commitment of his apportioned share of the legislature’s power to the passage or defeat of a particular proposal. He casts his vote “as trustee for his constituents, not as a prerogative of personal power.” Raines v. Byrd , 521 U. S. 811 . Moreover, voting is not a symbolic action, and the fact that it is the product of a deeply held or highly unpopular personal belief does not transform it into First Amendment speech. Even if the mere vote itself could express depth of belief (which it cannot), this Court has rejected the notion that the First Amendment confers a right to use governmental mechanics to convey a message. See, e.g., Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party , 520 U. S. 351 . Doe v. Reed , 561 U. S. ___, distinguished.

236 P. 3d 616, reversed and remanded.

10-568 Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan

Scalia, J.; Kennedy, J., concurring; Alito, J., concurring.