Summary
The Kentucky Supreme Court considered whether a county clerk violated KRS 121.310(1) by distributing a letter asking employees to vote for a political candidate. The court held that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad as applied because it impermissibly burdened protected political speech, and affirmed the Court of Appeals.
Holdings
- KRS 121.310(1) is inconsistent with the First Amendment because its prohibition on an employer's statement that employees have been requested to vote for a candidate reaches protected political speech and extends too far beyond coercion.
- Blevins's statement that he would appreciate his employees' votes and support was constitutionally protected free speech and did not cross the threshold into coercion or direction.
Questions Presented
- Whether KRS 121.310(1), insofar as it prohibits an employer from circulating a statement that employees have been requested to vote for a candidate, violates the First Amendment.
- Whether Blevins's letter requesting employees' votes constituted constitutionally protected political speech rather than prohibited coercion or direction under KRS 121.310(1).
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (18)
- U.S. Civil Service Comm'n v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973)(followed)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973)(followed)
- United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947)(followed)
- City of Louisville v. FitzGerald, 600 S.W.2d 456 (Ky. 1978)(followed)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, Minn., 505 U.S. 377 (1992)(applied)
- Sparks v. Boone, 560 S.W.2d 236 (Ky. App. 1977)(followed)
- Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971)(followed)
- Caudill v. Judicial Ethics Committee, 986 S.W.2d 435 (Ky. 1999)(followed)
- Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988)(followed)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…