When Arizona resident Mark Reed planned to vote while wearing a “Tea Party” t-shirt, government officials wanted to keep him out of the polls. The Goldwater Institute argued that Tea Party shirts were constitutionally protected free speech, no different than shirts promoting unions or other advocacy groups. The courts agreed, requiring election officials to use uniform, objective standards without violating the constitution.
- Press Releases
- In the News
- OpEds & Blogs
Tea Party T-shirt Election LawsuitsPosted on September 20, 2010 | Type: Case
The Goldwater Institute has filed federal lawsuits on behalf of voters in Maricopa and Coconino counties to defend their right to vote while wearing clothing that refers to one or more “tea party” groups. The lawsuits aim to make sure county election officials use uniform and objective standards to enforce Arizona's electioneering laws without violating the constitutional rights of these and other voters in the future.
Wickberg v. OwensPosted on September 20, 2010 | Type: Case
In March 2011, Coconino County decided to settle the case. Specifically, Coconino County's new rules define electioneering to provide that only conduct that advocates for or against a candidate, a political party, or an issue on the ballot may be banned at the polling site. The County has also agreed to provide additional training to poll workers for objective enforcement of election laws and to protect against discrimination in the polling place.
Coleman v. MesaPosted on March 26, 2010 | Type: Case
Does the government have the right to deny business permits because neighbors complain? The Arizona Supreme Court said no in its ruling on the Goldwater Institute’s case, Coleman v. Mesa.
Nonprofits could be future of journalismPosted on September 05, 2009 | Type: In the News
Everything in Mark Flatten's office says investigative reporter, from stacks of paper on the desk to sources' contact information scribbled next to the phone to a hand-held tape recorder and headphones beside the computer.
Net neutrality regulation violates First AmendmentPosted on August 20, 2009 | Type: Blog | Author: Nick Dranias
The Federal Communications Commission wants to force network service providers—the companies that own and operate the wires, routers and computers that keep the Internet humming—to transmit streaming audio, video and anything else on terms the FCC deems “neutral” regardless of how much bandwidth the data consumes. Network providers say the regulation will eliminate their ability to manage network traffic and effectively clog up the Internet. They argue that such “net neutrality” will deter and destroy private sector investment in the Internet.