concluding that Anderson-Burdick applies only to laws that “primarily regulate the mechanics of the electoral process, as opposed to core political speech,” not to laws “that are primarily directed at regulating ‘pure speech'”
Summary of this case from La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott22-1033
10-02-2023
MAZO, EUGENE, ET AL. v. WAY, N.J. SEC. OF STATE, ET AL.
The petition for writs of certiorari is denied.
CERTIORARI DENIED
concluding that Anderson-Burdick applies only to laws that “primarily regulate the mechanics of the electoral process, as opposed to core political speech,” not to laws “that are primarily directed at regulating ‘pure speech'”
Summary of this case from La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. AbbottFull title:MAZO, EUGENE, ET AL. v. WAY, N.J. SEC. OF STATE, ET AL.
Court:Supreme Court of the United States
Date published: Oct 2, 2023
See also Buckley v. Am. Const. L. Found., Inc., 525 U.S. 182, 207 (1999) (Thomas, J., concurring) (“When a…
Andy Kim v. HanlonIndeed, because New Jersey's bracketing system regulates the voting ballots themselves as well as the “the…