Pest Committee v. Miller

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court correctly applied the flexible balancing test and “was not obliged to consider whether Nevada’s system could or should be more narrowly tailored”
• holding that single-subject requirement for initiative petition was not a direct regulation of core political speech nor did it impose a severe burden on the plaintiffs First Amendment rights
• recognizing that avoiding voter confusion is an important state interest
• recognizing “that challenges by opponents have tied initiative petitions up in litigation for extended periods of time or that, in some cases, they have left the ° proponents without sufficient time to gather signatures”
• upholding Nevada's single-subject rule and noting that no circuit \has ever found a single-subject rule violative of First Amendment rights\
• declining to apply Meyer to single-subject and description-of-effect laws because such laws “d[id] not directly affect or even involve one-on-one communication”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).