Vote Choice, Inc. v. Joseph Distefano, Etc., Elizabeth Leonard, Vote Choice, Inc. v. Joseph Distefano, Etc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that controversy was not moot because the candidate had “not renounced possible future candidacies, and politicians, as a rule, are not easily discouraged in the pursuit of high elective office”
• holding that controversy was not moot because the candidate had “not renounced possible future candidacies, and politicians, as a rule, are not easily discouraged in the pursuit of high elective office”
• holding cap gap, which increased likelihood of participation in public funding scheme, narrowly tailored to serve compelling governmental interest
• holding cap gap, which increased likelihood of participation in public funding scheme, narrowly tailored to serve compelling governmental interest
• suggesting that the court first considers whether First Amendment rights are burdened, and if so, determines whether the burdening statute is narrowly tailored to support a compelling governmental interest
• holding cap gap, which increased likelihood of participation in public funding scheme, narrowly tailored to serve compelling governmental interest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).