See Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082, 1100-01 (10th Cir.2006) (en banc) (state constitutional provision requiring a supermajority to pass a wildlife-related ballot initiative does not implicate the First Amendment because it neither regulated the advocacy itself nor limited the “communicative conduct of persons advocating a position”); Dobrovolny v. Moore, 126 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir.1997) (concluding that a Nebraska law establishing a procedure for calculating the number of signatures required to place an initiative on the ballot does not implicate the First Amendment, although it “may have made it difficult for appellants to plan their initiative campaign and efficiently allocate their resources”); Biddulph v. Mortham, 89 F.3d 1491, 1500-01 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Whether requiring only VDRs to collect and
holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the first amendment recognizing in first amendment jurisprudence the right to receive information and ideas holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify holding that statute which prohibited polygamy did not violate first amendment holding that a law did not violate the first amendment because it did not burden the exchange of ideas and noting most laws restricting a states initiative process would not implicate the first amendment