Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc. (‘ACLF”), 525 U.S. 182, 200, 119 S.Ct. 636, 142 L.Ed.2d 599 (1999), the Court struck down a C easons. First, the statute is directed toward the government’s interest in preserving the integrity of elections, an interest that the Supreme Court has recognized as sufficient to support mandated disclosure of identity. Doe, 130 S.Ct. at 2820. Second, the proponent of a California initiative is asking voters to allow her to serve an official public role and to allow her to act on the voters’ behalf in the legislative process, not just recounting an idea as an advocate, and a petition is an official legislative form, not a pamphlet or advocacy document. See Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351, 363, 117 S.Ct. 1364, 137 L.Ed.2d 589 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, the disclosure regime seeks to disclose
holding that the first amendment does not guarantee a students right to display a message that could reasonably be interpreted as promoting drug use at a school event holding that the first amendment does not by itself give rise to a cause of action for damages holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity holding that the first amendment does not provide a right to use the ballot itself to send a particularized message recognizing first amendment retaliation right