# State v. 119 Vote No! Committee

> Washington Supreme Court · June 11, 1998 · 135 Wash. 2d 618

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4711514

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington on the relation of Public Disclosure Commission v. 119 Vote No! Committee, American Civil Liberties Union of Washington
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 11, 1998
- **Citations:** 135 Wash. 2d 618; 957 P.2d 691
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Guy
- **Judges:** Guy, Madsen, Sanders, Talmadge
- **Cited by:** 45 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4711514

## Opinion text

Guy, J.
(concurring) — The judiciary has the duty to be *633 vigilant in protecting citizens from laws that chill political speech. Calculated lies are not protected political speech. The elected representatives of the people have a right to pass laws which make malicious lying illegal in political campaigns; we have no constitutional duty to strike down such laws. The statute before us requires actual malice regarding a false statement of material fact, and requires that such malice and materiality be proved in a court of law by clear and convincing evidence. RCW 42.17.530(2). I have an abiding belief in the value of “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” debate on public issues. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 , 84 S. Ct. 710 , 11 L. Ed. 2d 686 , 95 A.L.R.2d 1412 (1964). Intentional, malicious lies do not foster debate; they foster deception and manipulation of the voting public.
I agree with the majority and Justice Talmadge’s concurrence that the advertisement before us from the 119 Vote No! Committee does not violate RCW 42.17.530(l)(a). I disagree with the majority and Justice Madsen’s concurrence that the statute on its face violates the First Amendment.
Durham, C.J., concurs with Guy, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4711514. Public record. Not legal advice.