State Regulation of Election-Related Speech in the U.S.: An Overview and Comparative Analysis

David S. Ardia, Evan Ringel, Allysan Scatterday

University of North Carolina Legal Studies Research Paper Series

Political Processes

Misinformation, Political Communication

Regulations against misinformation already exist in forty-eight states

The last two presidential election cycles have brought increased attention to the extent of misinformation – and outright lies – peddled by political candidates, their surrogates, and others who seek to influence election outcomes. Given the ubiquity of this speech, especially online, one might assume that there are no laws against lying in politics. It turns out that the opposite is true. Although the federal government has largely stayed out of regulating the content of election-related speech, the states have been surprisingly active in passing laws that prohibit false statements associated with elections.

This article finds forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have such laws (Maine and Vermont are the exceptions). For this report, the authors reviewed more than 125 state statutes that regulate the content of election-related speech. These laws take one of two basic forms: statutes that directly target the content of election-related speech, and generally applicable statutes that indirectly implicate election-related speech by prohibiting intimidation or fraud associated with an election. They show that these election-speech statutes deviate from longstanding theories of liability for false speech. First, the statutes cover a broader range of speech than has traditionally been subject to government restriction: the statutes cover everything from merely derogatory statements about candidates (defamation requires false statements that create a degree of moral opprobrium) to false information about ballot measures, voting procedures, and incumbency. Second, a substantial number of the statutes impose liability regardless of whether the speaker knew the information was false or acted negligently. If nothing else, these statutes provide a partial roadmap for identifying the types of speech – and election harms – that may warrant intervention.