October Term 2000 · Docket 99-929
Can states force federal candidates to disclose political views?
Missouri requires federal candidates to state their views on state issues. Opponents claim this violates federal election laws.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Underwood argued the meaning of instruct determines the law's validity.
Mr. Mcadams cited three democratic principles at stake in the case.
Mr. Franklin claimed Missouri used ballot control to influence federal voters.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 1-21 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 1-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 1-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests state ballot access rules. Missouri mandates federal candidates disclose views on state matters. Critics argue this interferes with federal elections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 1-21 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 1-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 1-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 6, 2000.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-3
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the disclosure law struck down.
the opposing sides want the disclosure law upheld.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 1-21 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 1-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 1-11
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the state controls federal election issues.
the opposing sides argue the people instruct their legislators.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 1-21 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 1-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 1-11
What the justices asked
How do you determine whether an instruction is binding law?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 1-21 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 1-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 1-11
Why it matters
State ballot rules shape federal candidate messaging. Voter access to candidate information remains central. Federal election integrity depends on clear boundaries.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 1-21 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 1-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 1-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 1, lines 1-3 — Transcript, file page 1, lines 1-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 1-21 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 1-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 1-11
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 1-21 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 1-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 1-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 1-21 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 1-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 1-11 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 1-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.