• • Brush and Nib v. Phoenix (2019): Interpreted the Arizona Constitution’s "free interchange of thought" clause (Art. 2, § 6) as providing broad protection against government-compelled speech [20].
• California
  • Digital Music News LLC v. Superior Court (2014): Addressed the California constitutional right to privacy (Art. I, § 1) in the context of anonymous online expression [18, 46].
  • Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct. (1980): Found that California’s constitutional protections (Art. I, § 2) invalidated statutes requiring disclaimers on political leaflets [11, 26].
• Delaware
  • Doe v. Cahill (2005): Though primarily a First Amendment case, it is frequently cited alongside Delaware's constitutional protections for anonymous online speech [45].
  • In re Opinion of the Justices (1974): Addressed the Delaware Constitution’s guarantees (Art. I, § 5) regarding the validity of campaign disclosure requirements [6, 14].
• Florida
  • Doe v. Mortham (1998): Held that the Florida Constitution (Art. I, § 4) prohibited certain mandatory disclaimers on political advertisements, finding them an unconstitutional restraint on speech [2, 9].
• Idaho
  • Idaho v. Barney (1968): Evaluated the Idaho Constitution’s "liberty of speech" (Art. I, § 9) in striking down a law requiring signatures on political posters [4, 12].
• Illinois
  • Illinois v. White (1987): Examined whether the Illinois Constitution’s free speech clause (Art. I, § 4) offered protections against disclaimer requirements independent of federal law [5, 13].
• Indiana
  • In re Ind. Newspapers, Inc. (2012): Directly addressed the "free interchange of thought" under Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution regarding the right to remain anonymous online [17, 43].
• Louisiana
  • Louisiana v. Fulton (1976): Found that the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 (Art. I, § 7) protected the right to distribute anonymous political literature [8, 16].
  • State of Louisiana v. Burgess (1989): Reaffirmed state constitutional protections against mandatory disclosure on campaign materials [12, 29].
• Maine
  • Opinion of the Justices (1973): Analyzed whether the Maine Constitution (Art. I, § 4) permitted the state to require disclaimers on political publications [10, 21].
• Massachusetts
  • Commonwealth v. Dennis (1974): Interpreted the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (Art. 16) to protect the right to distribute anonymous political leaflets [1, 6].
• Missouri
  • Ex Parte Harrison (1908): Ruled that the Missouri Constitution’s "freedom of speech" clause (Art. II, § 14) invalidated a law prohibiting the publication of candidate reports without certain disclosures [3, 10].
• North Dakota
  • State v. N. Dakota Ed. Assoc. (1978): Found that the North Dakota Constitution (Art. I, § 9) did not permit the state to mandate disclaimers on all political advertisements [13, 30].
• Ohio
  • Ohio Elections Commission v. McIntyre: While famously a federal case, Ohio courts have treated it as determinative of the state constitutional issue under a "lockstep" interpretation [19].
• Washington
  • Washington ex rel. Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No! (1998): Explicitly held that Article I, Section 5 of the Washington Constitution provides broader protection for political speech than the First Amendment, striking down disclosure requirements [15, 37].