Case Brief for IC 3-9-3-2.5 Challenge

• Core Theory: The statute is an unconstitutional compelled speech mandate under 303 Creative (2023) and a material burden on the "free interchange of thought" under Indiana Section 9.
• The Status-Neutral Pillar: Anonymity is a right of the speech, not the speaker. Therefore, there is no "candidate exception." The "rich and powerful" and candidates (e.g., Robbin Stewart) have the same rights as the "lonely pamphleteer" (Stewart v. Taylor).
• The Hansen Fact Pattern: Maggie McIntyre was part of an organized group (CATW) and a former candidate; school officials used disclaimer laws as a tactical weapon for retaliatory enforcement (Hansen v. Westerville).
• Civil Rights Connection: Mandatory disclosure is a form of "doxxing" that mirrors the retaliatory tactics struck down in Bates v. Little Rock and NAACP v. Alabama.
• The Nebraska Model: Nebraska’s AG declared their law unconstitutional in 1995 (AGO 95-039), leading to a statutory exemption for yard signs and individuals.
• The Easterbrook Dubitante: The argument follows Judge Easterbrook’s doubt in Majors v. Abell, rejecting the "ventriloquism" excuse in favor of the Four Pillars of Anonymity (McIntyre, Talley, Buckley, Watchtower).

---