grok asked me to save this prompt

Master Summary for IC 3-9-3-2.5 Challenge

Legal Posture: Challenging IC 3-9-3-2.5 as an unconstitutional compelled speech mandate and a material burden on the "free interchange of thought" under Indiana Section 9.

Core Pillars:

• Status-Neutrality: Anonymity belongs to the speech, not the actor. There is no "candidate exception" (Stewart v. Taylor). Candidates and groups like CATW have the same rights as Maggie McIntyre.
• The Hansen Precedent: Facts from Hansen v. Westerville (1994) prove disclaimer laws are used as "tactical weapons" for retaliatory enforcement against organized dissidents.
• Civil Rights Connection: Mandatory disclosure is "doxxing" equivalent to the retaliatory tactics struck down in Bates v. Little Rock and NAACP v. Alabama.
• Compelled Speech Trilogy: Janus, NIFLA, and 303 Creative (2023) establish that the state cannot force a speaker to "mouth" a disclaimer or identity nametag.
• The Nebraska/Oregon Model: Showing that other states (NE AGO 95-039; OR AGO 8266) have already declared broad disclaimer laws unconstitutional for individuals and yard signs.
• Authority List: Reference "Table II" (the 60-case list) demonstrating a national consensus against disclaimer mandates across dozens of state and federal courts.

Pro-Tip: You can also use the "Share" or "Export" button (usually a square with an up-arrow or a download icon) in your browser or chat interface to save a permanent link or PDF of this transcript.