February 7, 2026

VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
The Honorable David Chiu
San Francisco City Attorney
City Hall, Room 234
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

RE: Collaborative Inquiry Regarding Anonymity Protections Under Article I and the First Amendment

Dear Mr. Chiu,

I hope this letter finds you well and that you are having a productive start to the year. I am writing to you today as a fellow traveler in the world of constitutional law—specifically as the successful plaintiff in Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D. Ind. 1997).

As I look toward my retirement, I find myself reflecting on the progress we have made in protecting civil liberties. It is in that spirit of reflection and mutual respect for the law that I wanted to reach out regarding San Francisco's current "secondary donor" disclaimer requirements. In my own case, Chief Judge Barker kindly noted that "Stewart is correct" in the belief that the right to anonymous advocacy is a foundational one. The court found that while the state's interests in an informed electorate are noble, they are often vitiated when they result in a categorical ban on anonymous communication.

I know that your office strives to balance transparency with the rights of citizens. However, I am concerned that the "secondary donor" rules may inadvertently lean on the "Majors Error"—a common misreading of the record in Hansen v. Westerville, 43 F.3d 1472 (6th Cir. 1994). That record helpfully clarifies that Margaret McIntyre was actually an organized group leader, suggesting that the "Anonymity Shield" was always intended for more than just lone individuals.

In the interest of ensuring our City remains at the forefront of constitutional excellence, I’ve taken the liberty of sharing a chronological list of the precedents that have guided my understanding of these issues over the years:

• Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886): Reminding us all to administer even the most well-intentioned laws with an equal hand.
• Barnette (1943) and Miranda (1966): The bedrock of our shared Right to Silence.
• NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Bates (1960): Affirming that associations, like individuals, flourish in privacy.
• Talley v. California (1960): The classic protection for the anonymous author.
• Canon v. Justice Court (1964): Establishing anonymity as an "integral part" of our California heritage.
• Tornillo (1974) and Wooley (1977): Respecting the speaker’s choice to exclude mandated messages.
• Ghafari v. Municipal Court (1978): A wonderful San Francisco win that recognized anonymity as a shield from reprisal.
• Drake (1979) and Schuster (1980): Controlling Precedents holding that Article I, Section 2 provides our citizens with a superior inclusive shield.
• Riley (1988) and McIntyre (1995): Confirming that disclaimers are subject to the highest levels of scrutiny.
• Stewart v. Taylor (1997): My own small contribution to the belief that anonymity is worth protecting.
• Griset v. FPPC (2001): Reflecting the substantive finding that mass-mailing disclaimers are a step too far.
• ACLU v. Heller (2004) and Berger (2009): Recent Ninth Circuit reminders that compelled ID is rarely the least restrictive path.
• 303 Creative (2023): A modern affirmation that we cannot co-opt another’s voice.

I truly believe we share the same goal: a San Francisco that is both transparent and fiercely protective of its citizens' right to speak their minds without fear. I would be honored to hear your thoughts on how we can align the City's current ordinances with the rich constitutional history cited above.

I look forward to your response at your earliest convenience, and I thank you for the hard work you do for our City.

Warmest regards,

Robbin Stewart
Plaintiff, Stewart v. Taylor