Brown v. Hartlage

Brown v. Hartlage reinforced the subordination of state election laws to constitutionally protected freedoms, particularly the right to free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment.

On 15 August 1979, during a general election for the office of Jefferson County (Kentucky) commissioner, "C" District, candidates Carl Brown and Bill Creech held a press conference on television. During the conference, Brown and Creech cited the high expenses incurred by the administration of the incumbent, Earl Hartlage. Creech promised county taxpayers that if elected, he and Brown (who were both of the same political party) would lower their salaries voluntarily.

Soon afterward, the two learned that this statement was in violation of Section 121.055 of the Revised Statutes of Kentucky. Referred to as the Corrupt Practices Act, the law stated that "No candidate for nomination or election to any state, county, city or district office shall expend, pay, promise, loan or become pecuniarily liable in any way for money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, to any person in consideration of the vote or financial or moral support of that person." Upon becoming aware of this, Brown and Creech issued a joint statement declaring that they rescinded their promise in accordance with the law, "and instead pledge to seek corrective legislation in the next session of the General Assembly to correct this silly provision of State Law."

In the election on 6 November 1979, Creech was defeated, but Brown defeated the incumbent, Hartlage, by more than 10,000 votes. Hartlage filed suit in the Jefferson County Circuit Court, declaring that because of Brown's violation of the Corrupt Practices Act, the election results should be nullified.

The trial court found that, because the salaries had been "fixed by law," Brown's promise was in violation of the act. But, the court reasoned, given the fact that Brown had retracted his statement, that his running mate had been defeated, and that the people had spoken overwhelmingly in their vote for Brown over Hartlage, the election results should be allowed to stand. The Kentucky Court of Appeals, however, reversed this decision. In so doing, the court used as its basis its earlier ruling in Sparks v. Boggs (1960), when it found that a candidate's promise to take only $1 a year in pay, and to distribute the remainder of his salary to charity, constituted a violation of the Corrupt Practices Act. The court did find some appeal in Brown's statement that "[i]f carried to its logical extreme . . . any promise by a candidate to increase the efficiency and thus lower the cost of government might likewise be considered as an attempt to buy votes"; however, it was the opinion of the court that it was bound by its earlier ruling in Sparks.