Anti-speech laws are spreading
by Keli'i Akina, Ph.D., President / CEO, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
Now that we know the results of ballot initiatives across the country, it is clear Hawaii is at the center of a major First Amendment showdown.
You might remember that the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii filed a federal lawsuit earlier this year against the state’s new Act 11 — a first-of-its-kind law passed by the 2026 Legislature that, as written, will prohibit nonprofits and other community organizations from speaking on electoral issues if it is allowed to take effect as planned on July 1, 2027.
Well, unfortunately, we are now facing a nationwide effort to restrict free speech surrounding elections, as two other states have passed similar measures.
Montana voters approved Initiative 194, a ballot measure that follows the same model as Act 11 and is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027.
Meanwhile, Michigan passed Proposal 2, a measure that triggers campaign finance requirements for organizations that speak out on ballot issues or elections, even when they don’t urge voting in a particular way. It will take effect 18 months after the state’s election results are certified.
The Institute for Free Speech, which is representing us in our fight against Act 11, has already filed lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of both measures.
Michigan’s Proposal 2 is being challenged by the nonprofit Mackinac Center for Public Policy, which is arguing that the new law attempts to regulate speech and violates freedom of association. And a group of plaintiffs including the nonprofit Frontier Foundation and Montana Family Foundation are suing to stop the speech-suppressing I-194.
Those of us sounding the alarm are not being dramatic when we underscore the frightening effects that such laws will have on free speech and the ability of groups to educate voters on important issues.
Case in point: Just ahead of the general election here in Hawaii, many of our followers reached out asking for guidance regarding the numerous ballot questions posed to voters across the state, so my colleagues put together an educational guide addressing several of the proposed amendments that related to our key focus areas.
If Act 11 had gone into effect immediately, Grassroot would have been barred from publishing that kind of communication. And had we defied the law, we could have faced serious penalties, up to and including dissolution of our organization.
This is such an obvious infringement of the First Amendment that it astounds me when people try to gloss over it. Defenders of Act 11 appear to believe it is acceptable to limit who is allowed to speak on political issues.
If anything, measures such as Hawaii’s Act 11 actually favor the wealthy over average citizens who rely on advocacy organizations and associations to be heard — because the wealthy will always find ways to buy a bigger “megaphone.” It is the rest of us who will suffer as this law strips away our ability to join together and speak on matters of public concern.
As this disturbing movement begins to spread, our country is in dire need of a final and decisive statement from the courts confirming that free speech belongs to everyone, and the states cannot erase our constitutional rights.
Hawaii started this dangerous trend, but Grassroot is leading the way to stop it. And it is imperative that we achieve victory for the First Amendment.
E hana kākou! (Let’s work together!)
---30---
DONATE TO GRASSROOT