The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging whether the state can require ballot measure committees to disclose the names of their registered agents in election communications.

The case stems from a complaint filed during the 2020 election against the ballot issue committee No on EE. The committee, formed in opposition to a ballot measure seeking to increase taxes on nicotine products and impose a new tax on vaping products, registered with the Secretary of State and provided the name of its registered agent, as required by law.

However, it did not include the agent’s name in its advertisements. According to No on EE, it immediately made corrections following the complaint.

Deputy Secretary of State Andrew Kline imposed a $30,000 fine on the committee for violating state election law, which was upheld in district court.

Last August, the Court of Appeals ruled that the disclosure requirement violated the First Amendment. The state appealed that decision, and the case is now headed to the state Supreme Court.

Secretary of State Jena Griswold released a statement following the Court of Appeals ruling, saying Coloradans “deserve to know who is trying to sway their vote” and that she hopes to see the decision overturned.

The Institute for Free Speech, the organization representing No on EE, argued that the requirement fails constitutional scrutiny because the “burden” of including the name of a registered agent on every piece of election-related communication “outweighs any benefit,” as registered agents are “merely designated recipients for legal paperwork” and do not tell voters anything about who supports or opposes a measure.

“The requirement exemplifies how government experimentation with disclosure and disclaimer mandates can become ever more disconnected from any legitimate governmental interest while imposing significant compliance costs and legal risks,” the group said. “As political communications increasingly occur through character-limited formats like social media, forcing inclusion of irrelevant information becomes particularly burdensome.”

Shad Murib, the chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, said also disagreed with the appeals court ruling, saying more information for the “public should be our North Star in our politics.”

“The public deserves transparency in elections, and this decision muddies the water to benefit big special interests on both sides of the aisle,” he said. “There is simply too much undisclosed money in politics, and I look forward to continuing to work with lawmakers and advocates on ways to improve transparency for Coloradans.”

Michael Karlik contributed to this story.