WASHINGTON - In a highly unusual move, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine told the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday that the state's election law barring candidates from making false statements with malice violates the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech.

WASHINGTON � In a highly unusual move, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine told the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday that the state�s election law barring candidates from making false statements with malice violates the Constitution�s guarantee of freedom of speech.

In legal papers filed with the justices, DeWine said the Ohio law has a �chilling� impact on not only the speech of candidates, but also on independent organizations wishing to advertise against a candidate. The attorney general contended that the law �polices not just false speech, but speech that indisputably is protected under the First Amendment.�

Though DeWine believes the law is unconstitutional, the attorney general's office will still defend it.

The justices are expected to hear two challenges this spring, both from Cincinnati, to the Ohio law. They have been combined into one case.

The first involved a political action committee which tweeted support for a ballot issue that would have prevented Cincinnati from constructing a streetcar system. Opponents of the ballot issue complained that the PAC had violated state election law by making false statements.

The second challenge was filed by Susan B. Anthony List, a nonprofit organization that wanted to place a billboard advertisement in 2010 criticizing former Rep. Steve Driehaus� vote for the health-care law.

When Driehaus� attorney threatened to sue, the billboard owner declined to put up the advertisement. Driehaus, a Democrat from Cincinnati, filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission, claiming the planned advertisement violated state election law that prohibits making false statements about a candidate.

In the brief, DeWine said that speakers can be intimidated by a complaint filed with the elections commission, writing, �The speaker is forced to use time and resources responding to the complaint, typically at the exact moment that the campaign is peaking and his time and resources are best used elsewhere.

�In other words, the state has constructed a process that allows its enforcement mechanisms to be used to extract a cost from those seeking to speak out on elections, right at the most crucial time for that particular type of speech. And if the allegations turn out to be unfounded, there is no possibility of timely remedy.�

jtorry@dispatch.com