Does the First Amendment apply to the Hoosier State? The justices on the Indiana Supreme Court will let the country know when they decide the case they heard yesterday about a ban on automated political phone calls known as robo-calls.

Political parties use robo-calls as an inexpensive way to remind voters to go to the polls and to spread their message. Indiana has had a law on the books since 1988 that bans robo-calls by companies selling products, but in the run-up to the 2006 Congressional election, the state attorney general, Steven Carter, a Republican, tried to enforce the ban against automated calls with a political purpose. State parties grumbled and obeyed, but some national interests ignored the law. In response, Mr. Carter sued one such violator, American Family Voices, seeking a $5,000 fine for each violation, according to the Associated Press.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties filed briefs opposing the lawsuit; a circuit judge ruled in favor of Family Voices, and Mr. Carter appealed to the state Supreme Court, where arguments were heard yesterday.

In a question posed to Edward Delaney, a lawyer representing Family Values before the court, Justice Dixon demonstrated a fundamental misapprehension of the issue. “This statute,” the Indiana Supreme Court justice said, “seems to be not about political speech or commercial speech, but about the sanctity of one’s home … the right to have peace and quiet and tranquility in their home.” One might as well ban political leaflets delivered to doorsteps and mailboxes or door-to-door campaigning by politicians. Or television commercials transmitted to home-based televisions. Funny, we checked the Bill of Rights, and found a protection for free speech, but none, other than the one against unreasonable search and seizure, guaranteeing quiet and tranquility in the home. If there were such a protection, no child would be safe, never mind robo-calls.

The chairman of the Democratic Party of Indiana, Dan Parker, provided a more accurate characterization of the issue before the court, which was quoted by the Associated Press. “It’s the right of a candidate to try to get their message out before an election,” he said.

There are plenty of natural consequences for politicians who abuse this tactic. An irritated person might vote for the other guy out of spite. An effort by Senator Feinstein to eliminate such calls between 8 p.m. and 9 a.m. ignores this logic; we searched the First Amendment and couldn’t find the language that says the constitutional guarantee of free speech only applies between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. The right move for the Indiana justices is to enforce the First Amendment. If Attorney General Carter can’t stand the phone calls let him turn down the volume of his ringer, or take the phone off the hook, or vote only for political candidates who forswear robo-calls. But let him not try to silence the sound of democracy in action.