participants in vote buying and voter coercion schemes unscathed." Id. at 234. Moreover, the court observed that the Secretary had failed to demonstrate why narrower alternatives, such as a statute "mak[ing] it unlawful to use an image of a completed ballot in connection with vote buying and voter coercion," would not advance the purported state interests. Id. at 235. The district court held the statute to be unconstitutional on its face and granted declaratory relief to the plaintiffs, trusting that such relief absent an injunction would secure compliance by the Secretary. Id. at 236. II. We give de novo review to an appeal both from a ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment and from pure issues of law. Maritimes & Ne. Pipeline, LLC v. Echo Easement Corridor, LLC, 604 F.3d 44, 47 (1st Cir. 2010); Am. Home Assurance Co. v. AGM Marine Contractors, Inc., 467 F.3d 810, 812 (1st Cir. 2006). Here, no material facts are in dispute; the issues are ones of law. Buchanan v. Maine, 469 F.3d 158, 162 (1st Cir. 2006) (de See novo review of issues of law on appeal from summary judgment). The First Amendment, which applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." I. Standards to evaluate justifications U.S. Const. amend. by the state of a restriction on speech turn, inter alia, on whether the restriction - 11 -