Political Anonymity Loses
Courts: State justices
rule that mailers during a Santa Ana race
should have named the
sender. A broader impact is seen.
By DAN WEIKEL, Times
Staff Writer
In an 11-year legal
battle involving a former Santa Ana city
councilman, the state
Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a
1999 appeals court
ruling that allowed political candidates to send
anonymous campaign
literature to voters.
The decision is a
victory for the state Fair Political Practices
Commission, which has
been trying to collect a $10,000 fine from
Daniel E. Griset for
failing to identify himself on mailings
distributed during his
1988 reelection campaign.
The ruling also
bolsters a broader effort by citizens groups to
make candidates and
their supporters disclose the source of
campaign literature,
including unfounded or highly critical
hit-pieces against
opponents.
"This removes any
doubt that candidates have to disclose
truthfully their
identities on political mailers that they pay for," said
Karen Getman, who chairs
the commission.
The commission,
charged with enforcing the state Political
Reform Act, requires
that candidates and their election committees
identify themselves on
their campaign brochures, handouts and
mailings.
Activists say the
rule guarantees that voters will know the source
of the materials, and it
allows state regulators to verify financial
support and gauge
whether campaign donation limits have been
exceeded.
If there are no
further appeals, to federal court, commission
officials say they will
resume their effort in Sacramento Superior
Court to collect the
penalty from Griset. A hearing is scheduled for
August.
Griset began his
legal battle more than 10 years ago when the
commission fined him for
five mailings that identified the senders
as the Washington Square
Neighborhood Assn. and the Santa Ana
Progress Committee.
State officials alleged that Griset's campaign
committee was the true
source of the mailings, which criticized his
opponents.
The candidate sued
in Orange County Superior Court to halt the
enforcement proceedings,
which the judge refused to do. Griset,
who eventually was fined
$2,000 for each of the five violations,
appealed.
In 1994, the state
Supreme Court ruled that the disclosure
requirements did not
violate a constitutional right to free speech.
Justices held that the
"the state's interest in a well-informed public"
justified the law.
Griset revived his
claim after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
1995 that a pamphleteer
in Ohio did not have to identify himself on
literature he circulated
for a ballot measure.
The federal
justices held that the right of anonymous political
speech outweighed the
state's need to identify the source to the
public. They noted that
the nation had a tradition of anonymous
pamphleteering going
back to John Adams, James Madison and
Thomas Paine.
Four years later,
the state 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa
Ana sided with Griset,
stating that disclosure requirements violate
the right to speak and
write anonymously.
But on Thursday,
the state Supreme Court unanimously reversed
the decision on the
grounds that the lower court did not have the
power to take up the
issue again.
"The Court of
Appeal erred in holding that it had authority to
entertain a second
appeal," wrote Justice Joyce Kennard. The state
Supreme Court did not
address the constitutional issues in light of
the 1995 U.S. Supreme
Court decision.
"This has been a
long crusade," said Bradley Hertz, a Los
Angeles attorney who
represents Griset. "Unless we make an effort
to keep this alive, the
Supreme Court decision is likely to conclude
the matter."
Griset, who is out
of the country, declined to comment. Hertz
said he and his client
will discuss whether to take the case to federal
court.
Hertz and other
election law attorneys say the constitutionality
of disclosure
requirements is still an open question because of the
1995 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling.
The latest action
"is not a momentous decision," said Fred
Woocher, a Santa Monica
attorney who has worked for candidates
and citizen groups.
"There may be an opening here to see what the
state and federal courts
will say."
Loyola Law School
professor Richard L. Hasen, who filed a
"friend of the court"
brief on behalf of some election attorneys and
public interest groups,
described the Griset decision as only a
qualified victory for
campaign reform. Nothing in the latest ruling,
he says, stops an
attorney from challenging the requirements in a
new lawsuit.
But Getman said the
latest decision does not leave anything open
for further challenge.
"The court had no desire to address the
constitutionality of the
issue," she said. "I don't think the court
would tolerate people
coming back for a third time."
http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/20010525/t000043815.html
