the official blog of the evergreen freedom foundation

Is it constitutional for states to prohibit school boards from collecting political contributions for public employee unions? The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing this question in a case from Idaho. Today EFF filed an amicus brief in support of the State of Idaho.

 

In 2003 the Idaho Legislature passed the Voluntary Contributions Act, which banned the collection of political contributions through government payroll systems. Several unions filed suit, claiming the law violated their free speech rights. In November 2005 a federal district court ruled the payroll ban unconstitutionally impeded union speech. But the court said the law was only unconstitutional as applied to local governments. The state could ban the practice for its own employees, but couldn’t meddle with labor issues at the local level.

 

Even stranger, the judge said payroll deductions are preferred because without automatic deductions, employees could be subjected to union strong-arming. Unions would have to “engage in face-to-face solicitation, a technique fraught with the potential for coercion.”

 

The State of Idaho appealed this ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In October 2007, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision’s narrow ruling: the ban was permissible as applied to state government employees, but unconstitutional when applied to local governments. The State of Idaho then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepted the petition for review in March 2008.

 

We decided to file a brief for several reasons: for one, we assisted the Idaho Legislature when it crafted the law. Also, we believe that private organizations should not be able to utilize a government system to collect political contributions. Union members who want to contribute to the union’s political fund can do so privately and individually. Finally, the Ninth Circuit’s logic could have a devastating effect on a state’s ability to regulate public employees.

 

In the brief, we argue that states have adopted a wide variety of labor laws, and unions are the beneficiaries of significant entitlements and privileges. No constitutional obligation on the state exists, however, to bargain with the union. Accordingly, states have adopted, and courts have upheld, numerous restrictions on unions’ statutorily-conferred bargaining status. States may constitutionally refuse to allow public employees to bargain collectively, prohibit unions from charging employees mandatory fees, regulate the collection of political funds, refuse to permit automatic payroll deductions, and prohibit public employee strikes. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling departs from this general practice of deference to state policymakers, and imposes a rigid prohibition on state governments. If upheld, the ruling could undermine a state’s ability to adopt many labor-management laws.

 

Our brief was joined by the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Independence Institute of Colorado. Read the full brief here.