| Concurrence | Syllabus | Dissent | Dissent | Opinion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version | HTML version WordPerfect version |
90-769 -- DISSENT
No.
[
Justice White, dissenting.
The majority's concerns about the justiciability of this case, even though ultimately misplaced, are understandable, in light of the failure by the courts below to analyze the precise nature of the constitutional challenge that is presented here. Those concerns, however, should not prevent us from inde- pendently examining the record and deciding the issues that are properly presented. In doing so, I conclude that the only constitutional challenge that is properly before us is to the action by the San Francisco Registrar of Voters in delet- ing references in official voter pamphlets to political party en- dorsements, a challenge that is fully justiciable. Because the Registrar's action does not violate the First Amendment, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I therefore dissent from the majority's disposition of this case.
I The courts below erred in treating respondents' challenge in this case as a facial challenge to the constitutionality of Article II, 6(b) of the California Constitution. Respond- ents' complaint reveals that they challenged only the applica- tion of 6(b) by San Francisco's Registrar of Voters in refus- ing to print in voter pamphlets references to endorsements by political parties. [n.1]
After listing the defendants, the complaint sets forth the background for its three causes of action:
"In connection with each municipal election, the City and County mails a voters pamphlet to all registered voters. Said pamphlet contains ballot arguments for and against City and County measures, and statements of qualifica- tions of candidates for City and County offices. Defend- ant PATTERSON [the Registrar of Voters] is responsi- ble for preparing and publishing said voters pamphlet." App. 3, 10.
The first cause of action then challenges the Registrar's dele- tion of portions of proposed ballot arguments submitted for inclusion in the voter pamphlets. 2 Record, Complaint 11-20. The second cause of action challenges the Regis- trar's charge of a fee for ballot arguments. Id., 21-30. The third cause of action is the one that is at issue in this case. That cause of action, like the two before it, concerns actions by the Registrar with regard to the voter pamphlets. Specifically, respondents alleged:
"In the past, defendants PATTERSON and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO have deleted all refer- ences in candidate's statements for City and County of- fices to endorsements by political party central commit- tees or officers or members of such committees. Unless restrained from doing so by order of this court, defend- ants threaten to continue to delete or exclude all refer- ences in candidate's statements to endorsement of candi- dates by political party central committees, or officers or members of such central committees." App. 5, 38.
Respondents also stated that they "desire to read endorse- ments of candidates for city and county office as part of candi- date's statements printed in the San Francisco voter's pam- phlet." 37. Finally, the only injunctive relief sought based on the third cause of action relates to the deletion of endorsements from the voter pamphlets. Id., at 6, 6.
In entering summary judgment in favor of respondents on the third cause of action, the District Court described re- spondents' claim as follows: "Plaintiffs claim -- and defendants admit -- that defendants refuse to permit political party and political party central committee endorsements of candidates for such offices to be printed in the San Francisco voter's pamphlet on account of said state constitutional provision." 708 F. Supp. 278, 279 (ND Cal. 1988). Similarly, both the original Ninth Circuit panel and the en banc panel stated:
"The basis of [respondents'] complaint as it relates to this appeal was the refusal of [petitioners], the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Regis- trar of Voters, to permit official political party and party central committee endorsements of candidates for non- partisan office to be printed in the San Francisco Voter Pamphlet in connection with elections scheduled for June 2 and November 3, 1987. [Petitioners] based their re- fusal to print party endorsements on the language of ar- ticle II, 6(b)." 880 F. 2d 1062, 1063 (CA9 1989); 911 F. 2d 280, 282 (CA9 1990).
As the above discussion reveals, and as the majority recog- nizes, see ante, at 10-11, it is far from clear that a facial chal- lenge to the constitutionality of 6(b) was presented in this case. Both the District Court and the en banc Court of Ap- peals nevertheless invalidated 6(b) on its face, without an- alyzing the nature of respondents' claim. In doing so, they violated two important rules of judicial restraint applicable to the resolution of constitutional issues -- " `one, never to antici- pate a question of constitutional law in advance of the neces- sity of deciding it; the other never to formulate a rule of con- stitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.' " United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 21 (1960), quoting Liverpool, New York & Philadel- phia S. S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885). See also 911 F. 2d, at 304-305 (Rymer, J., dis- senting) (arguing that 6(b) should not be invalidated on this record).
II I have no doubt that the narrow issue presented in this case is justiciable. As the majority recognizes, ante, at 5-6, respondents in their capacity as registered voters are alleg- ing that 6(b), as applied by the Registrar to the voter pam- phlets, interferes with their right to receive information con- cerning party endorsements. Such a claim finds support in our decisions, which have long held that the First Amend- ment protects the right to receive information and ideas, and that this right is sufficient to confer standing to challenge re- strictions on speech. See, e. g., Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 756-757 (1976); Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762 (1972); Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 390 (1969); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969).
The majority nevertheless speculates that there is no standing here because a provision in the California Elections Code "might be construed to prevent candidates from men- tioning party endorsements in voter pamphlets, even in the absence of 6(b)." Ante, at 6. That makes no sense. A constitutional challenge to a law is not barred merely because other laws might also mandate the allegedly unconstitutional action. If so, it would mean that the States or the Federal Government could insulate unconstitutional laws from attack simply by making them redundant.
The difference between ASARCO and the present case is obvious. In ASARCO, the State could, by other actions, le- gally preclude the relief sought by the plaintiffs. By con- trast, in this case if petitioners' refusal to allow references to party endorsements in voter pamphlets is unconstitutional when based on 6(b), it probably is also unconstitutional if based on some other state law, such as California's Elections Code. The injury alleged by respondents, therefore, "is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38 (1976).
The majority's concerns about the ripeness of respondents' challenge, see ante, at 7-10, also are not sufficient to pre- clude our review. Although I agree with the majority that the possible applications of 6(b) to speech by political parties and their members is not properly before us, here respond- ents have alleged, and petitioners have admitted, that San Francisco's Registrar of Voters has deleted references to po- litical party endorsements from candidate statements printed in official voter pamphlets, and that he threatens to continue to do so in the future. See App. 5, 38; id., at 9, XIV. In- deed, the majority admits that the record contains "evidence of a credible threat that 6(b) will be enforced . . . against candidates in the context of voter pamphlets." Ante, at 9. The Registrar's past conduct makes his threat "sufficiently real and immediate to show an existing controversy." O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 496 (1974). See, e. g., Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1000-1001 (1982) (allowing nursing home residents to sue to prevent threatened trans- fers); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974) (allow- ing action for declaratory relief based on threats of enforce- ment of antihandbilling statute). It is well settled that " `[o]ne does not have to await the consummation of threat- ened injury to obtain preventive relief.' " Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979), quoting Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 593 (1923). This is particu- larly true in the election context, where we often have al- lowed pre-enforcement challenges to restrictions on speech. See, e. g., Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214 (1989); Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut, 479 U.S. 208 (1986); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
I therefore dissent from the judgment ordering dismissal for want of justiciability.
III Although the Court does not discuss the merits, I shall briefly outline my view that the state constitutional provision at issue in this case is constitutional as applied to the exclu- sion of party endorsements from the official voter pamphlets. California has decided that its "[j]udicial, school, county, and city offices shall be nonpartisan." Cal. Const., Art. II, 6(a). I am confident that this provision is valid at least in so far as it authorizes the State not to identify on the official ballot candidates for nonpartisan offices as the candidates of political parties. The interests proffered as supporting Cali- fornia's nonpartisan provision -- promotion of the impartial administration of government, prevention of corruption, and the avoidance of the appearance of bias -- are interests that we have already held are sufficiently important to justify re- strictions on partisan political activities. See CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 565 (1973). These interests are also similar to the interests supporting limitations on ballot access and voting eligibility that have been upheld by this Court. See American Party of Texas v. White, 415 U.S. 767, 786 (1974); Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 736 (1974); Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 752, 761 (1973); Jenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431, 442 (1971).
If the State may exclude party designations from the bal- lot, it surely may exclude party endorsements from candidate statements contained in the official voter pamphlet prepared by the government and distributed to prospective voters. It is settled that "the First Amendment does not guarantee ac- cess to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government." United States Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Assns., 453 U.S. 114, 129 (1981). The voter information pamphlet obviously is not a traditional pub- lic forum, and its use may be limited to its intended purpose, which is to inform voters about nonpartisan elections. See Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 46, n. 7 (1983). Refusing to permit references in candidate statements to party endorsements is therefore plainly constitutional.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.