High court rules against unions on election spending

Story Highlights

• High court says states can restrict use of union fees for political purposes
• Ruling: States can require unions to get approval before using fees on elections
• "Permission" provision changed this year in Washington state law
• Workers would still have to pay fee to fund labor negotiations

By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau

Adjust font size:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a Washington state law restricting use of union dues for political purposes in a pair of cases that melded free speech, election advocacy and workplace rights.

At issue was whether states could force labor unions to obtain direct permission from workers before spending their mandatory "shop fees" on partisan politics, including candidates and issues that many workers may not support.

"No suppression of ideas is afoot," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, "since the union remains free as any other entity to participate in the electoral process with all available funds other than the state-coerced agency fees lacking affirmative permission."

State officials were among those who brought the high court appeal on behalf of a few thousand public school teachers who refused to join their union. Under a voter-approved ballot initiative, those nonunion workers can still be charged an annual service fee -- equal in amount to union dues -- but only to help pay for traditional labor negotiations.

Those fees cannot be spent on most types of political activities, under the 1992 law, "unless affirmatively authorized by the individual."

The sticking point was how and when teachers must express their opposition to having their fees used to influence elections.

The impact of the ruling may be limited since Washington's law was the only one of its kind in the nation. And the "permission" provision was changed this year by the governor's office and legislature, both controlled by Democrats.

The justices essentially split the difference over the requirement provision. While the court said states could require unions to get permission, it said there also would be nothing inherently wrong with having the nonmember personally inform the union he or she wanted a refund of part of their fees, commonly called the "opt out" requirement. Washington's new law reflects that provision.

The old law put the burden on the union to secure advance written permission from nonunion workers before any of their money was spent "to influence an election or to operate a political committee." That was the focus of the original lawsuit, and the justices said that, too, would be acceptable.

Despite the narrow limits of the ruling, other states may be inspired by the high court's action to pass similarly restrictive laws.

With about 80,000 members, the Washington Education Association is the largest teachers' union in the state. Officials said about 5 percent of those represented by the group are not members.

The union's attorney, John West, told the high court that Washington's law is unfair because it is a "content-based restriction that singles out political speech for special treatment."

States, labor unions and legal scholars are at odds over the potential impact of a high court ruling. Six other states backing Washington had warned in a legal brief that a ruling against them could unravel a variety of protections placed on how unions treat members and nonmembers.

But some labor officials closely watching the case said Washington state's previous restrictions were unique, and the Supreme Court in the past has affirmed the right of unions to collect money from nonmembers, in the belief unions benefit all workers, and overall labor relations.

Tools:
Save |
Print |
E-mail |
Most Popular |

Next story in Law

Law

What are E-mail Alerts? | Manage Alerts | Create Your Own

D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad executed

Washington-area sniper John Allen Muhammad, 48, was executed Tuesday by lethal injection, a Virginia prisons spokesman said. Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine den ...