Broadrick v. Oklahoma

Background

Three employees of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission challenged two paragraphs of the state's Merit Act, §818. The challenged rules bar soliciting political contributions and serving as officers, committee members, or campaign managers for partisan organizations. The State Personnel Board charged the employees with taking active part in their superior’s re-election campaign, including asking coworkers to work on the campaign and soliciting money. A federal district court upheld §818, and the employees appealed to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether §818 is unconstitutionally vague or so broad that it must be struck down entirely. Relying on its recent decision about the federal Hatch Act, the majority held that the Oklahoma law gives adequate notice of prohibited conduct and is not impermissibly vague. Because the employees' conduct fell within the statute's “hard core” prohibitions—soliciting contributions and active partisan campaigning—the Court rejected a facial overbreadth challenge and emphasized that overbreadth relief is extraordinary and should not be used when a statute can be applied constitutionally in many situations. The Court also noted administrative interpretations that limit the law to “clearly partisan” activity.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves intact a broad set of enforceable limits on classified state employees' partisan campaign activities, including fundraising, public campaigning, and party management. Employees who engage in such activities may face dismissal, criminal penalties, or employment ineligibility. The Court signaled that narrower or improper applications of the law should be worked out case-by-case rather than by invalidating the statute entirely.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Douglas and Brennan dissented, warning the decision chills public political speech by government workers. They argued the law is too vague and overbroad and should be struck down to protect First Amendment rights.