Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Ass'n

2009-02-24

Headline: Idaho law barring public employers from payroll deductions for political activities is upheld, allowing states to stop local governments from using payroll systems to fund political speech.

Holding: The Court held that a State may prohibit payroll deductions for political activities by public employers, including local governments, because the First Amendment does not require the government to subsidize political speech.

Real World Impact:

Allows states to bar local governments from payroll-based political fundraising.
Means unions cannot rely on public payroll checkoffs for political campaigns.
Leaves enforcement and viewpoint challenges to future court cases.

Topics: union political fundraising, payroll deductions, state control over local governments, First Amendment

Summary

Background

Public employee unions in Idaho challenged a 2003 state law that forbids payroll deductions for political activities. Under prior law, public employees could ask employers to withhold union dues and political contributions. The Voluntary Contributions Act amended the Right to Work Act, adding Idaho Code § 44-2004(2), which defines “political activities” and makes payroll deductions for them illegal, subject to fines and possible jail time. The unions sued state officials after the district court upheld the ban for state employers but struck it down as applied to local governments and private employers.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered whether the State must allow local public employers to operate payroll checkoffs for political purposes. The Court said the First Amendment stops government from suppressing speech, but it does not require the government to subsidize or facilitate private political speech. Relying on earlier decisions, the majority held the Idaho ban does not abridge speech because it merely declines to promote political contributions through public payroll systems. The Court found the State’s interest in avoiding the reality or appearance of government favoritism or entanglement with partisan politics sufficient under deferential review and applied the same analysis to state and local public employers.

Real world impact

The ruling means Idaho and other States may prohibit local public employers from using payroll systems to collect political funds. It leaves unions free to solicit and collect political contributions by other means, but not to enlist public payroll mechanisms. The decision resolves the dispute in favor of state authority to control payroll checkoffs for political activity.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices wrote separately. Justice Ginsburg joined parts of the majority. Justice Breyer would have remanded to ask whether the ban was applied evenhandedly and proportionately. Justices Stevens and Souter argued the law’s context suggests it targeted unions and raised serious viewpoint-discrimination concerns; Souter would have dismissed the case as improvidently granted.