Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, October 12, 1995 TAG: 9510120064
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAN VERTEFEUILLE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The order lasts only 10 days, giving U.S. District Judge Samuel Wilson time to decide whether to issue an injunction that would last through the Nov. 7 elections - and could be expanded to cover other advocacy groups - or whether to leave the matter up to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The ruling means the anti-abortion group is free to distribute its voter guides without having to file as a "political committee" with the state, identify the group on the guides or file financial disclosure reports, as other groups must.
The VSHL's attorneys argued that the state law violates the group's First Amendment rights to free expression and jeopardizes its tax-exempt status by forcing it to file as a political committee.
The group "is experiencing a chill on its First Amendment rights," said attorney Richard Coleson, arguing that Virginia's campaign finance disclosure act should be ruled unconstitutional. "It's in the public interest to have robust debate."
Assistant Attorney General Ann Berkebile said to do so would leave the state powerless to protect residents' interests during the campaign.
The government is allowed to regulate "electioneering" activity, meant to promote or oppose specific candidates, so that voters are fully and fairly informed. But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that advocacy of issues surrounding an election - welfare, taxes, abortion or anything else - cannot be subject to the same scrutiny.
The temporary restraining order applies only to such issue advocacy. The VSHL is not exempt from conforming to the law if it campaigns for or against candidates, called "express advocacy." For example, the society may tell voters where the candidates stand on abortion rights, but cannot urge them to vote for or against those candidates.
The Democratic Party of Virginia - arguing that the guides crossed the line to express advocacy - on three occasions used Virginia's election laws to get injunctions against conservative groups who were distributing their voter guides in churches and to voters before elections.
The VSHL went to court to ensure that it wouldn't be slapped with an injunction before next month's General Assembly elections. Its attorneys say the Democrats should have filed a complaint with the state, which could have taken action against a group found to be violating the law.
Wilson said he believed that the injunctions prohibiting distribution, issued by state judges in 1989 and 1993, were unconstitutional prior restraint, which violates freedom of the press and of speech.
"This was prior restraint that clearly infringed on First Amendment rights and used this statute as a base," he said.
But the federal judge was concerned about making a ruling when the case has not gone to the state Supreme Court.
"There's no reason to believe the Virginia Supreme Court couldn't see the law just as clearly as this court," he told the attorneys.
Because of that concern, he declined to rule on a second lawsuit, filed on behalf of Roanoke County resident Vern Jordahl, a member of the political group Virginia Leadership Council, and Mary-Beth LaRock, a Loudoun County member of the conservative Christian Concerned Women for America.
That suit was based on the same arguments as the VSHL's, but was seeking damages from the Democratic Party and its officers.
by CNB