Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court: State can stop union political deductions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Earth Bound Misfit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-25-09 01:14 PM
Original message
Supreme Court: State can stop union political deductions
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJYa-V8wkGBqZjrLYRQ6YzGJgtxAD96I5LL04

By JESSE J. HOLLAND – 21 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state law banning local governments from letting workers use payroll deductions to fund their union's political activities, a decision that could strike at organized labor's ability to raise funds at local levels.

Five labor unions and the Idaho state AFL-CIO successfully argued in lower federal courts that a 2003 Idaho law forcing cities, counties and school districts to eliminate a payroll deduction funding union political action committees violated the First Amendment.

snip

The unions did not appeal the elimination of the payroll deduction for state-level employees, and "we are aware of no case suggesting that a different analysis applies under the First Amendment depending on the level of government affected," said Roberts, who was joined in his opinion by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito.

"The ban on political payroll deductions furthers Idaho's interest in separating the operations of government from partisan politics," the chief justice said. "That interest extends to all public employers at whatever level of government."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a separate opinion, agreed with the majority, but for a different reason writing "that, in the context here, the Constitution compels no distinction between state and local governmental entities."

snip

Justices John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter dissented, saying the law was clearly aimed at stopping the political speech of unions.

The new language was placed inside a law "that deals with unions, the statute amended regulates unions, and all this legislation is placed in the state's labor law certification," Souter said. "Union speech and nothing else, seems to have been on the legislative mind."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC