FREE SPEECH

School districts may prohibit political endorsements from teacher mailboxes

The San Leandro Teachers Association (SLTA) sought to overturn the San Leandro Unified School District's policy prohibiting distribution of newsletters containing political endorsements via the district's internal faculty mailboxes. The SLTA claimed the policy was inconsistent with a law allowing it to use the internal mailboxes and violated free-speech principles under the California Constitution.

The California Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the district's policy, finding it to be a reasonable regulation on the use of internal mailboxes. The faculty mailboxes aren't an open forum where free speech is afforded greater protection. They are sufficiently limited to specific persons and content, and the district has an important interest in prohibiting political endorsements from its internal mailboxes.

No political material through school mailboxes

The SLTA is an employee organization and the exclusive bargaining representative of teachers who work for the San Leandro Unified School District. Each teacher within the district is assigned a school mailbox, and the SLTA regularly communicates with its members through the mailboxes.

Shortly before a school board election, the SLTA tried to distribute newsletters by placing them in the internal faculty mailboxes. In addition to discussing various SLTA-related updates, the newsletters contained political endorsements, including endorsements of specific school board candidates. One mentioned two of the SLTA- endorsed candidates by name, and the other asked for volunteers to "phone or walk" in support of the endorsed candidates.

The district sent a letter to the SLTA advising the members that Education Code Section 7054 prohibited them from using district mailboxes to distribute literature containing political endorsements. (The code section prohibits the use of "district funds, services, supplies, or equipment . . . for the purpose of urging the support or defeat of any ballot measure or candidate, including, but not limited to, any candidate for election to the governing board of the district.")

Employee organization asks court to overturn policy

The SLTA sought to overturn the district's policy. In determining whether the policy was proper under the Education Code, the trial court sided with the SLTA. The court of appeal reversed the decision, determining that the district policy:

1. was within the scope of the Education Code section concerning endorsements;
2. didn't violate a related Government Code section allowing employee organizations to use internal mailboxes subject to "reasonable regulation"; and
3. didn't violate free-speech principles under the U.S. or California constitutions.

The California Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal and denied the SLTA's request to overturn the district's policy. The court was persuaded by the same reasoning used by the court of appeal.

The district's policy fell plainly within the scope of the Education Code. The prohibitions serve two purposes: (1) preventing the use of public funds to promote political agendas and (2) avoiding the use of public resources to perpetuate an incumbent candidate or her chosen successor or to promote self-serving ballot initiatives. The court found that the code prohibited the use of taxpayer-funded "equipment" (the mailboxes) to serve one group's exclusive political advantage.

The district's policy is also consistent with Government Code Section 3543.1(b), which gives school employee organizations the right to use internal mailboxes subject to "reasonable regulation." The court found that provision could be read in harmony with the political endorsement prohibition because the district's policy is a "reasonable regulation."

Finally, the district's policy didn't violate free-speech principles under the California Constitution. Even though California's liberty-of-speech clause affords greater protection of speech than the First Amendment under the U.S. Constitution, it doesn't protect the SLTA's speech in this instance. The newsletters aren't protected speech because the mailboxes aren't an open forum but, rather, are limited to particular persons and content. Furthermore, the district has an important interest in preventing the mailboxes from becoming venues for one-sided endorsements of political candidates by those with special access. San Leandro Teachers Association et al. v. Governing Board of the San Leandro Unified School District (California Supreme Court, 6/19/09).

Bottom line

The court's decision is narrow. It doesn't compel school districts to exclude candidate endorsements from school mailboxes if they're done "on an equitable basis." It also doesn't prohibit literature that merely urges members to become politically involved without endorsing a particular agenda.

Public employers with internal mailboxes must be careful about the material they restrict from their mailboxes. Although certain political material may properly be prohibited by a school district, public employers must make sure they don't violate free-speech principles under the U.S. or California constitutions. Aside from reasonable "nonpublic forum" regulations or legitimate political endorsement preclusions, political speech can't be restricted from a forum that is used for the open exchange of ideas, nor can it be restricted if the employer doesn't have a legitimate interest in such a restriction.