Shopping Malls Sued by ACLU Over Access for Political Groups

Political groups hoping to attract shoppers outside the cookie shops, boutiques and bookstores in area shopping malls are facing a variety of restrictions as they attempt to pass out leaflets or register voters.

As a result, Northridge Fashion Center and several other shopping centers, including one in Pasadena, have been sued. The American Civil Liberties Union, a frequent plaintiff in such suits, has complained that shopping malls are erecting barriers to keep political groups out.

One San Fernando Valley mall manager said he hoped the outcome of the suit filed last month against the Northridge mall would fine-tune a state Supreme Court decision that lets shopping centers establish “reasonable guidelines” for groups while saying little about what those guidelines should be.

“If we knew what the court wanted, we would be much happier,” said Ed Reid, general manager of Fallbrook Mall in Canoga Park. “Having to wait to find out what is ‘reasonable’ puts us all in an awkward position.”

Insurance, Deposit Requirements

In the suit filed against the Northridge mall, the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley claimed that the mall’s burdensome rules make it impossible to register voters there. Among other things, the mall requires groups to obtain $1 million in liability insurance and post a $100 security deposit.

The Democrats are scheduled to appear in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday to seek a preliminary injunction against the mall. The Valley organization plans to ask Judge Jack M. Newman to prevent the mall from imposing the restrictions until the case is tried.

But the ACLU said many shopping centers in California are quietly ignoring the state Supreme Court decision, hoping they will not be challenged.

“The decision very clearly requires malls and shopping centers to provide reasonable access,” ACLU attorney Joan Howarth said in Los Angeles. “There’s been a steady erosion of that by shopping centers and malls which are erecting more prohibitory rules and regulations to keep people out.

“One of the problems is that there hasn’t been enough pressure on the malls.”

A review of application procedures at area shopping centers showed a wide range of rules. Sherman Oaks Fashion Square, for example, limits groups to one card table, two chairs and two people--and prevents groups from passing out pamphlets away from the table area.

Fallbrook Allows 8 People

Fallbrook Mall, on the other hand, allows eight people and lets them distribute literature. It also asks them to pick up after themselves.

At The Oaks Mall in Thousand Oaks, management requires organizations to post a $50 security deposit, and demands that they “purchase and carry the proper insurance.”

Nearby at Janss Mall, however, a representative said there was no need to discuss rules because the center does not allow outside groups except during a two-day period each fall.

Representatives at some malls were reluctant to discuss their requirements. Keith Anderson, general manager of Promenade Mall in Woodland Hills, declined to talk about his center’s rules other than that they were “reasonable.”

At the center of the controversy is a 1979 state Supreme Court ruling--known as the PruneYard decision--that lets Californians engage in peaceful organizing at privately owned shopping centers.

The court held that free speech guarantees in the state Constitution allowed a group of students in San Jose to set up a card table and collect signatures at the PruneYard Shopping Center. A year later, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that California had a right to grant its residents broader freedoms of speech and assembly than were included in the U. S. Constitution.

California is the only state to give outside groups blanket access to privately owned shopping centers, according to Edward J. Sack, general counsel for the International Council of Shopping Centers in New York.

Sack, whose organization has 17,000 members worldwide, said shopping centers should be allowed to make their own rules. The rules should depend on the needs and desires of the merchants and on the particular character of each mall, he said.

“The state government should not provide a uniform rule,” Sack said.

States’ Rules Vary

Two states, Massachusetts and Washington, have given residents limited access to shopping centers, he said. In Massachusetts, residents have the right to collect signatures for nomination documents on shopping center property, and in Washington they can distribute petitions for initiatives and referendums, Sack said.

A number of states, including Connecticut, North Carolina, Michigan and New York, have specifically decided not to follow the PruneYard decision, Sack said.

Although shopping center representatives put up with the California court ruling, it was clear they did not support it. For example, the application procedure for groups at The Oaks Mall states clearly that “neither the center nor its owners acquiesce in the majority opinion in such case.”

In the suit against Northridge Fashion Center, Democratic activist Sol Garber said the rules make it impossible to register voters there.

The lawsuit he and the Valley Democratic Party filed against the mall objects to the liability insurance requirement as well as rules that limit to two the number of people who can register voters in walkways and common areas. It also objects to requirements that groups fill out applications five days in advance of the planned event and clear all written materials with mall management beforehand.

Donald Z. Lieberman, operations director of Northridge Fashion Center, defended the rules, saying the mall allows groups to exercise free speech under conditions that will ensure smooth mall operations.

‘Private Entity Has Rights’

“We’re a shopping center and we’re here for the purpose of shopping,” Lieberman said. “The PruneYard case is saying, ‘Yes, we have to allow free speech, but the private entity does have a right to certain restrictions.’ ”

In Thousand Oaks, Janss Corp. mall sponsors a two-day community fair in October when groups can hold fund-raisers and set up booths, said Dee Kelsey, lease administrator for the center.

But free speech activities are discouraged the rest of the year, Kelsey said. “We just tell them right up front that we don’t really allow that, so we don’t have them fill out an application,” Kelsey said.

On those rare occasions when organizations arrived and insisted on staying, mall management has persuaded most of them to leave, although some groups refused.

‘We Let It Go’

“We just let it go,” Kelsey said. “We kind of have to.”

Although Fallbrook does not require outside groups to have insurance, like the Northridge center does, Reid said Fallbrook Mall should have the right to impose that regulation if it chooses.

Any group can enter a mall, regardless of its cause or political bent, he said. If someone were hurt during a scuffle and the group had no insurance, the mall could be held liable, Reid said.

“Which is more important--the right of free speech or the right not to have controversy on our mall?” Reid asked. “If the KKK was out here, I guarantee you I would have complaints from my customers.”

The outcome of the suit against the Northridge mall could settle some of these questions, Reid said. “If we have to modify our rules and regulations, we will.”