Duffy Endorsement of Filner : Decision Delayed on Aguirre’s Mailer Lawsuit

A federal judge Monday delayed until next week his decision on whether to dismiss lawyer Michael Aguirre’s lawsuit against San Diego County Sheriff John Duffy and San Diego City Councilman Bob Filner that stems from a “hit piece” in last fall’s council campaign.

Saying his ruling will be “a close call,” U.S. District Judge William Enright told attorneys during a hearing that he will decide within 10 days whether a controversial Filner campaign mailer raises, as Aguirre alleges, federal constitutional questions, or whether, as Filner’s attorney contends, it reflects nothing more than a typical political disagreement.

The lawsuit, in which Aguirre seeks unspecified damages from the two officeholders, focuses on a letter sent to voters on Filner’s behalf shortly before last November’s bitter 8th District council race between the two, which was won by Filner.

In the mailer, Duffy sharply criticized Aguirre and endorsed Filner. Under a bold heading saying, “A Strong Warning from Sheriff Duffy,” the letter, which carried a depiction of the sheriff’s official badge, described Aguirre as lacking integrity and being “a practitioner of the BIG LIE.”

Claims Rights Were Violated

Charging that his constitutional rights were violated by Duffy’s use of his law enforcement position in a political campaign, Aguirre contends that the campaign letter represented Duffy’s retaliation for Aguirre’s efforts to scuttle the sheriff’s appointment to the President’s Organized Crime Commission in the early 1980s. In December, 1983, Duffy resigned from the commission amid controversy after Aguirre helped to publicize the sheriff’s alleged ties to organized crime figures at the La Costa Resort Hotel & Spa.

Attorneys for Duffy, however, argued in written briefs that the case “is an attempt to use the federal courts to publicize Mr. Aguirre’s resentment over his lost election.” Moreover, Duffy’s attorneys added that the sheriff “had a right to participate in the City Council campaign and to voice his support for whichever candidate he believed would do the (better) job.”

Similarly, Filner’s attorney caustically attributed the lawsuit to Aguirre’s “hallucinations as to how the First Amendment should operate to permit him unrestrained speech while restraining his political opponents.”

“This petty political spitting contest is in no way related to any abridgment of . . . Aguirre’s right to free speech,” wrote Filner attorney David Lundin.

Describing a local election as “a fundamentally non-federal issue,” Lundin also ridiculed Aguirre’s contention that, because the mailer was sent to voters in the final days before the election, he was deprived of a constitutionally protected “right to respond.”

“Such a reading of the Constitution is ridiculous,” Lundin said. “Does Mr. Aguirre have a constitutionally recognized right to always have the last word in a political campaign?”

Enright, however, told the lawyers at Monday’s hearing that he felt all sides had raised “well-taken” points and that he needed additional time to study the case.