Political Party Issue Goes to High Court : Elections: Justices will decide whether the partisan groups can become involved in local races for officially neutral offices.

The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide whether California’s political parties have a right to inject themselves into election contests for city, county, school and judicial posts.

Under California’s Constitution, mayoral, county supervisorial, school board and judicial races are officially nonpartisan and political parties have been barred from endorsing candidates.

But in August, a divided federal appeals court struck down the state policy as an unconstitutional ban on free speech.

The Supreme Court, which, under Chief Justice William Rehnquist, has been loath to allow federal judges to invalidate state laws, said it will take up the case. Arguments are scheduled for April.

State Democratic Party officials say the right to endorse is crucial to the rebirth of strong political organizations in California.

“It makes no sense to gag a political party,” said Edmund G. Brown Jr., chairman of the Democratic Party, when special-interest groups and for-profit companies can circulate endorsements. “No democracy functions without political parties,” he said.

But San Francisco City Atty. Louise H. Renne, who appealed the case to the Supreme Court, said Californians have chosen to keep their local election contests “free of party control.” In 1986, she noted, voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment stating: “No political or party central committee may endorse, support or oppose a candidate for nonpartisan office.” The Constitution already said, “All judicial, school, county and city offices shall be nonpartisan.”

The case of Renne vs. Geary, 90-769, highlights an issue that has divided political scientists as well as politicians in California.

Early this century, political parties were seen as too strong, enabling corrupt party bosses to handpick candidates, leaving the people with no voice in government. During the so-called Progressive movement, the state Constitution was amended to remove party bosses from local government.

Now, many academics and politicians say California’s parties are too weak. The result, they say, is that money and special interests determine who gets elected.

In recent years, attorneys for the parties have gone to federal court to challenge state limits on political activity.

In 1989, the Supreme Court unanimously lifted a state ban on party endorsements of candidates before primary elections. Party officials had been forbidden from approving a candidate until the winner had been chosen in a primary election. The high court ruled that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not allow the state to put such a restriction on its political parties.

The current case, which raises a similar legal issue, arose when political activists in San Francisco challenged the state’s ban on party endorsements for local candidates.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state policy. But in August, the full appeals court overturned that decision on an 8-3 vote.

The First Amendment does not permit the state to stifle party officials, the appeals court said. Moreover, it noted that attorneys defending the law had no evidence or reason to believe that party endorsements would lead to corruption in city government.