Political Anonymity Loses

In an 11-year legal battle involving a former Santa Ana city councilman, the state Supreme Court on Thursday overturned a 1999 appeals court ruling that allowed political candidates to send anonymous campaign literature to voters.

The decision is a victory for the state Fair Political Practices Commission, which has been trying to collect a $10,000 fine from Daniel E. Griset for failing to identify himself on mailings distributed during his 1988 reelection campaign.

The ruling also bolsters a broader effort by citizens groups to make candidates and their supporters disclose the source of campaign literature, including unfounded or highly critical hit-pieces against opponents.

“This removes any doubt that candidates have to disclose truthfully their identities on political mailers that they pay for,” said Karen Getman, who chairs the commission.

The commission, charged with enforcing the state Political Reform Act, requires that candidates and their election committees identify themselves on their campaign brochures, handouts and mailings.

Activists say the rule guarantees that voters will know the source of the materials, and it allows state regulators to verify financial support and gauge whether campaign donation limits have been exceeded.

If there are no further appeals, to federal court, commission officials say they will resume their effort in Sacramento Superior Court to collect the penalty from Griset. A hearing is scheduled for August.

Griset began his legal battle more than 10 years ago when the commission fined him for five mailings that identified the senders as the Washington Square Neighborhood Assn. and the Santa Ana Progress Committee. State officials alleged that Griset’s campaign committee was the true source of the mailings, which criticized his opponents.

The candidate sued in Orange County Superior Court to halt the enforcement proceedings, which the judge refused to do. Griset, who eventually was fined $2,000 for each of the five violations, appealed.

In 1994, the state Supreme Court ruled that the disclosure requirements did not violate a constitutional right to free speech. Justices held that the “the state’s interest in a well-informed public” justified the law.

Griset revived his claim after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that a pamphleteer in Ohio did not have to identify himself on literature he circulated for a ballot measure.

The federal justices held that the right of anonymous political speech outweighed the state’s need to identify the source to the public. They noted that the nation had a tradition of anonymous pamphleteering going back to John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Paine.

Four years later, the state 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana sided with Griset, stating that disclosure requirements violate the right to speak and write anonymously.

But on Thursday, the state Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision on the grounds that the lower court did not have the power to take up the issue again.

“The Court of Appeal erred in holding that it had authority to entertain a second appeal,” wrote Justice Joyce Kennard. The state Supreme Court did not address the constitutional issues in light of the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision.

“This has been a long crusade,” said Bradley Hertz, a Los Angeles attorney who represents Griset. “Unless we make an effort to keep this alive, the Supreme Court decision is likely to conclude the matter.”

Griset, who is out of the country, declined to comment. Hertz said he and his client will discuss whether to take the case to federal court.

Hertz and other election law attorneys say the constitutionality of disclosure requirements is still an open question because of the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The latest action “is not a momentous decision,” said Fred Woocher, a Santa Monica attorney who has worked for candidates and citizen groups. “There may be an opening here to see what the state and federal courts will say.”

Loyola Law School professor Richard L. Hasen, who filed a “friend of the court” brief on behalf of some election attorneys and public interest groups, described the Griset decision as only a qualified victory for campaign reform. Nothing in the latest ruling, he says, stops an attorney from challenging the requirements in a new lawsuit.

But Getman said the latest decision does not leave anything open for further challenge. “The court had no desire to address the constitutionality of the issue,” she said. “I don’t think the court would tolerate people coming back for a third time.”