Town’s Solicitor Law Debated

The Supreme Court justices debated Tuesday a tiny Ohio town’s limit on door-to-door solicitation to decide when the 1st Amendment’s freedom of speech overrides a homeowner’s right to privacy and personal security.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, who took the issue to the high court, say the Constitution gives them the freedom to “go door to door to speak the good news,” as their lawyer put it.

“This involves pure religious speech or pure political speech,” their attorney, Paul Polidoro, told the court. “We don’t believe you can be required to go to the government for permission before you speak to your neighbors.”

But Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist objected to Polidoro’s claim and defended the town’s ordinance. “You call them neighbors. I take it they are strangers,” he said, referring to the Witnesses.

The village of Stratton, an Ohio River town with 300 people and one police officer, said it wanted to protect its residents--many of whom are senior citizens--against “scams and frauds” by “canvassers, solicitors, peddlers and hawkers.”

Its ordinance requires solicitors to register at the mayor’s office and disclose their name and purpose. No fee is required, and permits are granted in all cases, the town’s lawyers say.

Government Groups Want Law to Be Model

The National League of Cities and the state of Ohio urged the high court to uphold the Stratton ordinance as a model.

“This is a very modest restriction. It only affects those who want to go on private property. And it puts a record on file” of who is going door to door, said David Gormley, a lawyer for the state.

Rehnquist noted that a recent newspaper account of the slayings of two Dartmouth College professors reported that the teenagers accused of the crime had gone door to door, checking out homes before they picked the victims.

City officials want to deter “con men” as well as dangerous criminals from operating freely in the community, he said.

But Rehnquist’s usual conservative allies took up the free speech claims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

During the 1930s and 1940s, the Supreme Court struck down a series of city laws that targeted the Jehovah’s Witnesses and sought to bar them from communities.

Justice Antonin Scalia said he was surprised that city officials today would think they could enforce such a law.

“They are not selling goods. If you want to talk about Jesus Christ or talk about protecting the environment,” the government cannot prevent that, he said. “You say this ordinance is OK because it only addresses communication,” Scalia said mockingly.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said he too was “astounded” by the ordinance. “You say I have to get the government’s permission before I go down the block to talk to my neighbors . . . about the garbage collection,” Kennedy said.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor picked up the theme, noting that the ordinance as written would cover trick-or-treaters at Halloween or carolers at Christmas.

“What if I want to borrow a cup of sugar from a neighbor? It literally covers that,” O’Connor told the town’s lawyer.

Defending the ordinance, attorney Abraham Cantor said the city simply wants to register solicitors. “It is an aid to law enforcement. And it’s an aid to the elderly,” because it gives them a greater sense of security about people who knock on their door.

The lawyers disagreed when asked about houses that have “No trespassing” or “No soliciting” signs posted. The attorney for the Jehovah’s Witnesses said such requests are honored, while the city’s lawyer said they have no way to enforce such a warning when it is ignored.

Lurking in the background of this case is an issue that worries the advocates of campaign finance reform.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses are relying on recent high court rulings that have declared a right to “‘anonymous speech.”

In 1995, for example, the Supreme Court struck down an Ohio law that resulted in a $500 fine against Margaret McIntyre, a housewife, who put hand-printed leaflets on car windshields urging a no vote on a school bond measure.

State officials said McIntyre had violated its disclosure law on political mailings, but the high court said the 1st Amendment protects “anonymous pamphleteering.”

Since then, the McIntyre vs. Ohio decision had been used by some candidates in California to attack as unconstitutional the state law requiring disclosures on mass mailings.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill also requires candidates and parties to file disclosures on their campaign spending.

“We are hoping the court will clarify this and uphold the disclosure requirements,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Hasen filed a brief in the Jehovah’s Witnesses case drawing attention to the drawback of declaring a broad 1st Amendment right to “anonymous” political speech.

During the argument, Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted that the case “might have considerable legal implications for the disclosure of campaign contributions.”

The justices will hand down a ruling in the case of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society vs. Village of Stratton, 00-1737, in several months.