Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, October 22, 1995                   TAG: 9510230064
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: B-1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: JAN VERTEFEUILLE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

ANONYMOUS VOTER GUIDES OK'D

U.S. District Judge Samuel Wilson referred to a U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year that authors of political speech are entitled to anonymity under the First Amendment and should not be required to put their names on campaign literature. The court had overturned an Ohio election law that forbade anonymous campaign literature.

The Ohio law is "indistinguishable" from a section of a Virginia law being challenged in federal court in Roanoke, Wilson said. Although he didn't overturn the law, Wilson ruled that the part requiring names of those responsible for the literature to be printed on it could not survive "strict scrutiny" by the courts.

The anonymity on literature does not extend to candidates, political parties or groups registered with the state as political committees, however, who still must print an "authorized by ..." line on literature.

The Virginia Society for Human Life and the chairwoman of its Roanoke Valley chapter, Andrea Sexton, sued the state Board of Elections and commonwealth's attorneys three weeks ago, asking that the Virginia campaign finance disclosure law be declared unconstitutional because it infringes on Virginians' First Amendment rights to engage in political speech.

The law requires groups and individuals spending more than $100 on influencing an election to register as political committees and file financial statements with the state, among other things.

Wilson signed his order at 12:05 Saturday morning - the day a temporary restraining order he issued last week was to expire. He converted the restraining order into a preliminary injunction that will remain in effect until the lawsuit is resolved.

The injunction means the Virginia Society for Human Life can distribute voter guides next month without fear of being stopped by state law, even though it hasn't registered as a political committee. Wilson suspended enforcement of sections of Virginia's campaign finance disclosure law that were used by Democrats to block distribution of voter guides by conservative groups.

The injunction applies only to issue advocacy by the society, however, and does not allow the group to campaign for or against specific candidates without registering with the state. For example, the society may tell voters where the candidates stand on abortion rights, but cannot urge them to vote for or against those candidates.

Three times since 1989, the Democratic Party of Virginia has persuaded state judges to issue injunctions on the eve of elections prohibiting distribution of voter guides by conservative groups because they had not registered as political committees.

Wilson's injunction prohibits state judges from doing that to the society until its lawsuit is decided in federal court. While his suspension of the section requiring names on literature is statewide, the rest of Wilson's injunction applies only to the Virginia Society for Human Life.

Wilson also ruled that because the suit was brought over a state law, he will seek the Virginia Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute before he decides on the law's constitutionality.

"Federal courts should abstain from deciding constitutional claims if a state court's interpretation of an unclear state statute might eliminate the constitutional issue," Wilson wrote.

In other words, the Virginia high court may rule that the statute no longer can be interpreted to allow injunctions against voter guides as state judges have granted, eliminating the need for Wilson to overturn the statute.

Wilson said during a hearing Oct. 11 that he believes the state judge's actions were unconstitutional prior restraint, or prepublication censorship.

The society's lawyers argued that if the Democrats had a problem with a voter guide, they should have filed a complaint with the Board of Elections, which would have investigated and could have fined the groups in violation.

Keywords:
POLITICS