This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2009, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Utah's teachers union, which flexed its political muscle in the 2007 voucher wars, may find itself substantially weakened by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will limit how it can collect Political Action Committee contributions from its members.
The high court ruled Tuesday to uphold a nearly identical "paycheck protection" law in Idaho that prevents unions from collecting automatic deductions for their PACs.
"Idaho's law does not restrict political speech, but rather declines to promote that speech by allowing public employee checkoffs for political activities," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the court's 6-3 decision. "Such a decision is reasonable in light of the state's interest in avoiding the appearance that carrying out the public's business is tainted by partisan political activity."
The 10th District Court, which covers Utah, waited to act on Utah's 2001 law to see how the Supreme Court would rule on Idaho's law, which is part of the 9th District Court.
Vik Arnold, director of government relations and political actions, called the ruling "disappointing."
"We will do what we need to do to make sure that teachers' voices will be heard on behalf of their students and the profession," he said.
The original law, enacted in 2001, dried up nearly all contributions to Utah Education Association's PAC, he said, but the union has since promoted automatic monthly withdrawals from members' checking accounts.
"UEA members certainly have recognized the value of being politically active both in the voting booth and with financial contributions," he said.
When the court's decision was announced in the Utah House Republican caucus Tuesday, legislators applauded.
"I've personally been working on this for 15 years believing that the First Amendment does not require taxpayers to subsidize the political speech of the unions," said Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, who sponsored the bill.
He said it's not the expense associated with collecting the dues, but the principle of the issue.
Defense of the 2001 law has cost an estimated $1 million in taxpayer money. However, the Attorney General's Office refuses to provide a calculation of how much it has spent on the case in-house, saying officials don't keep track of hours spent on the case.
smcfarland@sltrib.com" Target="_BLANK">smcfarland@sltrib.com
gehrke@sltrib.com" Target="_BLANK">gehrke@sltrib.com