ELA update: Court upholds ban on use of school mailboxes for campaign purposes 

In a victory for school district and county office of education governing boards, the California Supreme Court has upheld a district's policy banning the use of school mailboxes to distribute political materials endorsing school board candidates, even by a union in an effort to communicate with its members.

CSBA's Education Legal Alliance filed an amicus brief in support of the district. According to Richard L. Hamilton, director of the Alliance, the ruling is helpful to school districts.

“The court's ruling clarifies the law prohibiting the use of district resources—in this case, mailboxes deemed ‘district equipment,’ for political endorsement—even if it is the union using district mailboxes under the guise of communicating with its members,” Hamilton said.

The San Leandro Teachers Association regularly used district mailboxes to communicate with its members. However, in this case the union used the mailboxes to distribute a newsletter that endorsed a slate of school board candidates in an upcoming electon. The district advised SLTA that Education Code Section 7054 prohibited use of the mailboxes for political purposes. The union filed an unsuccessful unfair labor practice charge and, pursing a separate tactic, also sued. The case advanced on to the appellate court that ruled in favor of the district, and the state Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

The Supreme Court agreed with the district and Alliance's position that allowing the union to use the mailboxes to endorse candidates unfairly benefits the union’s candidates they endorse because no other candidates or organization has similar access to the boxes. The court held that the union’s special access to an internal channel of district communication is the type of abuse that the Education Code was designed to guard against—the use of taxpayer dollars for political advantage. Furthermore, the district’s ban was an authorized and reasonable regulation of a union’s right to communicate with its members.

Hamilton said the court was careful to emphasize that its ruling was narrow and did not apply to endorsements of ballot measures or union literature that urges members to become involved in upcoming elections.

"This ruling confirms the status quo," Hamilton said. "Boards have long understood that the district could not use its own district equipment, including mailboxes, to urge the support or defeat of a candidate. If the ruling had gone the other way it could have created a real problem, since the union would have one-sided access and the district would have been unable to respond in kind."

Related links:

Read a copy of the court's ruling @ http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S156961.PDF