Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01698/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-01698-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CALIFORNIA PRO-LIFE COUNCIL,

INC.,

NO. CIV S-00-1698 FCD GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LIANE RANDOLPH, in her

official capacity as Chairman

of the Fair Political

Practices Commission, et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This case arises out of plaintiff’s, California Pro-Life

Council’s (“CPLC”), claims that certain reporting and disclosure

provisions in California’s Political Reform Act (“PRA”), Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 81000, et seq., violate the First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights of CPLC and similar groups who, among other

activities, expressly advocate for and against the passage of

ballot measure initiatives. Defendants asserted that California

has a compelling government interest in requiring such 

Case 2:00-cv-01698-FCD-GGH Document 204 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Defendants agreed to this procedure on the condition

that this court issues an order setting forth in detail the

resolution of each of plaintiff’s claims in the Verified Amended

Complaint consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion.

2

disclosures and that the provisions are narrowly tailored to

advance that interest. On February 28, 2005, the court issued

its Memorandum and Order, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Subsequently, plaintiff appealed. 

On November 14, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

filed its decision and judgment in this case. The Ninth Circuit

affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The parties

submitted a Joint Status Report on January 29, 2008, in addition

to separate proposed orders. Subsequently, the parties submitted

supplemental briefing. Both plaintiff and defendants agree that

the terms of the final judgment in this case are controlled by

the Ninth Circuit’s holding. As such, and for purposes of

judicial economy, the parties have agreed that the resolution of

the remaining issues on remand may occur without further motion

practice.1

BACKGROUND 

On August 8, 2000, CPLC filed its initial complaint with

this court, which was supplanted by an amended verified complaint

filed September 27, 2000. The essence of CPLC’s ten-count

Amended Verified Complaint (“complaint” or “AVC”) is that Cal.

Gov’t Code §§ 82031 and 82013(a) and (b) Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2,

§§ 18225(b) and 18215(b), violate CPLC’s First and Fourteenth

Amendment rights by subjecting them to onerous reporting

requirements for engaging in express advocacy of ballot measures.

Case 2:00-cv-01698-FCD-GGH Document 204 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

By order filed October 24, 2000, this court dismissed Counts

1 and 3 for lack of standing to challenge the PRA’s regulation of

candidate advocacy. The court dismissed Counts 2, 4, and 6 for

failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The court

dismissed Counts 5 and 10 (vagueness challenges) only to the

extent they were directed to regulation of communications

involving candidates and mere discussion of ballot measure

initiatives. Counts 5 and 10 survived the motion to dismiss to

the extent they were directed at express ballot measure advocacy. 

However, by subsequent order dated January 22, 2002, the court

granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to the

remainder of Counts 5 and 10, holding that plaintiffs had not

demonstrated a credible threat of prosecution and thus, the

matter was not ripe for review. Counts 7, 8, and 9 were

dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

CPLC appealed both the Court’s October 24, 2000 order and

the January 22, 2002 order. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this

court’s dismissal of Counts 1 and 3, holding that CPLC “does not

have standing to argue that the definition of ‘independent

expenditure’ is unconstitutionally vague as applied to its

candidate advocacy” because CPLC “faces no credible threat of

prosecution for its candidate advocacy.” California Pro-Life

Council, Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th Cir. 2003). 

However, the Ninth Circuit reversed this court’s grant of summary

judgement of Counts 5 and 10 on ripeness grounds. The court held

that CPLC could challenge the allegedly vague definition of

“independent expenditure” as it related to CPLC’s express ballot

measure advocacy because CPLC suffered a “constitutionally

Case 2:00-cv-01698-FCD-GGH Document 204 Filed 03/12/08 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

sufficient injury of self-censorship rendering its vagueness

challenge . . . justiciable.” Id. at 1093. Rather than remand

CPLC’s vagueness challenge to the “independent expenditure”

definition, the Ninth Circuit addressed the merits, noting that

the issue had been fully briefed by the parties and strenuously

advocated at oral argument. Id. at 1096 n.5. The court

concluded that the definition, as narrowly defined by the

California appellate court in Governor Gray Davis Committee v.

American Taxpayer Alliance, 102 Cal. App. 4th 449 (2002), was not

unconstitutionally vague. Getman, 328 F.3d at 1100. Lastly, the

Ninth Circuit addressed Counts 2, 4, and 6, “CPLC’s more general

challenge to the PRA’s regulation of ballot measure advocacy.” 

Id. at 1100. The court concluded that the PRA’s disclosure

provisions burden protected First Amendment speech and therefore,

must satisfy strict scrutiny. The Circuit court remanded,

stating that it was for this court to determine in the first

instance whether the state’s interest was in fact compelling, and

whether the challenged PRA provisions were narrowly tailored to

advance that interest. Id. at 1107.

On remand, the parties filed cross-motions for summary

judgment. By order dated February 25, 2005, this court denied

CPLC’s motions for summary judgment and granted defendants motion

for summary judgment. The Court held that (1) California has a

compelling information interest in the PRA’s disclosure

provisions and (2) the record-keeping, reporting, and

organizational obligations were narrowly tailored to that

compelling interest. CPLC appealed the judgment. 

Case 2:00-cv-01698-FCD-GGH Document 204 Filed 03/12/08 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

On November 14, 2007, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part,

reversed in part, and remanded. California Pro-Life Council,

Inc. v. Randolph, 507 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth

Circuit concluded that California had met its burden of

demonstrating (1) a compelling interest in the disclosure of

funding sources for express ballot measure advocacy and (2) that

the definition of “contribution” is narrowly tailored to that

compelling interest. Id. at 1183-87. However, the Ninth Circuit

held that California failed to demonstrate that the PRA’s

imposition of political action committee-like requirements on a

group like CPLC were narrowly tailored to that same interest. 

Id. at 1187-89.

FINDINGS

Based upon the conclusions reached by the Ninth Circuit in

conjunction with the prior holdings of this court, plaintiff’s

claims alleged in the ten-count AVC are resolved as follows:

Count One: The court’s judgment dismissing Count One was

affirmed, on other grounds, by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088, 1096

(9th Cir. 2003).

Count Two: The court’s judgment granting defendant’s motion

for summary judgment on Count Two was affirmed by the Ninth

Circuit’s decision in California Pro-Life Council, Inc. v.

Randolph, 507 F.3d 1172, 1180-87 (9th Cir. 2007).

Count Three: The court’s judgment dismissing Count Three

was affirmed, on other grounds, by the Ninth Circuit’s decision

in Getman, 328 F.3d at 1096.

Case 2:00-cv-01698-FCD-GGH Document 204 Filed 03/12/08 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 The court agrees with defendants’ assertion that while

the Ninth Circuit held that “the states interest in disclosure []

can be met in a manner less restrictive than imposing the full

panoply of regulations that accompany status as a political

action committee,” id. at 1189, the Randolph court did not

explicitly conclude that any one of these requirements has been

held unconstitutional. (Def.’s Supplemental. Mem. at 4). 

6

Count Four: The court’s judgment granting defendant’s

motion for summary judgment on Count Two was affirmed by the

Ninth Circuit’s decision in Randolph, 507 F.3d at 1180-87.

Count Five: The court’s judgment regarding Count Five was

affirmed, on other grounds, by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

Getman, 328 F.3d at 1096-1100.

Count Six: The only claim by plaintiff that is subject to

the remand order is Count Six. Plaintiff CPLC is entitled to

declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based upon the Ninth

Circuit’s holding that CPLC, and groups like CPLC, cannot be

required to comply with political committee-like requirements

beyond disclosure of the identities of persons funding

independent expenditures made by CPLC to support or oppose

qualification or passage of ballot measures. Randolph, 507 F.3d

at 1187-90. The “full panoply of regulations that accompany

status as a political committee under the Act,” which the Ninth

Circuit held were not narrowly tailored, include mandated

registration, formal termination procedures, periodic reporting,

and heightened recordkeeping requirements. Id. at 1189; (see

also Defs.’ Supplemental Mem., filed Feb. 22, 2008, at 2-3).2

Count Seven: The parties stipulated to the dismissal of

Count Seven. See Randolph, 507 F.3d at 1175. 

Case 2:00-cv-01698-FCD-GGH Document 204 Filed 03/12/08 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 Defendants contend that injunctive relief is

unnecessary in this case because the Fair Political Practices

Commission instituted emergency regulations to address the Ninth

Circuit’s decision in Randolph on December 14, 2007. The Ninth

Circuit remanded this case for orders consistent with its

opinion. Now defendants seek the court to assess the validity of

emergency regulations that were neither before the Ninth Circuit

nor extensively briefed by the parties. The validity of similar

regulations was the gravamen of the initial complaint in this

action. The court will not summarily validate these subsequent

emergency regulations. As such, the court enters injunctive

relief in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s order and does not

comment upon the constitutionality of the current emergency

regulations proffered by defendants. 

7

Count Eight: The parties stipulated to the dismissal of

Count Eight. See Randolph, 507 F.3d at 1175.

Count Nine: The parties stipulated to the dismissal of

Count Nine. See Randolph, 507 F.3d at 1175.

Count Ten: The court’s judgment regarding Count Ten was

affirmed, on other grounds, by the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

Getman, 328 F.3d at 1096-1100. 

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decisions and this

order, CPLC is entitled to judgment in its favor on Count Six

because defendants have failed to demonstrate how the additional

political committee-like requirements are narrowly tailored to

advance its compelling governmental interest. See Randolph, 507

F.3d at 1189-90. Defendants are permanently enjoined from

enforcing these types of provisions against CPLC and groups like

CPLC.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 12, 2008 

 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:00-cv-01698-FCD-GGH Document 204 Filed 03/12/08 Page 7 of 7