Socialist Workers etc. Committee v. Brown

Decision Date19 December 1975
Docket NumberCENTRAL-EAST
Citation125 Cal.Rptr. 915,53 Cal.App.3d 879
PartiesSOCIALIST WORKERS 1974 CALIFORNIA CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants, Appellants and Respondents, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., etc., et al., Defendants, Cross-Complainants and Respondents, Common Cause et al., Petitioners in Intervention and Appellants.LOS ANGELES SOCIALIST WORKERS CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Burt S. PINES, etc., Defendant and Respondent, Fair Political Practices Commission, Intervener and Respondent. Civ. 45943, 46258 and 46314.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Mark D. Rosenbaum, Fred Okrand, Jill Jakes, Daniel C. Lavery and Mary Ellen Gale, Los Angeles, for plaintiffs, cross-defendants, appellants and respondents.

Kenneth J. Guido, Jr., Washington, D.C., for petitioners in intervention and appellants.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Iver E. Skjeie, Asst. Atty. Gen., John A. Gordnier and Floyd D. Shimomura, Deputy Attys. Gen., for defendants, cross-complainants and respondents.

Burt Pines, City Atty., Lawrence Hoffman and Claude Hilker, Asst. City Attys., and Anthony S. Alperin, Deputy City Atty., for defendant and respondent.

John K. Van de Kamp, Dist. Atty., Harry B. Sondheim, Head, App. Div., and Eugene D. Tavris, Deputy Dist. Atty., as amicus curiae on behalf of defendant and respondent.

Jerome B. Falk, Jr., Howard, Prim, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady & Pollak, San Francisco, Robert M. Stern, Menlo Park, Kenneth Finney, Berkeley, Nancy Salzman, Natalie E. West, Sacramento, and Michele D. Washington, Los Angeles, for intervener and respondent.

DUNN, Associate Justice.

We have before us consolidated appeals (Nos. 45943, 46258 and 46314) from four orders of the trial court made in two superior court actions to enjoin enforcement against the plaintiffs of certain provisions of the Waxman-Dymally Campaign Disclosure Act (Elec.Code § 11500 et seq.) and the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Gov.Code § 81000 et seq.).

The First Action (No. C 101761)

On October 3, 1974, in the superior court for Los Angeles County, the Socialist Workers 1974 California Campaign Committee and others 1 commenced an action for injunctive and declaratory relief against Edmund G. Brown, Jr., secretary of state, and Evelle J. Younger, attorney general. Plaintiffs' verified complaint alleged: Elec.Code §§ 11518, subds. (e) and (f), 11562, 11563, 11564 and 11580 2 together require public disclosure of the names, residence addresses and business addresses of all individuals who make contributions of $100 or more to campaign committees or candidates, and all individuals to whom expenditures of $100 or more are made by campaign committees and candidates, and prohibit anonymous contributions of $100 or more; said statutes deprive plaintiffs and their contributors, supporters and adherents of their rights of associational privacy and anonymity guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, §§ 1, 9, 10, 13 and 23, of the California Constitution. Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctions enjoining defendants 3 from enforcing against plaintiffs the challenged sections of the Elections Code. Plaintiffs also sought a judgment declaring that such sections are unconstitutional on their faces and as applied to plaintiffs.

On October 24, 1974, following a hearing on order to show cause, the trial court (Judge Lucas) denied plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction. On October 29, 1974, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal (appeal No. 45943) from the order denying a preliminary injunction. 4

On October 30, 1974, each of the defendants filed a cross-complaint against plaintiff campaign committees seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering cross-defendants to comply with the challenged sections of the Elections Code. On December 6, 1974, a hearing was held pursuant to an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue. On December 10th, the trial court (Judge Lucas) issued a preliminary injunction which ordered that cross-defendant, during the pendency of the action, file campaign statements regarding the November 1974 election in full compliance with the requirements of the Waxman-Dymally Campaign Disclosure Act (Elec.Code § 11500 et seq.), 'including but not limited to the requirement of such law that the names and other identifying information be provided for persons who make contributions and loans and who receive expenditures.' The preliminary injunction further provided: cross-defendants could omit from the campaign statements any such information which they claimed was constitutionally protected, if the omitted information was filed with the trial court under seal; the information so filed with the court was to be kept confidential until final determination of the action, 'whereupon if defendants and cross-complainants do not prevail, the information filed with this Court under seal shall be immediately destroyed without said seal being broken.' Cross-defendants appeal (appeal No. 46314) from the order granting the preliminary injunction. 5

Meanwhile, on October 17, 1974, Common Cause and Michael Walsh filed a petition for leave to intervene as defendants. The petition alleged: Common Cause is a nonprofit District of Columbia corporation composed of 330,000 members throughout the United States; over 64,000 of such members are residents of California; Michael Walsh is the California chairman of Common Cause; Common Cause was organized to work for the improvement of political and governmental institutions and processes on federal, state and local levels in the United States; therefore, Common Cause and its members have a 'direct interest' in laws relating to the reporting and public disclosure by political committees which make contributions and expenditures for the purpose of influencing the election of candidates for office in California. On October 17th, an Ex parte order was made granting Common Cause and Walsh leave to intervene as parties defendant. Interveners filed an answer to plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs moved to vacate the order granting intervention, and to strike the answer in intervention, on the ground that interveners lacked the requisite direct interest in the outcome of the litigation. On December 6, 1974, the trial court (Judge Pacht) granted plaintiffs' motion. Common Cause and Walsh appeal (appeal No. 46314) from the order of December 6th which vacated the order granting leave to intervene and struck the answer in intervention. 6

The Second Action (No. C 115029)

On February 19, 1975, in Los Angeles County superior court, Central-East Los Angeles Socialist Workers' Campaign Committee and others 7 commenced an action for injunctive and declaratory relief against Burt Pines, Los Angeles city attorney. The verified complaint challenged the constitutionality of Gov.Code §§ 84210, subds. (g) and (h), 84301, 84302, 84303, 84304, 84200 and 81008, 8 on the same grounds that formed the basis of the challenge to the Elections Code sections in action No. C 101761. Plaintiffs sought preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining defendant 9 from enforcing against plaintiffs the enumerated sections of the Government Code. Plaintiffs also sought a judgment declaring that such sections are unconstitutional on their faces and as applied to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Following a hearing, the trial court (Judge Dowds) denied the motion. Plaintiffs appeal (appeal No. 46258) from the order denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. 10

I. Appeals from Orders Denying Plaintiffs' Applications for Preliminary Injunction

The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction is within the discretion of the trial court, and its order may be reversed on appeal only if an abuse of discretion is shown. (People v. Black's Food Store, 16 Cal.2d 59, 61, 105 P.2d 361 (1940); Santa Cruz Fair Bldg. Assn. v. Grant, 104 Cal. 306, 308, 37 P. 1034 (1894); Gosney v. State of California, 10 Cal.App.3d 921, 924, 89 Cal.Rptr. 390 (1970); Harbor Chevrolet Corp. v. Machinists Local Union 1484, 173 Cal.App.2d 380, 384, 343 P.2d 640 (1959).) 'The granting or denial of a preliminary injunction does not amount to an adjudication of the ultimate rights in controversy. It merely determines that the court, balancing the respective equities of the parties, concludes that, pending a trial on the merits, the defendant should or that he should not be restrained from exercising the rights claimed by him.' (Kendall v. Foulks, 180 Cal. 171, 175, 179 P. 886, 888 (1919); Miller & Lux v. Madera Canal etc. Co., 155 Cal. 59, 62--63, 99 P. 502 (1909).) In reaching that conclusion, the court considers whether a greater injury will result to the defendant (and to third persons) from granting the injunction or to the plaintiff from refusing it. (Santa Cruz Fair Bldg. Assn. v. Grant, supra, 104 Cal. at p. 308, 37 P. 1034.)

Plaintiffs' verified complaints for injunctive relief allege: members and supporters of the Socialist Workers Party have been, and continue to be, subjected to 'governmental and private' harassment and reprisal; fear of such consequences has deterred several persons from joining the party, and from rendering financial assistance or services to the party; therefore, the challenged public disclosure requirements of the Elections Code and the Government Code deprive plaintiffs and their contributors and supporters of their rights of 'associational privacy and anonymity' guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and by parallel provisions of the California Constitution. In support of their respective applications for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs submitted a great many declarations. These showed that some of the members and supporters of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Schuster v. Municipal Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 28, 1980
    ...v. Valeo, supra, Brown v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.3d 509, 96 Cal.Rptr. 584, 487 P.2d 1224, and Socialist Workers etc. Committee v. Brown (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 879, 125 Cal.Rptr. 915, as well as decisions upholding the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act (United States v. Harriss (1954) 3......
  • Planned Parenthood Shasta-Diablo, Inc. v. Williams
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • May 26, 1994
    ...(Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528, 67 Cal.Rptr. 761, 439 P.2d 889; Socialist Workers etc. Committee v. Brown (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 879, 887-888, 125 Cal.Rptr. 915.) Substantial evidence from the hearing on the permanent injunction established that the state's interest......
  • Clark v. Burleigh
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 1991
    ...P.2d 1224; Schuster v. Municipal Court (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 887, 895-896, 167 Cal.Rptr. 447; cf. Socialist Workers etc. Committee v. Brown (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 879, 888-889, 125 Cal.Rptr. 915; cf. also Brown v. Hartlage, supra, 456 U.S. 45, 52, 102 S.Ct. 1523, 1528.) "[A]s a practical matt......
  • Qualified Patients Ass'n v. City of Anaheim
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 2010
    ...§ 904.1, subd. (a)(6) [an order granting or denying an injunction is appealable]; Socialist Workers etc. Committee v. Brown (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 879, 885, fn. 4, 125 Cal.Rptr. 915 [same].) Plaintiffs provide no authority and make no argument concerning the legal standards for a preliminary ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT