Ancheta v. Watada

Decision Date30 January 2001
Docket NumberNo. CIV.99-00521HG-LEK.,CIV.99-00521HG-LEK.
Citation135 F.Supp.2d 1114
PartiesRoger ANCHETA, Plaintiff, v. Robert Y. WATADA; Duane Black; Della Au; Andrea Low; Clifford Muraoka; and May Oshiro, Defendants.
CourtHawaii Supreme Court

David F. Simons, Matthew J. Viola, Honolulu, for Plaintiff.

Pamela A. Toguchi, Russell A. Suzuki, Office of the Attorney General, Honolulu, for Defendants.

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

GILLMOR, District Judge.

Plaintiff filed suit in this Court claiming that the Code of Fair Campaign Practices (the "Code") and the Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission's (the "Commission") censure of him are unconstitutional abridgements of free speech. On June 15, 2000, Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiff's Motion"). Defendants oppose the motion by contending that Plaintiff voluntarily obligated himself to the limitations of the Code and therefore waived any rights he now claims were abridged.

After careful consideration of the parties' memoranda, the record and the arguments made at the hearing held before this Court, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Roger Ancheta was a Republican Party candidate for the State of Hawaii 18th Senate District race during the 1998 general election. Plaintiff's opponent was the incumbent, Democratic Senator Randall Iwase. On or about October 30, 1998, Plaintiff mailed a flier depicting a cartoon caricature of Iwase sitting in a money-stuffed pocket labeled "Special Interests." (Plaintiff's Motion at 5). The flier also read:

Who has Randy Iwase served? Himself. When Randy Iwase was Chair of the Senate Planning, Land and Water Use Committee, his downtown law firm received a MILLION DOLLARS from Bishop Estate for Land and Water Use legal work.

The flier cited the Honolulu Advertiser, September 29, 1998, as the source of the information.

The Code of Fair Campaign Practices was enacted by the State of Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") § 11-193(a)(8). The Code states that "[e]very candidate for public office has an obligation to observe and uphold basic principles of decency, honesty and fair play .... Every candidate for public office in the State of Hawaii is expected by the voters to adhere to the following basic principles." The Code goes on to list nine provisions describing the appropriate conduct to which candidates are expected to adhere. If a candidate fails to sign the Code, the fact that the candidate failed to sign the Code is made public. See Hawaii Administrative Rules ("HAR") § 2-14.1-25. (Plaintiff's Motion, Exh. 6 (Watada Depo.) at 24). A list of the candidates who endorsed the Code and those who did not is posted on a website maintained by the Commission. See id. (Plaintiff's Motion, Exh. 9). Candidates who agreed to adhere to the Code and are later found to have breached it are subject to censure. See HRS § 11-193(a)(16).

Iwase won the November 3, 1998 general election and retained his senate seat. On November 20, 1998, Iwase sent a letter to the Commission alleging that Plaintiff's flier violated the Code by "misrepresent[ing], distort[ing], or otherwise falsif[ying] the facts regarding the candidate," and that the flier amounted to a "personal vilification [and] character defamation." (Plaintiff's Motion, Exh. 7). Iwase asked the Commission to investigate and possibly to censure or fine Plaintiff for alleged violations of the Code. (Id.).

On February 9, 1999, the Commission addressed Iwase's complaint. Plaintiff was not in attendance at the meeting but had submitted a letter in opposition which argued that the facts contained in the flier were true. (Plaintiff's Motion, Exhs. 3 and 8). The Commission voted unanimously to censure Plaintiff for violating provisions 2 and 3 of the Code of Fair Campaign Practices. Provision 2 states that the candidate "shall not use campaign material relating to any candidate's election which misrepresents, distorts, or otherwise falsifies the facts regarding the candidate." Provision 3 states that the candidate "shall refrain from the use of personal vilification, character defamation, or any other form of scurrilous personal attacks on any candidate or his family." (Plaintiff's Motion, Exh. 1).

On February 11, 1999, the Commission issued its letter of censure against Plaintiff. (Plaintiff's Motion, Exh. 4). The letter explained that the Commission concluded that the flier distributed by Plaintiff contained personal attacks and constituted personal vilification and character defamation in violation of the Code. The Commission indicated that the letter of censure would be placed in Plaintiff's public candidate file. (Id.). Robert Watada, the Executive Director of the Campaign Spending Commission, indicated he believes the letter is still in Plaintiff's file and available for view by the public. (Plaintiff's Motion, Exh. 6 at 22-23). Plaintiff's censure was published by the local media. (Plaintiff's Motion, Exh. 5).

Plaintiff did not contest the administrative determination of the Campaign Spending Commission through administrative channels nor did he seek review in state court as permitted under state law.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court on July 21, 1999, alleging that the State of Hawaii's enforcement of the Code of Fair Campaign Practices violates his First Amendment rights and is unconstitutionally overbroad.

On February 2, 2000, the parties entered into a Stipulation for Dismissal as to Defendant State of Hawai`i Campaign Spending Commission, and for Partial Dismissal as to Defendant Robert Y. Watada, Duane Black, Della Au, Andrea Low, Clifford Muraoka, and May Oshiro. The Court dismissed, without prejudice, all claims in the action against Defendant State of Hawai`i Campaign Spending Commission and all claims for retroactive relief against Watada, Black, Au, Low, Muraoka, and Oshiro in all capacities in which they are named as defendants in this action, including claims for monetary damages. The Stipulation did not affect any claims for declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as to Defendants Watada, Black, Au, Low, Muraoka, and Oshiro in their respective official capacities.

Plaintiff filed his Motion for Summary Judgment on June 15, 2000, arguing that the Code unconstitutionally prohibits protected speech. On August 30, 2000, Robert Y. Watada, Duane Black, Della Au, Andrea Low, Clifford Muraoka, and May Oshiro ("Defendants") filed their opposition to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Defendants generally argue that Plaintiff waived his constitutional right to free speech by voluntarily signing the Code of Fair Campaign Practices and that Plaintiff is barred from seeking redress in federal court because of the preclusive effect of the final determination of the Campaign Spending Commission.

On September 11, 2000, the Court heard the arguments of the parties.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). The moving party has the initial burden of "identifying for the court the portions of the materials on file [in the case] that it believes demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact." T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). If the moving party meets its burden, then the opposing party may not defeat a motion for summary judgment in the absence of any significant probative evidence tending to support its legal theory. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 282 (9th Cir.1979). The opposing party cannot stand on its pleadings, nor can it simply assert that it will be able to discredit the movant's evidence at trial. See T.W. Elec. Serv., 809 F.2d at 630; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). In a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Martin, 872 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir.1989).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff's Motion argues that the Code of Fair Campaign Practices is unconstitutional on its face and as it is applied to him. The basis of Plaintiff's argument is that the Code permits the Commission to impose sanctions on a candidate for engaging in constitutionally-protected speech. Plaintiff asserts that the Code has the effect of prohibiting political speech that was held to be protected under the First Amendment by New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), including speech that is truthful, that was not made with actual malice, and that was not proven by the Commission to be malicious by clear and convincing evidence. Since only speech that does not comport with the protections of New York Times may be prohibited, Plaintiff asserts, the Code is unconstitutional.

Defendants do not dispute Plaintiff's argument that the Code has the effect of restricting constitutionally-protected speech. Rather, Defendants argue that participation in the restrictions placed on speech by the Code is voluntary, therefore, Plaintiff and other signatories to the Code have waived their rights under the First Amendment. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff may not assert his First Amendment claims because the Commission's final ruling, and Plaintiff's decision not to appeal that ruling, bars Plaintiff's suit in this Court under the doctrine of res judicata.

The Court finds that Plaintiff did not waive his ability to assert his First Amendment rights. The Court also finds that the Commission's administrative decision does not have preclusive effect on this proceeding and that the State of Hawaii's Code of Fair Campaign...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Rickert v. State, Public Disclosure Com'n, 77769-1.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 4, 2007
    ...any candidate's election which misrepresents, distorts, or otherwise falsifies the facts regarding the candidate.'" Ancheta v. Watada, 135 F.Supp.2d 1114, 1117 (D.Haw.2001) (quoting provisions 2 and 3 of the Code of Fair Campaign ¶ 65 The court first noted that generally defamatory speech i......
  • Rickert v. State, Public Disclosure Com'n
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • September 7, 2005
    ...shall deliberately make a false statement regarding a candidate's honesty, integrity, or moral character). ¶ 33 In Ancheta v. Watada, 135 F.Supp.2d 1114, 1116 (2001), the court reviewed Hawaii State's Code of Fair Campaign Practices. At issue were provisions prohibiting campaign material th......

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