The California Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion issued
this morning, failed to reach the constitutional claim in
Griset (whether candidates have the right to engage in
anonymous campaign speech).  Instead, the court reversed the
decision on procedural grounds.

Here's the procedural issue in a nutshell: Before the United
States Supreme Court decided the McIntyre case (concerning
anonymous campaign speech by a lone pamphleteer in a ballot
measure election), the California Supreme Court held in
Griset I that candidates did not have the right to engage in
anonymous campaign speech (the court upheld a California
statute requiring the disclosure of the identity of the
senders of mass mailings in candidate elections).  The
California Supreme Court remanded the case.  During this
period of remand (while a petition for cert was pending),
the United States Supreme Court decided McIntyre. The
candidate argued in the trial court on remand that McIntyre
compelled  reversal.  The trial court disagreed, but the
California Court of Appeal reconsidered the case in light of
McIntyre, and held (over a dissent) that, following
McIntyre, candidates did have a right to send anonymous mass
mailings.  The California Supreme Court granted review, and
in the case decided today (Griset II), the Court held that
the Court of Appeal was without jurisdiction to reconsider
the case following remand of Griset I.

The opinion is a victory of sorts for those who support
campaign disclosure laws, because the California Supreme
Court's grant of review wiped out the precedent of the Court
of Appeal decision.  Nonetheless, it would have been useful
for the court to reach the merits, so that the
constitutionality of laws surrounding disclosure
requirements in candidate elections could have been
clarified.

Rick

--
Rick Hasen
Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow
Loyola Law School
919 South Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA  90015-1211
(213)736-1466 - voice
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu