Greenberg v. Bolger

497 F. Supp. 756

Gary GREENBERG, Richard Savadel, Free Libertarian Party, William D. Burt, Socialist National Committee, Socialist Party of America, Kenrick G. Kissell, Bill Douglas, Peace and Freedom Party, Lewis B. McCammon, Plaintiffs J. Daniel Mahoney as State Chairman and on behalf of the Conservative Party of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Intervenor Bert DeLeeuw as Executive Director and on behalf of Citizens' Party, Plaintiff-Intervenor John B. Anderson, National Unity Campaign for John Anderson, and Uriel P. Bauer, Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. W. F. BOLGER, Theodore Troy, George F. Shuman, United States Postal Service, Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service, Postal Rate Commission, Defendants.

No. 80 Civ. 0340.

United States District Court, E. D. New York.

June 20, 1980.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

New York Civil Liberties Union, New York City, for plaintiffs; Arthur Eisenberg, New York City, of counsel.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore, New York City, for plaintiff-intervenor John Anderson, et al.; Paul Dodyk, New York City, of counsel.

Baker, Nelson & Williams, New York City, for plaintiff-intervenor J. Daniel Mahoney, et al; John Dellera, New York City, of counsel.

Stuart J. Beck, New York City, for plaintiff-intervenor Bert DeLeeuw, et al.

Edward R. Korman, U. S. Atty., Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendants; Reuben S. Koolyk, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel.

                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
  I. BACKGROUND ........................ 764
    A. Statutory Scheme ................ 764
    B. Plaintiffs ...................... 766
       1. Socialist Party of America ... 766
       2. Libertarian Party ............ 766
       3. Peace and Freedom Party ...... 767
       4. Conservative Party of the
           State of New York ........... 767

       5. Citizens' Party .............. 767
       6. National Unity Campaign
           for John Anderson and
           Uriel P. Bauer .............. 767
    C. Independent Candidates and
        Third Parties in the
        United States .................. 768
       1. History of Party System ...... 768
       2. Obstacles .................... 770
 II. LAW ............................... 772
    A. Waiver of Exhaustion
        Requirement .................... 772
    B. Postal Service Within Apparent
        Statutory Authority ............ 773
    C. Constitutional Questions ........ 773
       1. Due Process in Enactment ..... 773
       2. First Amendment .............. 774
       3. Equal Protection ............. 778
          a. Fundamental Rights ........ 778
          b. Non-speculative Harm ...... 779
          c. Governmental Interests .... 779
             (1) Facilitating Public
                  Expression ........... 780
             (2) Integrity of
                  Elections ............ 780
             (3) Protecting Scarce
                  Fiscal Resources ..... 780
             (4) Protecting Against
                  Factionalism ......... 781
          d. Balancing ................. 781
III. INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES ............ 781
    A. Barry Commoner .................. 782
    B. John Anderson ................... 783
 IV.  REMEDY ........................... 784

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEINSTEIN, Chief Judge.

This action by five political parties and the National Unity Campaign for John Anderson and Uriel P. Bauer, seeks an injunction either invalidating a portion of the Postal Service Appropriation Act, 1980, Pub.L.No. 96-74 Title II, 93 Stat. 562 (1979), as unconstitutional, or, alternatively, directing defendants to afford plaintiffs the special reduced rates for bulk third class mailings available to the National, State and Congressional committees of the Democratic and Republican parties. The two major parties pay 3.1 cents per letter, while all other parties pay 8.4 cents.

A critical duty of the courts in our system of constitutional government is to protect a minority against a majority's attempt to reduce human rights. In our democratic republic it is essential that each person be afforded the right of equal access to the marketplace of political ideas and the opportunity of influencing governmental policy through election and persuasion of government officials.

The vital role played by third parties and independent candidates in changing the political environment; the constitutional rights such parties have to communicate programs, goals and candidacies; the monopoly that is enjoyed by the Postal Service; and the very real burdens denial of preferred postal rates places on small or new political parties, require that the plaintiffs enjoy access to the mails equal to that of the Democrats and Republicans.

I. BACKGROUND

The postal service is a monopoly; no competing private agency for carrying mails is permitted. 18 U.S.C. § 1696 (crime to establish private postal system); 39 U.S.C. §§ 601-606; United States Postal Service v. Brennan, 574 F.2d 712 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1115, 99 S.Ct. 1018, 59 L.Ed.2d 73 (1979); National Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. Independent Postal System, 470 F.2d 265 (10th Cir. 1972). As "one of the main government facilities relevant to a system of freedom of expression . . .," T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 647 (1970), access to the post is indispensable to the exchange of ideas.

A. Statutory Scheme

The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 created the Postal Service as "an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States." 39 U.S.C. § 201. Though generally prohibiting subsidization of one category or class of mail by customers who send other types of mail, 39 U.S.C. §§ 101(d), 3622, exceptions authorize special treatment for certain types of mail. For example, special rates were authorized for bulk third class mailings of qualified non-profit organizations and the 1970 Act allows Congressional appropriations to the Postal Service to reimburse the Service for any loss caused by this lower-than-cost-based rate. 39 U.S.C. § 4452(b). These special rates are available, however, only if Congress makes the necessary appropriations.

In 1978, as part of the Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act Amendments, Pub.L.No. 95-593, § 11(c), 92 Stat. 2538 (1978) (1978 Act), Congress amended Title 39 extending the benefit of reduced rates to "qualified political committees" — defined as "a national or state committee of a political party, the Republican and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committees, the Democratic National Congressional Committee, and the National Republican Congressional Committee." 39 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(1), (2). As a result of this amendment, the original plaintiff political parties, Socialist Party of America, Libertarian Party, Peace and Freedom Party and plaintiff-intervenor, the Conservative Party of New York, among others, enjoyed reduced third class bulk mail rates.

This preferred rate allowed plaintiffs substantially to increase the frequency and volume of their mailings. Plaintiff Free Libertarian Party was able to increase its mailings from approximately 700 pieces per month to as many as 2000 per month. Testimony of Gary Greenberg, Transcript of Hearing of March 6, 1980, at p. 13. The other original plaintiffs achieved similar increases, Testimony of Kenrick G. Kissell (Socialist Party), Transcript of Hearing of March 5, 1980, at pp. 12-13, as did intervenor Conservative Party, Affidavit of J. Daniel Mahoney.

The category of political organizations eligible for benefits flowing from Congressional appropriations were, however, defined more narrowly by the 1980 Postal Service Appropriation Act (1980 Act). It provides, in pertinent part, that, "no funds appropriated . . . shall be available for implementing special bulk third-class rates for `qualified' political committees authorized by Public Law 95-593 1978 Act, other than the National, State, or Congressional committee of a major or minor party as defined in Public Law 92-178." Pub. L.No. 96-74, Title II.

Public Law 92-178, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, 26 U.S.C. §§ 9001-9013 (Campaign Fund Act), defines a "major" party as "a political party whose candidate for the office of President in the preceding presidential election received, as the candidate of such party, 25 percent or more of the total number of popular votes received by all candidates for such office." 26 U.S.C. § 9002(6). A "minor" party is defined as one whose last presidential candidate received more than 5 percent but less than 25 percent of the total popular vote. 26 U.S.C. § 9002(7). A party whose candidate received less than 5 percent of the vote is a "new" party. 26 U.S.C. § 9002(8).

Congressional debate demonstrates — what is clear from the provision itself — that the 1980 limitation was adopted to preserve the special rate for the two dominant political parties while denying it to all others. Representative Glickman proposed at the beginning of the debate on the 1980 Act an amendment to eliminate the special rate for all political committees. 125 Cong.Rec. H-5888 (July 13, 1979). Responding to objections that this amendment would "throw the baby out with the bath water," id. at H-5891, Representative Ford proposed the limitation that was enacted. He expressly described the purpose: "we did not intend that the American Nazi Party or the Communist Party, could automatically walk in and get this privilege." Id. Despite the observation of Representative Glickman that the amendment would sharply restrict minority parties' access to the mails, id. at 5895, and Representative Bedell's remark that "if a new party was formed . . . that . . . had substantial support, it would be placed at a disadvantage as compared to" the Republican and Democratic Parties, id., the Ford Amendment was adopted.

The statutory scheme...