Laserfiche WebLink
m e y e r s l n a v e riback silver & Wilson <br />professional low corporation <br />MEMORANDUM <br />October 22, 2008 <br />70: Rules and Communications Committee <br />FROM: Jayne W. Williams, City Attorney <br />By: Richard D. Pio Roda, Assistant City Att ney <br />RE: Use of City Facilities by Candidates <br />Jayne W. Williams <br />Attorney at Law <br />510.808.2000 <br />The following memo addresses the City's ability to regulate the use of public facilities by candidates or for <br />political activity. <br />ANALYSIS <br />1. Restricting Access to Public Facilities -Forum Analysis <br />Where public facilities are made available for public use, excluding a particular group of people (candidates), <br />or a particular type of activity (political activity), may violate the free speech protections of the United States <br />Constitution. In assessing whether the Constitution's First Amendment protections extend to activities <br />conducted on government property, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that "[the Government] must <br />identify the nature of the forum because the extent to which the Government may limit access depends on <br />whether the forum is public or nonpublic."1 <br />Public Forum: A traditional public forum is a place that has, by long tradition, been used by the <br />public for the free exchange of ideas. Public sidewalks, streets, public squares and City parks are <br />all examples of public forums. The government may only exclude speakers from a public forum <br />"when the exclusion is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and the exclusion is narrowly <br />drawn to achieve that interest."2 This is a high burden for any City restriction or regulation to carry. <br />Traditionally candidates may distribute campaign literature and campaign freely in public forums. <br />• Designated Public Forum: A designated public forum is nontraditional property that the government <br />has opened for expressive activity and public discourse. Where speech is regulated based on its <br />~ Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense ~ Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985). (Government does not violate the First Amendment <br />where it limits participation in a charity drive aimed at federal employees, which is a nonpublic forum, in order to minimize <br />disruption of the federal workplace, to ensure the success of the fund raising effort or to avoid the appearance of political <br />favoritism without regard to the viewpoint of the excluded groups.) <br />z Id. at 800. <br />5155 ~1(2ith St{re~yet, Suite! 1(500 I Oakland, California 94607 ~ tel 510.208.200D I fax 510.444.511105{8t 1 I ~www.m1 eCyo)r~snarwe.comC <br />V ~~ it i. Y°: ; ~{ U i ~ d F-k~ ~ _ i[; . ! ~- ~.- ~A y~ 1 ~.i i t I ; -~ c. i; ~ 4 c . "~ 1 ! , ~' ~ J '} i`3 { 1~~, !"'` ;`i U 1 V ~ i! ~ 1. tJ U iR 7 ~ U ~ ~ I_ L <br />