Warden teacher hears Supreme Court case

Justices review case of union money use

WARDEN — When Angie Dorman traveled to Washington, D.C. to watch a U.S. Supreme Court hearing affecting non-union workers, the justices seemed to have her best interest in mind.

Dorman, a social studies teacher at Warden High School, attended a hearing for Washington versus Washington Education Association Jan. 10.

The case stems from a 1992 voter-approved initiative specifying unions must receive permission from non-union employees before spending their fees on political action. The education association appealed to the Washington Supreme Court, which overturned the initiative. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case on Jan. 10. A decision could be made in May or June.

Non-union employees must currently opt-out if they do not want their fees to go toward political causes.

"I think that the decision is going to come against the (Washington Education Association), and I think that the Washington state Supreme Court's (ruling is) going to be overturned, but you know, I don't know," Dorman said. "But in that sense, I trust the justices whichever way it turns out."

Dorman said the Evergreen Freedom Foundation paid for her trip through a grant, and she was not required to do anything for the organization in return. The group is supporting the U.S. Supreme Court appeal. She said she made certain before accepting the money her free speech rights would not be affected.

"I always speak my mind," she said.

Dorman said the issue before the court is one of campaign reform and First Amendment rights.

Washington Education Association President Charles Hasse said when Initiative 134 first passed in 1992, the education association tried to follow the new law, but it was vague and poorly written. The law did not clearly define what constituted a political purpose, Hasse said.

Some argue the case is about individuals being forced to contribute to political causes against their will, he said.

"The state Supreme Court found that there is no evidence or argument that people are being compelled against their will," he said.

Hasse noted teachers have no choice but to contribute to the state's retirement system.

"That money is invested in the private sector," he said. "I can't opt out, let alone have an opt-in provision for their political spending. So we're saying, 'look, you've got to treat everybody the same.'"

If the education association loses, Hasse said he is confident the case would go back to the state Supreme Court to work out the technical details.

The U.S. Supreme Court is not known to be union-friendly, he said.

"On the other hand, we were very pleased that they didn't seem to have any interest in the arguments that were made by some that this case was about more than the technical issues involving somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 agency fee payers of the Washington Education Association," Hasse said.

Northwest Professional Educators Association Executive Director Cindy Omlin said the initiative is intended to support the First Amendment rights of non-union workers. The court justices seemed to recognize that, she said.

"It was remarkably favorable for the protection of the civil liberties of non-union individual workers," Omlin said.

The association is a non-union educator organization of which Dorman is a member.

Dorman said the trip to Washington D.C. was once-in-a-lifetime. Walking into the courtroom, she thought about all the important cases heard in the same room, including Brown versus Board of Education.

She said she is interested to hear any justice opinions siding with the education association.