Political Activity
on the Community College Campus

Many varieties of political activity are encouraged on a college campus. Lively discussion of political issues characterizes most colleges and university settings. For more than 70 years, however, the use of public resources to support many political pursuits has been severely restricted.

In the early 1930s, a group of citizens started a voter initiative campaign to eliminate Arizona's workers compensation system (which mandates that benefits be awarded to employees who are injured on the job). Members of the Industrial Commission-the state agency that administers the system-opposed the petition drive.

The Commission members, however, spent Industrial Commission funds-public resources-to finance their opposition efforts. Using these public monies, they hired not only lawyers to sue the organizers, but also private investigators to determine whether the organizers had obtained petition signatures through fraud.

In response to a court challenge, the Commissioners claimed that they were "lawfully within their rights and powers in making such expenditures" out of public funds. But the Arizona Supreme Court disagreed.

In its ruling, the court held that public resources may not be spent "for any purpose other than expressed or necessarily implied" under Arizona statute.

The principle implicit in the court's holding-that public resources should not be used to support political campaign activity-no doubt motivated the Arizona legislature to enact legislation that prohibits a community college district from using public resources to engage in political campaigning.

CAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESOURCES BE USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES?

Specifically, under A.R.S. Section 15-1408, a community college district may not "use its personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or other resources for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections."

Additionally, community college district employees "may not use the authority of their positions to influence the vote or political activities of any subordinate employee."

Despite these prohibitions, however, the law expressly allows a community college district to "distribute informational reports on a proposed bond election . . .." Moreover, the law may not be "construed as denying the civil and political liberties of any employee as guaranteed by the United States and Arizona constitutions."

The legislature's inclusion of "other resources" among the list of things a district may not use to influence elections no doubt indicates an intent to discourage use of both intangible resources (such as employee time and computer network access) and tangible ones (such as equipment and supplies).

These restrictions, of course, would not preclude students from campaigning for college student-government offices.

WHAT SORT OF ACTIVITY WOULD BE PROHIBITED?

The kinds of activity that would be clearly outlawed under the statute include:

• printing-by use of either Maricopa-owned equipment or a copying center under contract to Maricopa-of leaflets or similar literature advocating in favor of or against a candidate or political issue;
• use of classrooms or meeting space for purposes of planning campaign strategy;
• solicitation of campaign contributions during work hours;
• telephone canvassing over Maricopa's telecommunications network, regardless of whether such activity occurs during work hours;
• personal solicitation by employees of signatures for nominating petitions, as well as speeches or similar presentations, during work hours on college or District premises;
• distribution of campaign literature over Maricopa's e-mail network.

Some of these activities may be prohibited under authority other than section 15-1408. For example, use of the e-mail network or telephone system for political activity would no doubt violate Maricopa's computing resource policy, which requires that college and District technology resources be used exclusively for Maricopa purposes.

DOES THE LAW ALLOW FOR ANY TYPE OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY?

Equally as important as the proscriptive provisions of section 15-1408 are those which expressly protect the free speech rights of employees and the educational mission of community colleges.

Accordingly, the statute would not prohibit:

• volunteer work for a candidate or ballot proposition issue outside of work hours;
• candidate forums or town hall meetings on the college premises, provided that all sides are afforded equal opportunity to appear;
• activities that are within the scope of the academic curriculum designed to educate students on election issues.

Prior to primary elections, representatives of candidates and ballot propositions often request access to college campuses in order to solicit signatures for petitions. Such activity is not prohibited under the state statute. A Maricopa administrative regulation for such activity imposes minimal restrictions on the time, place and manner in which petition signatures may be solicited.

Additionally, as election day approaches, authorized representatives for candidates and ballot propositions seek permission to come on campus in order to solicit support for their causes. This activity is permissible as well, and a separate administrative regulation details the minimal restrictions that would apply to those representatives.

The content of the message conveyed by representatives of political candidates or causes, however, is generally not a valid reason to deny those representatives access to a campus.

Finally, the presence of persons authorized to conduct voter registration drives is not political activity, and therefore would not be prohibited under state statute. In fact, recent federal legislation encourages colleges and universities in the US to support projects aimed at registering their students to vote.