Teachers unions are supposed to promote the financial interests of, well, teachers—but not in Washington state. Here, the Washington Education Association is fighting some 4,000 nonmember teachers who don't want their paychecks raided each year and used for political activities that they don't believe in. "The right of free speech is being trampled" by the union political spending, complains Scott Carlson, a business teacher in Spokane. "And that's a right I hold very precious."

Too bad the unions don't. The WEA derisively refers to teachers like Mr. Carlson who want their money back not as free-speech advocates but "dissidents." The goal is to squash these dissidents by overturning Initiative 134, a law—approved by 72% of Washington voters in 1992—that requires unions to obtain written approval from teachers before dues are spent on campaigns or candidates. Back in March, the unions got a surprising assist from the state Supreme Court, which ruled that the paycheck protection law places "too heavy" a burden on the free-speech rights of the union.

The case has now been bumped up to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in January—in what could be the most important First Amendment decision in years.

The Washington Supreme Court defended its ruling by arguing that the benefit to the individual teachers was trivial compared to the "heavy administrative burden" that complying with paycheck protection would impose on the union. That attitude incenses Jeff Leer, who for 10 years has been a phys ed teacher outside Seattle. In an interview, Mr. Leer fumed: "I wonder how these justices would feel if I reached into their pockets and took $200 to support causes they don't believe in." He told me that when he investigated the candidates that his union dues were going to support, "it was nearly 100% opposite of the way I voted. How is that fair?"

The Washington law states unambiguously that a union may not use dues "for political purposes without the affirmative consent of the nonmembers from whom the excess fees were taken." The Washington Supreme Court somehow twisted these words to mean that the unions can spend as they wish unless workers object and affirmatively opt out. That's a big distinction, because the unions make it as time-consuming and cumbersome as possible to get the money back once they snatch it.

The Washington Education Association does not spend non-members' fees on political purposes, and non-members have a simple, easy way of opting out.

That's the main issue at stake in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear an appeal of an earlier Washington Supreme Court ruling that upheld the free speech rights of WEA's 80,000 members.

In the State Supreme Court decision last March, justices ruled that federal law gives non-union educators a simple and easy way to opt out if they don't support the association's political advocacy. School employees represented by the association are notified twice a year that they can opt out of paying for WEA's political efforts to improve public education. WEA does not use non-members' fees on political purposes, said Charles Hasse, WEA president -– a fact supported by the State Supreme Court ruling.

"…there is no indication or argument that WEA is compelling non-members to support political activities or preventing non-members from asserting their First Amendment rights," the State Supreme Court ruled (page 10).

The State Supreme Court also ruled that imposing additional restrictions on the association would hamper the association's political advocacy and violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the WEA's 80,000 members.

Hasse said WEA has consistently sought to fully comply with all state and federal regulations, and he said the right-wing Evergreen Freedom Foundation has used an unclear, flawed state law to attack WEA through the state Public Disclosure Commission. Hasse noted that the state law in question was enacted through an initiative that was written and promoted by EFF President Bob Williams. In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision that dismissed EFF's argument that WEA was a political action committee. In 2003, the Supreme Court refused to hear EFF's appeal of a related case WEA won in Appeals Court. Since 1998, WEA has prevailed in every court challenge filed by the EFF.

The U.S. Supreme Court likely will hear the case in January.

In states that have not passed right-to-work laws, employees who are not union members can be required to pay collective bargaining dues (known as “agency fees”) as a condition of employment. While past Supreme Court cases have allowed objecting workers to “opt-out” of union political spending (see box on this page), Initiative 134 created an “opt-in” procedure. Nonmembers were presumed to object to union political spending, and their agency fees were not to be used for political activity without specific authorization.

Initiative 134 gave employees—union members and non-members alike—a choice, and they overwhelmingly chose not to support their union’s political agenda. After Washington State implemented the new rule and required unions to get permission for political spending, voluntary contributions by teachers to the Washington Education Association’s political action committee dropped by 85 percent.

However, the Washington Education Association (WEA) did not accept the decisions of teachers. When it could no longer legitimately obtain funds voluntarily for its spending on political activities, it chose to violate the law and use funds from its general treasury to fund its political activism.