# Unger v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · December 27, 1984 · 37 Cal. 3d 612

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1173115

## Case

- **Full name:** SAMUEL UNGER Et Al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; REPUBLICAN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA Et Al., Real Parties in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 27, 1984
- **Citations:** 37 Cal. 3d 612; 209 Cal. Rptr. 474; 692 P.2d 238; 1984 Cal. LEXIS 140
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Lucas
- **Judges:** Grodin, Lucas, Sims, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 25 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1173115

## Opinion text

(1d), (2c) I concur, albeit reluctantly, in the majority opinion. My agreement stems from my conclusion that Justice Mosk has correctly interpreted the scope of the existing restrictions imposed by the Legislature and the California Constitution. My reluctance flows from my concern about the effect of our ruling in light of important social and political policy considerations expressed by Justice Sims in his dissent. I think there is a strong state interest in preserving the nonpartisan nature of the offices involved and that this interest will be sorely tried if political parties engage in wholesale endorsement of and opposition to candidates for "judicial, school, county, and city offices. . . ." (Cal. Const., art. II, § 6.)
Because this interest is so important, I cannot join in Justice Grodin's approach. His conclusion that the First Amendment may well bar restrictions on political endorsements of candidates for nonpartisan office is premature. The Legislature may be able to fashion a permissible limitation on partisan involvement in nonpartisan campaigns after careful scrutiny of the various interests at stake. I do not think that at this stage we should sweepingly discourage such an attempt. The majority opinion, of course, does not take that path.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1173115. Public record. Not legal advice.