Amicus Curiae Brief — H-CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government

Px,

)

No. 87-1276 \/_

In the FEB 25 1908

Supreme Court of the United|Stategsn

OCTOBER TERM, 1987

H-CHH AssociaTEs, doing business as PLAzA PASADENA,

and HAHN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

Petitioners,

US.

CITIZENS FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, doing business

as PASADENA CITIZENS FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT,

Dace L. GRONEMEIER, CHRISTOPHER A. SUTTON, and

Ozro ANDERSON,

Respondents.

On PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CALIFORNIA

CourT OF APPEAL, SECOND DitsTRICT, DIVISION ONE

Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae and Brief

of the International Council of Shopping Centers,

Inc., and California Business Properties Association

as Amici Curiae, in Support of the Petitioners

EDWARD J. SACK

665 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10022

(212) 421-8181

Counsel for the International

Council of Shopping Centers, Inc.

JoANNE M. BERNHARD

827 J Street

Sacramento, California 95814

(916) 442-4908

Counsel for California Business

Properties Association

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Motion of International Council of Shopping Cen-

ters, Inc., and California Business Properties Asso-

ciation for Leave to file Brief Amici Curiae ......

Brief of the International Council of Shopping Cen-

ters, Inc., and California Business Properties Asso-

ciation as Amici Curiae, in Support of the Peti-

PPPOE OP EPS Te TT TEE EY PET ECET TET EEE

DEE Ge ES CPE oo vk vce bcccccccciwsses

ARGUMENT

Point I—The issues in this case are of great impor-

tance to shopping centers in California and their

Pe DC oe RRP en ea er Oe eee

Point II—The Pruneyard case should be reconsid-

ered in light of developments since 1980 .........

Ce a hie whewaes

ApPreNnDIx A—Extract from the Wisconsin Shopping

SN Sieh ese Ka sesoes cau Vbgereedeesne

APPENDIX B—Extract from: Sacramento Union, Mon-

ae reer Tere Te ETeTererer

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Cited:

Alderwood Associates v. Washington Environmental

Council, 96 Wash 2d 230, 635 P. 2d 108 (1981) ....

Batchelder v. Allied Stores International, Inc., et al.

383 Mass. 83, 445 N.E.2d 590 (1983) .............

Californians Against Waste Campaign Committee et

al. v. H & K Associates, Inc. et al., Superior Ct.

Sacramento Cty., No. 300294 (12/15/81) .........

la

8a

ll TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cologne et al. v. Westfarms Associates et al., Su-

perior Ct. Hartford-New Britain Dist., No. 274171

(8/13/83), modified on appeal, 192 Conn. 48, 469

AB TORE CI bh kn eh cake eens ican beds cseee 6, 7

EMI Santa Rosa Limited Partnership v. Sonoma

County Nuclear Freeze Campaign, etc. et al., Su-

perior Ct. Sonoma Cty. No. 133547 (6/6/84)...... 4

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale

v. County of Los Angeles, ___U.S. —_, 107 S.Ct.

SET CIR) a ccaccscnineacneaonceeeecekeineteas’ 8

Horton Plaza Associates v. Playing for Real Theatre,

184 Cal. App. 3d 10 (1986), appeal denied, opinion

TOP PE ere ee per rere 4

Jacobs v. Major, 132 Wisc. 2d 82, 407 N.W. 2d 832

(TOG) o oscncevciechesscahacee eens 7

Noles et al. v. Northridge Fashion Center, Inc. et al.,

Calif. Ct. of Appeal, 2d Dist., No. 61058 (9/29/82) 4

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, —__U.S.

ae Fe Se tt ee eer ee 8

North Carolina v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173, 273 S.E. 2d

FOB CADE i had dd cannnsdandien characte 7

Pruneyard Shopping Center et al. v. Robins et al.,

67 UB. FS Ge ck cies sanendaakeeneesireas 4,5,7

SHAD Alliance et al. v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.

2d 486, 466 NE. 2d 1211 CEBGRD iin ee nan cc kse cee 7

Western Pennsylvania Socialist Workers 1982 Cam-

paign et al. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance

Company, Pa. ,515 A. 2d 1331 (1986) ...... 7

Woodland v. Michigan Citizens Lobby, 423 Mich. 188,

S70 NW, 00 O08 GRID kw sca sc cos 7

ee eee ee ee ee eet Am.

ne. erates cca eet RL RR AS ad

swede

Ae Fe he Oe Bi A «im

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM 1987

H-CHH AssociaTEs, doing business as PLAZA PASADENA,

and HAHN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

Petitioners,

US.

CITIZENS FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, doing business

as PASADENA CITIZENS FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT,

DALE L. GRONEMEIER, CHRISTOPHER A. SUTTON, and

Ozro ANDERSON,

Respondents.

On PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CALIFORNIA

Court OF APPEAL, SECOND District, DivisIoN ONE

Motion of International Council of Shopping Centers,

Inc., and California Business Properties Association

for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae

Pursuant to Rule 42(3) of the Rules of this Court,

International Council of Shopping Centers, Inc. (ICSC), and

California Business Properties Association (CBPA) respect-

fully move the Court for leave to file a brief amici curiae in

the above entitled case. Counsel for petitioners has granted

its consent and its letter of consent has been filed with the

Office of the-Clerk of this Court. Counsel for respondents

has not replied to movant’s letter requesting consent.

ICSC and CBPA are trade organizations representing

shopping center owners, developers, retailers, investors, prop-

erty managers, and all others having a professional or

business interest in the shopping center industry not only in

California, but throughout the country. The members of

these organizations are concerned with the diminution of

private property rights. The issues presented in the above

2

entitled case bear a direct relationship to that concern. Public

access to shopping center property, for purposes other than

its intended use, continues to be argued and litigated and the

ruling of this case creates additional burdens to all members

of the shopping center industry and to its customers and

patrons.

ICSC and CBPA each serve as a clearinghouse for infor-

mation in the areas of shopping center development and

operation which information will be relevant to the disposi-

tion of this case and will provide this Court with the overall

shopping center industry perspective rather than just one

particular instance.

For the foregoing reasons of interest, resulting impact,

relevancy, and additional available information, ICSC and

CBPA respectfully move that this Court grant leave to file a

brief amici curiae, which brief is included herein.

DaTEp: February 25, 1988

Respectfully submitted,

EDWARD J. SACK

665 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10022

(212) 421-8181

Counsel for the Internationai

Council of Shopping Centers, Inc.

JOANNE M. BERNHARD

827 J Street

Sacramento, California 95814

(916) 442-4908

Counsel for California Business

Properties Association

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

ln nO ite Tra a

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1987

H-CHH AssociaTes, doing business as PLAZA PASADENA,

and HAHN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

Petitioners,

US.

CITIZENS FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, doing business

as PASADENA CITIZENS FOR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT,

DALE L. GRONEMEIER, CHRISTOPHER A. SUTTON, and

Ozro ANDERSON,

Respondents.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CALIFORNIA

CourT OF APPEAL, SECOND DisTrRICT, Divis1ON ONE

Brief of the International Council of Shopping Centers,

Inc., and California Business Properties Association

as Amici Curiae, in Support of the Petitioners

Interest of the Amici Curiae

The International Council of Shopping Centers, Inc.

(ICSC), is the trade association of the shopping center

industry. Members of the ICSC, consisting of shopping

center developers, retailers, investors, managers and all others

having a professional or business interest in the shopping

center industry, are engaged in the day-to-day activities of

designing, planning, constructing, managing, financing,

developing, leasing and owning shopping centers and their

retail stores. ICSC has approximately 24,000 members, repre-

senting a large majority of the over 28,500 shopping centers

in the United States. ICSC has over 4,000 members in the

state of California, representing most of the 3,320 shopping

centers in California, many of which are directly affected by

the decision below.

4

The California Business Properties Association (CBPA)

represents in excess of 4,000 members, all in California,

many of whom are involved with shopping centers as

developers, retailers, investors, etc., as described above for

ICSC. Many of CBPA’s members own or operate shopping

centers directly affected by the decision below.

Facts

ICSC and CBPA refer the Court to the Brief of the

Petitioners for a statement of the facts of this case, and that

statement is incorporated herein by reference.

ARGUMENT

POINT I

The issues in this case are of great importance to

shopping centers in California and their customers.

After this Court’s decision in the Pruneyard case,' Cali-

fornia shopping centers have been struggling to comply

with the requirements to allow solicitations for political

purposes under reasonable rules and regulations. This has

resulted in a great deal of confusion and litigation concerning

such matters as the nght to conduct a theatrical representa-

tion of the war in Central America,? whether the Hare

Krishna could conduct their customary activities in a shop-

ping center,’ the radius from a table that solicitors must stay

within,‘ and whether petitioners can sell literature.> These

oS ea as Shopping Center et al. v. Robins et al., 447 U.S. 74

(1980).

* Horton Plaza Associates v. Playing for Real Theatre, 184 Cal.

App. 3d 10 (1986), appeal denied, opinion de-published.

3 Noles et al. v. Nort Fashion Center, Inc. et al., Calif. Ct.

of Appeal, 2d Dist., No. 61058 (9/29/82).

* Californians Against Waste Campaign Committee et al. v. H &

Syne s, Inc. et al., Superior Ct. Sacramento Cty., No. 300294

(12/15/81).

5 EMI Santa Rosa Limited Partnership v. Sonoma County

Nuclear Freeze Campaign, etc. et al., Superior Ct. Sonoma Cty.

No. 133547 (6/6/84).

5

are but a few examples of the many kinds of litigation that

have beset malls in California.

The absence of clear guidance is of great importance, not

only to shopping center owners and managers, but to the

customers of the centers. ICSC estimates that approximately

13 million individuals visit a regional mall in California

every month. They come there to shop, and many object to

unwanted interference from political solicitors.

The Wisconsin Survey Research Laboratory of the Uni-

versity of Wisconsin conducted a public opinion survey of

Wisconsin residents on this issue, sponsored by ICSC. The

survey found that 67% of those surveyed believed special

interest (political) groups should not be allowed to ask for

signatures on petitions in shopping centers. 38% said they

would avoid that part of a center where a group (ranging

from Boy Scouts to anti- or pro-abortion) was conducting

activities; 24% would reduce their shopping time in such an

event; and 23% would find another shopping center. This

amounts to a substantial interference with the business of a

shopping center. Polls in other parts of the country showed

similar results. (An extract from the Wisconsin survey is

annexed hereto as Appendix A.)

The court below noted the “dearth of authority which

provides any form of guidance as to the type of regulation

which is valid.” * The court below then proceeded to develop

its Own criteria for these regulations. ICSC and CBPA

submit that there is a substantial question as to the validity

of the “‘least restrictive means” criterion adopted by the court

below. This Court in its Pruneyard decision made it clear

that its finding of no taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth

amendments to the U.S. Constitution was based on the

decision of the California Supreme Court allowing restric-

tions On expressive activity by regulations “that will mini-

mize any interference with [the shopping center’s] com-

mercial functions.” ’

® Appendix A to Petitioner's brief, p. A20.

: ’ — Shopping Center et al. v. Robins et al., supra, note

at p. 83.

6

This standard requires a balancing of the California

constitutional protections for speech against the shopping

center owner's rights to protect its business (and its tenants’

businesses) from interference. This Court required an even-

handed balancing of these two competing interests. The

standard formulated by the court below, however, requiring

the least restrictive means, weights the balance in favor of the

speech rights. This appears to be inconsistent with the

standard approved by this Court in Pruneyard which re-

quires, at the minimum, an even-handed balance.

If there is any bias, it would appear to be in favor of the

shopping center by the use of the word “minimize” to

describe the permissible interference with commercial functions.

If the court had said “reasonable interference” or “acceptable

interference,” that would imply an even balancing. The use

of the term “minimum interference” indicates that any

weighting of the balance should be in favor of the shopping

center because of the unusual intrusion into its rights by

California law. The standard adopted by the court below is

directly contrary to the minimum interference concept ap-

proved by this Court.

The instant case illustrates the need for Supreme Court

review of the applicable criteria for rules and regulations

which minimize interference with commercial functions of a

shopping center. The court below, in applying its “least

restrictive” rule, required objective regulations and eliminated

all judgmental factors because they presented a potential for

improper, content-related restrictions. The notion that objec-

tive rules can be drafted to cover all possible situations is, we

submit, an impossible goal. If it could be achieved, the result

would be a list of regulations so voluminous and cumber-

some as to be difficult to comprehend and apply.

Examples of events which could not have been anticipated

but have occurred in shopping centers include a riot protest-

ing a threatened Ku Klux Klan registration drive’ and an

* Cologne et al. v. Westfarms Associates et al., Super or Ct

Hartford-New Britain Dist., No. 274171 (8/13/83), modified on

appeal, 192 Conn. 48, 469 A.2d 1201 (1984).

nae tne a amet ats set

7

“anti-war dance” with a simulated death by nuclear war.’

These unexpected events resulted in a substantial interference

with the business of the shopping center on the days they

occurred.

POINT Il

The Pruneyard case should be reconsidered in

light of developments since 1980.

In the eight years since the Supreme Court decided the

Pruneyard case, litigation has occurred throughout the coun-

try on this issue. ICSC and CBPA respectfully submit that

this extensive litigation requires reconsideration by the

Supreme Court of its original decision.

In Pruneyard, this Court said that the State of California

could require public access to a shopping center for political

petitioning under reasonable rules and regulations without

violating the center owner’s constitutional rights.'® Since

that decision, this issue has been considered by the highest

courts of eight states. Six states specifically rejected the

California concept.'!' Two states followed California but

only to a limited extent. !?

The six high state courts which rejected the Pruneyard

rule basically took the position that the purpose of a

constitution is to prescribe the relationship of government to

® Jacobs v. Major, 132 Wisc. 2d 82, 407 N.W. 2d 832 (1987).

© Pruneyard Shopping Center et al. v. Robins et al., supra.

\! North Carolina v. Felmet, 302 N.C. 173, 273 S.E. 2d 708

(1981); 1 ¥ et al. v. Westfarms Associates et al., 192 Conn. 48,

469 A.2d 1201 (1984); Woodland v. Michigan Citizens Lobby, 423

Mich. 188, 378 N.W. 2d 337 (1985); SHAD Alliance et al. v. Smith

Haven Mall, 66 N.Y. 2d 496, 488 N.E. 2d 1211 (1985); Western

Pennsylvania Socialist Workers 1982 Campaign et al. v. Connectt-

cut General Life Insurance Company, —— Pa. ——, 515 A. 2d

1331 (1986); Jacobs v. Major, supra.

12 Alderwood Associates v. Washington Environmental Council,

96 Wash 2d 230, 635 P. 2d 108 (1981), solicitation of signatures on

initiative petitions only; Batchelder v. Allied Stores International,

Inc., et al. 383 Mass. 83, 445 N.E.2d 590 (1983), solicitation of

signatures on nominating petitions only.

8

the people, not relationships among individuals. California,

by permitting its state constitution to be used to allow some

individuals to assert rights against others, has adopted an

unusual constitutional theory.

Although the facts presented in Pruneyard were simply a

tew students soliciting petitions, this has now mushroomed

into a substantial interference with the business of shopping

centers. As noted in petitioners’ brief, the mere implementa-

tion of the rules and regulations prescribed by the court

below imposes a substantial burden on a shopping center. It

also should be noted that the few students have become

many different groups, including some that use paid solici-

tors to obtain signatures in shopping centers. !°

Shopping center developers have created valuable proper-

ties. By forcing centers to make these properties available to

certain groups, for their own purposes unrelated to the

business of the center, California has taken property without

compensation within the meaning of recent decisions of this

Court.!4

13 Sacramento Union, August 6, 1984, p. Al-2. (Extract annexed

as Appendix B).

4 First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v.

County of Los Angeles, __U.S. —_, 107 S.Ct. 2378 (1987);

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, ___U.S. —_, 107 S.Ct.

3141 (1987).

9

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the petition for certiorari raises

substantial questions of federal law which require

review by this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward J. Sack

665 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10022

— (212) 421-8181

Counsel for the International

Council of Shopping Centers, Inc.

JoANNE M. BERNHARD

827 J Street

Sacramento, California 95814

(916) 442-4908

Counsel for California Business

Properties Association

—_—_

—_-_eFe}|/\|«-—-—---——

ee —

=

—

*

la

Appendix A

Extract from the Wisconsin Shopping Center Survey

University of Wisconsin-Extension

Wisconsin Survey Research Laboratory March 18, 1985

THE WISCONSIN SHOPPING CENTER SURVEY

Introduction

The data presented in this report were obtained from

956 telephone interviews completed with randomly selected

adults throughout the State of Wisconsin during the last

two weeks of January, 1985. The research, sponsored by

the International Council of Shopping Centers, was carried

out by the University of Wisconsin’s Survey Research

Laboratory.

Section A contains: 1) the actual questions as they were

asked during the interviews, 2) percentaged frequency

distributions of all coded responses to each question, and

3) general conclusions that may be derived from the

statistical findings.

Section B describes in some detail the methodological

procedures used in this research, with emphasis on the

development of the interview schedule and interviewing

requirements. All aspects of the shopping center survey

were designed to meet or exceed the highest standards of

survey research.

A description of the random digit dialing telephone

sample design used in the research, and a final response

rate report comprise Section C.

A copy of the interview schedule used in the survey is

appended to the report.

2a

SECTION A. BASIC RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

THE WISCONSIN SHOPPING CENTER SURVEY

Statistical Validity and Sampling Error

Given the care exercised in the selection of the sample

and high response rate, the number of completed inter-

views upon which these findings are based represents a

statistically valid survey—within known limits of sampling

error—of the attitudes and behavior of the adult residents

of Wisconsin.

Any sample survey. will contain sampling error. While

it is certainly true that the smaller the sample size, the

larger the sampling error, it is also true that the degree to

which error is present in a survey is dependent on many

things in addition to sample size. Assuming, however, that

the survey is carefully done (as was the Wisconsin shopping

center survey), the statistical margin for error for an

operation yielding 956 completed interviews is approxi-

mately plus or minus 3 percentage points at the .95 level

of significance.

For example, this survey found that 44 percent of the

respondents believe management should have the right to

determine which groups are allowed in the center (question

18). A sampling error of + 3 percentage points at the .95

level of significance indicates that 95 percent of the time

no more than 47 percent and no less than 41 percent of the

respondents believe that management should have this

right.

The statement that a given relationship reported in the

data is “‘statistically significant’? means that it cannot

reasonably be attributed to chance variations due to sampl-

ing error. Thus, in the above example from question 18,

the difference is statistically significant between the percent-

age of respondents who believe the centers should be open

to all (37 percent), and those who feel management should

have the right to determine which groups use the centers

(44 percent). In this sense, it is statistically “valid” to

eT ee TT ee eee

3a

conclude that Wisconsin adults are somewhat more likely

to support management determination of shopping center

use (as measured by question 18) than to favor an open

policy for all special interest groups.

Basic Results and Conclusion

As presented below, the exact question asked during the

interview is reproduced above the percentaged frequency

distribution of responses to that question. The absolute

number of cases (i.e., interviews) upon which each distri-

bution is based is given at the bottom of that distribution.

All percentages shown here were computed after the

removal of ‘‘not ascertained”’ entries and were rounded to

the nearest whole number.

Q-1. In this survey, we define a shopping center as a group

of stores anchored by a department store, supermarket,

or discount store, and providing off-street parking. In

a typical month, how many times—if ever—do you

visit a shopping center?

Sex Number of visits to a shopping

Female Male All center in a typical month.

7% 8% 7% Less than once a month

15 16 15 One

15 16 15 Two

8 9 9 Three

18 19 18 Four

13 18 15 Five to seven

1] 9 10 Eight to ten

13 © Bae - | Eleven or more

100% 100% 100% Total

567 383 945 Number of cases

About one-half of all adults in Wisconsin visit shopping

centers more than three times a month, and one out of

every ten adults goes there more than ten times each

month. Not surprisingly, women go to centers more often

4a

than men, but even about one-third of the men visit

shopping centers at least five times a month.*

ae + *

Q-6. Do you feel that special interest groups—that is,

groups on one side or the other of some public

issue—should or should not be allowed to present

their views publicly in shopping centers?

Sex Special Interest Groups:

Female Male All Discuss views

41% 34% 39% Should be allowed

47 56 5] Should not be allowed

12 9 10 Depends/Don’t know

100% 99% 100% Total

570- 384 954 Number of cases

One-half of all adults do not approve the use of the

shopping centers by special interest groups (i.e., groups

on one side or the other of some public issue). Somewhat

over a third (38 percent) support the use of the centers by

these groups, and one-tenth of all respondents are un-

decided as to how they feel on the issue. There is some

perhaps unexpected evidence that men are more in opposi-

tion than women to the presence of special interest groups

in shopping centers.

* All differences specifically cited in this report between types

of respondents are statistically significant.

5a

Q-6b. Do you feel these special interest groups should or

should not be allowed to ask for signatures on peti-

tions in shopping centers?

Sex Special Interest Groups:

Female Male All _ Ask for signatures

32% 30% 31% Should be allowed

66 69 67 Should not be allowed

2 ae - Depends/Don’t know

100% 100% 100% Total

569 385 954 Number of cases

Opposition against permitting special interest groups to

ask for signatures on petitions in shopping centers is

strong among Wisconsin’s citizens; two-thirds of all adults

believe these groups should not be allowed to do this. Men

and women are in agreement on this point.

6a

Q-7 to Q-12._ If you were in a shopping center and

someone from any of the groups I’ll name

wanted to discuss the group’s views with

you personally, how would you feel? For

example, would it bother you or not if

someone from (THE Group NAMED BELOw)

wanted to talk to you in the center?

Would (Group) Bother Respondent?

Number

Group Yes No Depends Total of Cases

Q-7. the Boy Scouts 25% 72 3 100% 953

Q-8. a charity or church 41% 55 3 99% 947

Q-9. a service group, like

the “yond. g E 31% 65 4 100% 952

Q.10. supporters of a candi-

date for public office 46% 52 2 100% 953

Q.11. an anti or pro-

abortion group 55% 42 3 100% 954

Q-12. an anti or pro-

nuclear bomb group 52% 45 3 100% 954

As should be expected from the preceding discussion,

the extent to which Wisconsin residents object to the

presence of private groups in shopping centers varies

according to the nature of the group, but even the Boy

Scouts receive some opposition. For example, one-quarter

of all adults state that they would be “bothered” if a

representative of the Boy Scouts wanted to discuss that

group’s views with them in a shopping center.

The proportion of those who object to this type of contact

in centers increases as the groups change from Boy Scouts to

service groups, to charities or churches, to supporters of

political candidates. Finally, the presence in shopping centers

of groups that represent different positions on abortion or

the use of nuclear power would “bother” about one-half of

all adults in Wisconsin.

Available data indicate that men and women have very

similar views about the extent to which these groups

=

g

SOP eaten ke ETN, ARO ET GRMN ETS EE

7a

would or would not interfere with their normal shopping

patterns.

Q-13. All in all, would the presence of groups like this

in some part of a shopping center cause you to

avoid that part of the center, or not?

Q-14. Would it cause you to cut down on your shopping

time?

Q-15. ... to find another shopping center?

Sex by: Would the Presence of Groups Like These

in a Shopping Center Cause Respondents to...

Avoid that part Reduce their Find another

of the center? shopping time? shopping center?

Response Female Male All Female Male All Female Male All ~

5 No

: Number of

Cases

36% 40% 38% 22% 27% 24% 20% 29% 23%

50 43 47 70 65 68 72 63 ~=—s«68

} Depends/

| Don’t know 14 * ae 8 8 8 8 8 9

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

570 386 956 569 386 955 569 386 955

The presence of objectionable groups in a shopping

center would most likely result in a number of shoppers

(38 percent) simply avoiding the groups by avoiding that

part of the center where the groups are found. Less likely

reactions, given by not quite one-quarter of the respond-

ents, would be either a reduction in total shopping time or

even going to a different shopping center where, presum-

ably, the groups are absent.

The tendency for men to react somewhat more negatively

than women to the presence of special interest groups in

centers is seen again in the above findings. Although the

differences by sex are not large, a consistently higher

percentage of men than women would take some action to

avoid contact with these groups.

* * *

8a

Appendix B

Extract from: Sacramento Union,

Monday, August 8, 1984

Masters of name game

get bills on the ballot

By Anne Richards

Sacramento Union Capitol Bureau

“If we are given 150 days,

we can qualify anything,” said

Fred Kimball confidently.

Sobering thought, consider-

ing Kimball is the premier

entrepreneur of the paid sig-

nature gatherers.

You can see his troops in

the spring of an election year

fanning out in the shopping

centers and asking for your

signature on the latest initia-

tive.

Kimball is one of a group

of highly paid, savvy profes-

sionals who make up the in-

itiative industry.

For money — ranging up

to a million dollars — this

interlocking group of busines-

ses will take an issue, run it

through a legal and financial

gauntlet, and put in on the

ballot for approval by Cali-

fornia voters.

Whether the issue is lottery

or welfare, marijuana or the

Peripheral Canal, the initia-

tive entrepreneurs have mas-

tered the tangle of election

law, money manipulation and

influence gathering needed to

make law — the way the

client wants it.

Groups using the initiative

to legislate have boosted the

number of citizen-initiated

measures by 600 percent na-

tionwide in the last 15 years,

said David Schmidt, editor

of “Initiative News Report,”

which is based in Washing-

ton, D.C.

In California alone in

1984, proponents launched

29 initiatives, of which one

gained a spot on the June

primary ballot and seven

will appear on the Novem-

ber ballot.