CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A Morgantown-based anti-abortion group has filed a legal objection in federal court to West Virginia's new political advertising laws, claiming they wrongly prevent the organization from advocating its position to potential voters.

On Tuesday, West Virginians For Life Inc. filed a 51-page complaint asking U.S. District Judge Thomas E. Johnston to declare the new election laws unconstitutional. The filing asks Johnston to grant an injunction preventing election officials from enforcing the new laws, which went into effect Oct. 1.

Shirley Stanton, the group's president, said the new law wrongly defines the group's efforts as "express advocacy," or overt support or disapproval of a specific candidate.

"We are an issue advocacy group," she said, "and if we say vote pro-life, that's our issue."

In an effort to educate voters, the group should be able to circulate petitions, send mass mailings and air radio ads that describe an official's or candidate's positions, she said.

James Bopp Jr., an Indiana lawyer who is representing the organization, said the new law limits his client's rights to free speech because it is afraid to publicize former state Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman's authorship of a 1993 ruling that made the state pay for abortions for Medicaid recipients.

Workman, a Democrat from Charleston, is running for one of two seats on the court, as are Republican Beth Walker and Democrat Menis Ketchum.

"We're objecting to being regulated in any way by this law," Bopp said. "We don't want to be prohibited, we don't want to file [financial] reports, we don't want to do anything under this law."

Bopp said he filed the lawsuit just as the law went into effect - with barely more than a month to go before the election - because West Virginians for Life didn't have legal standing until it was harmed by having its free speech curtailed.

If the Legislature had made the new law go into effect after the election, both sides would have had plenty of time to argue their case before the next election, he said.

"Instead, they hurried up to stomp out people's speech before this election, so we have to deal with it," he said.

A hearing is set for Oct. 8 in Charleston.

Charleston attorney Anthony Majestro, who represents Workman in the matter, said it was improper of the group to try to force the judge to rule on the issue before the election.

"Litigation over these disclosure rules has been ongoing since before the primary, and the case has received substantial publicity, both locally and nationally," he said. "We believe their aim is to rush the federal court into enjoining the provisions of West Virginia law without giving the state and candidates an adequate opportunity to defend the provisions."

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A Morgantown-based anti-abortion group has filed a legal objection in federal court to West Virginia's new political advertising laws, claiming they wrongly prevent the organization from advocating its position to potential voters.

On Tuesday, West Virginians For Life Inc. filed a 51-page complaint asking U.S. District Judge Thomas E. Johnston to declare the new election laws unconstitutional. The filing asks Johnston to grant an injunction preventing election officials from enforcing the new laws, which went into effect Oct. 1.

Shirley Stanton, the group's president, said the new law wrongly defines the group's efforts as "express advocacy," or overt support or disapproval of a specific candidate.

"We are an issue advocacy group," she said, "and if we say vote pro-life, that's our issue."

In an effort to educate voters, the group should be able to circulate petitions, send mass mailings and air radio ads that describe an official's or candidate's positions, she said.

James Bopp Jr., an Indiana lawyer who is representing the organization, said the new law limits his client's rights to free speech because it is afraid to publicize former state Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman's authorship of a 1993 ruling that made the state pay for abortions for Medicaid recipients.

Workman, a Democrat from Charleston, is running for one of two seats on the court, as are Republican Beth Walker and Democrat Menis Ketchum.

"We're objecting to being regulated in any way by this law," Bopp said. "We don't want to be prohibited, we don't want to file [financial] reports, we don't want to do anything under this law."

Bopp said he filed the lawsuit just as the law went into effect - with barely more than a month to go before the election - because West Virginians for Life didn't have legal standing until it was harmed by having its free speech curtailed.

If the Legislature had made the new law go into effect after the election, both sides would have had plenty of time to argue their case before the next election, he said.

"Instead, they hurried up to stomp out people's speech before this election, so we have to deal with it," he said.

A hearing is set for Oct. 8 in Charleston.

Charleston attorney Anthony Majestro, who represents Workman in the matter, said it was improper of the group to try to force the judge to rule on the issue before the election.

"Litigation over these disclosure rules has been ongoing since before the primary, and the case has received substantial publicity, both locally and nationally," he said. "We believe their aim is to rush the federal court into enjoining the provisions of West Virginia law without giving the state and candidates an adequate opportunity to defend the provisions."

Majestro said he plans to ask the judge to postpone ruling on the matter until after the election.

One of the most contentious elements of the new law is the provision that requires third-party groups to disclose their funding sources if they run political ads referring to a specific candidate within 60 days of the election. This applies to all media except leaflets, fliers and outdoor ads that are not billboards.

"West Virginians For Life claims to be a grass-roots organization of nonbusiness, nonunion little people. If that's true, what is the harm to them of disclosing who their contributors are?" Majestro said. "That's why we believe it's important to allow us [adequate time] to do discovery to see who is really going to fund these ads."

 Bopp maintained that West Virginia's disclosure requirements are unconstitutional and have a chilling effect on their speech.

"It is inherent that [disclosure] will chill the organizations and inhibit their ability to conduct their affairs, because donors [will be] afraid that they will be harassed and intimidated by public officials" for supporting positions contrary to theirs, he said.

The lawsuit raises similar issues to one filed by the Center for Individual Freedom, a Virginia-based advocacy group that lobbied the court successfully for an injunction in April. U.S. District Judge David A. Faber concluded that West Virginia's election laws were too vague, and had a chilling effect on the Center's First Amendment rights.

Last month, Faber lifted his injunction in the CFIF case because the Legislature had changed the state's election laws during a special session over the summer. Because his injunction was tailored toward the old law, any consideration of the new law must start from scratch.

The center immediately appealed the judge's decision to the 4th Circuit of Appeals.

On Friday, Faber denied the center's request that he not lift the injunction until after the appeal had been decided.

Like the center's lawsuit, West Virginians For Life's complaint names Secretary of State Betty Ireland and Mercer County Prosecutor Timothy Boggess (as a stand-in for all the state's prosecutors) as defendants.

In the center's lawsuit, the West Virginia Education Association, the West Virginia American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and three candidates for Supreme Court joined the secretary of state in fighting the injunction. Multiple organizations filed friend of the court briefs on their behalf.

Thus far, only Workman has intervened on Ireland's side in the West Virginians for Life case.

Reach Andrew Clevenger at acleven...@wvgazette.com or 348-1723.