By June, the United States Supreme Court will rule whether unions in Washington state may use funds of nonmembers on political activity. Meanwhile, lawmakers in the Washington Legislature are attempting to undermine the teachers who are bringing the case.

In Washington state, while no one is forced to join a union, nonmember workers can be required to pay “agency shop” fees if a union represents their workplace. But, according to state law, unions must get permission from individual nonmembers in order to use those mandatory fees for political purposes. The law protects nonmembers from involuntarily funding political activity, particularly if they disagree with the union’s agenda.

The Washington Education Association ran afoul of this law in 2001 when a trial court fined the union $590,375 for violations to which the union stipulated. The union appealed. The state Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, that the unions could use fees for political purposes without getting the permission of individuals, and that it was too burdensome on the union to obtain such permission. Then the state attorney general appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in January, consolidating his case with that of a group of concerned teachers seeking to recoup their union fees.

The questions of the U.S. Supreme Court justices indicated a possible ruling in favor of the law limiting use of nonmembers’ fees. At least four justices asked how the Washington law could be unconstitutional when past court decisions have allowed even broader regulation of unions. When the Washington Education Association lawyer replied that nonmember rights are “fully protected” under current case law, Justice Souter asked “why can’t the State protect it more?”

Justice Kennedy repeatedly scolded the union lawyer for ignoring the rights of teachers. He said, “It seems to me that Washington acted quite properly in saying we will use this mechanism in order to protect our workers’ First Amendment constitutional rights.” Most of the other justices seemed to agree. At the close of the hearing, most legal experts predicted a win for individual teachers.

The bill before the Washington Legislature, drafted by the Washington Education Association in anticipation of an adverse ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, would allow unions to use nonmember workers’ money on political activity without getting permission from individuals. The legislation provides that agency fees — the dues of nonmembers — are not considered as used for political purposes if the union has income from other sources to cover the political expenses. If, for example, agency fees comprise about 10% of a union’s overall funds, the legislation would permit a union to use up to 90% of its funds on political activity without obtaining individuals’ permission, for technically, the union is not touching the money of nonmembers.

This effort demonstrates the lengths to which union officials will go to avoid accountability to their members. Perhaps for good reason, as organized labor’s numbers have been plummeting for decades with the U.S. Department of Labor reporting in January that the number of union members is at a record low.

The union claims the state legislation will make it easier to comply with the law. But relying on the scofflaw union to define compliance is like asking Enron to write good accounting procedures, or having Bobby Knight teach an anger management course. Further, the sponsors attached an emergency clause to the bill, which allows the legislation to take effect immediately and insulates it from a people’s referendum. In Washington state, voters may repeal acts of the Legislature in a referendum. The clause states: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions.”

Since when is bailing out union bosses a state emergency? This bill demonstrates an appalling contempt for the free speech rights of teachers and other workers. The union claims the law is “murky,” when actually any first-grader could understand it: You must get permission first before taking something that doesn’t belong to you.

Workers should not be forced to pay for political activity against their will.

Mr. Reitz is legal counsel and director of labor policy for the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a nonpartisan, public-policy organization in Olympia.