October 29, 2009
Top Court enters Washington marriage petition debate
By Oregon Faith Report,
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked Washington state officials from releasing the names and addresses of those who signed a petition referring gay rights legislation to the November ballot. The ruling temporarily blocks a federal appeals court ruling that had ordered the release of the names. The Supreme Court order will remain in effect while it considers whether to involve itself in the matter.
The Washington state legislature passed a domestic partnership law for same-sex couples during its last session. A group called Protect Marriage Washington circulated a petition, Referendum 71, which would repeal that law. The group has been fighting the state to keep the names of the petitioners confidential, asserting that signers have a constitutional right to partake in politics privately if they face a threat of harassment from political opponents.
The group turned to the court after one gay-rights activist threatened to post the names of signers on his website, just as activists have done in at least three other states, including California with its similar Proposition 8 measure. The group said signers of the petition fear hostile confrontations and harassment from gay rights supporters and noted that their campaign manager had received death threats.
Larry Stickney, a leader of Protect Marriage Washington, told HeraldNet.com that he considers the Supreme Court’s ruling a big win. “The names and addresses and other personal information certainly won’t be getting out before Election Day.”
Back in September, U.S. District Court temporarily had barred state officials from releasing the identities of those who signed the referendum petition ruling that releasing the names would infringe on their First Amendment rights. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then reversed the decision.
Secretary of State Sam Reed said Tuesday he agrees with the reasoning of the 9th Circuit and wants to see the issue clarified as to what his office can and cannot release. “The Supreme Court is simply preserving the status quo while opponents of disclosure get their full day in court, and we respect that,” Reed said in a statement according to HeraldNet.com.
State attorneys argue the petitions are public records and that signing a petition for a referendum or initiative that qualifies for a ballot is a legislative act and voters are entitled to know who is behind such measures. They also contend that there’s little evidence of threats or harassment amounting to more than a few rude phone calls.
State officials say they are concerned that if petition information is protected from public disclosure, then other open government laws—like divulging who contributes to political campaigns—could also be challenged on similar grounds.
However, Bruce Chapman, a former Washington Secretary of State and a former Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, told ProtectMarriageWa.com that the disclosure of the names could “chill democracy” in the state. “We don’t make the votes of people public, we don’t make how jurors vote public and we keep Census data private for 70 years,” he said. “Ordinary people are now advised that their privacy is to be set aside in the same way that politicians’ privacy was set aside years ago.”
Print This Post
Email This Post
Discuss this article
October 29, 2009
Oregon it is public info. Why not?
October 29, 2009
I do hope the court block stands up. If people have to fear those who oppose them, I think we should protect the signers, no matter what their position is. Radicals on any side of an issue can be dangerous.
October 29, 2009
According to scripture the gay lifestyle is a sin. While God hates sin, he does love the sinner, otherwise where would all of us be. Let’s pray that Protect Marriage Washington are successful in their efforts and some souls are saved.
October 29, 2009
The signatures should not be released, but the other information should be. Otherwise, here’s how to gin up your own initiative/referendum:
1) get signatures from a previous initiative – they’re already available
2) Copy them onto new petition sheets. The signatures don’t have to be perfect, since the state looks to validate, not reject signatures (check the secretary of state’s blog on 71 – the checkers aren’t experts)
3) make sure the names are kept secret so people can’t verify whether their signatures were forged.
October 30, 2009
Um, why should the names of petition signers be public? Why is it anyone’s business but my own?
That’s ridiculous.
October 30, 2009
The signatures should be public records, but there should be a time bar similar to the census data. Maybe 10 years. The Washington State legislature should set the rules regarding release of this information.
October 30, 2009
I belie this is unconstitutional for the U.S. Courts to do. That said, if the Courts do this, they just cause more ire to them. That’s not good for the country.
October 30, 2009
According to the scripture, divorce and adultery are sins. We should not only pray for those sinners, we should take away their civil rights too. Fair is fair.
October 31, 2009
Signing a petition is not like voting. It is assisting in the promotion of a political point of view more like campaign contributions, which I believe are public record. Most of the promoters of Prop 8 in California weren’t even from the state. I commend the Supreme Court and hope they reverse themselves when they’ve heard all the arguments.
November 1, 2009
Political petitions should have a separate column for people to tick off a box. In this case it could be labelled ‘I am a cowardly homophobe with massive hatred issues towards people I do not understand. I wish to remain hidden from all consequences of my ignorance, and force my viewpoints on the rest of the country while remaining anonymous and safe from any kind of reprisals.’
Seriously. A petition is a list of signatures that is meant to show how many different people agree. If nobody is allowed to read the names on them, then how is anybody supposed to know if they are real signatures? Anybody could pad their petitions with the names of the fake. And they will – they absolutely will. Gay rights will be destroyed, marriage will be a requirement for citizenship, and church will be mandatory every morning…all before any ‘names’ are released for verification.
And isn’t the point of a petition that you want to have your specific personal voice HEARD? How do these idiots figure anonymity will fit in with this idea?
November 1, 2009
I’ve never signed a petition I’m ashamed to admit to. The very point of signing a petition is to speak out publicly in favor of or against something.
November 2, 2009
The problem with the fear of opposition argument is that, if the rights are taken away, those people will again fear for THEIR safety.
At the same time, while same sex marriage may OFFEND you, it does not decrease your safety.
Other comments have presented inclusive arguments as well, so I’ll just offer this:
There are lots of things I find offensive that also cause harm: war, thievery, exploitation, etc.
You have the right to believe what you believe, but not the right to tell someone else what to believe.
Taking away the rights for same-gender unions impinges on the rights of those individuals to practice their beliefs.
Any religion should have the right to sanctify any unions that fall within their belief system. They should not be required to sanctify any that falls contrary to what they belief either. That does not give them the right to prevent the legal union.
No religion has a copyright on the word marriage either. You only BELIEVE that marriage is biblical. In truth the word has only existed for about 500 years.
November 6, 2009
Librarian makes a good suggestion here:
The signatures should be public records, but there should be a time bar similar to the census data. Maybe 10 years. The Washington State legislature should set the rules regarding release of this information.
Consider this:
There are plenty of pro-gun types in Wash State & there are some militia/”Patriot” types among them. Would you feel in any way intimidated if you wanted to sign a petition supporting a ban on over-the-counter sales of assault weapons, knowing all your personal info would be out there?
Yes, voters are entitled to know who is behind measures, but not who signs the petitions. Those who write and circulate petitions are required to be public, not who signs.