Justices uphold releasing names of those signing statewide petitions

[Judi Lynn]

Source: CNN

Justices uphold releasing names of those signing statewide petitions
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
June 24, 2010 2:30 p.m. EDT

Washington (CNN) -- A state law that would make public the names of people signing a petition for a voter referendum against greater rights for same-sex partners has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

At issue in this free speech and privacy dispute was whether officials in Washington state properly decided there was a "compelling public interest" when opting to release the names of gay rights opponents who voluntarily signed a statewide petition. The court by an 8-1 vote on Thursday decided in favor of the state.

"Public disclosure promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. "Public disclosure of referendum petitions in general is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process."

Gov. Christine Gregoire last year signed a bill approved by the legislature affording same-sex couples, as well as domestic partners over the age of 62, the same "rights, responsibilities, and obligations" given married spouses. It is commonly called the "Everything But Marriage" bill.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/24/us.scotus.privacy.rights/index.html

[LaurenG]

1. Hehehe

transparancy will keep everyone honest.

[JuniperLea]

2. Funny how that works, huh?

They are all against gays, but can't bring themselves to say it out loud in front of God and all those people.

Idiots. That should be a clue as to how wrong they are.

[pinboy3niner]

4. When you'd be ashamed of signing the petition if anyone knew...

...that ought to tell you something--about you, and about the petition.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superconnected]

10. And just think of all those wives that no longer sign petitions that disagree with their husbands

because well, its not public info. But again, I'm speaking as an A D U L T.

[D-Lee]

11. Untrue. You've never been part of a petition challenge effort ...

Qualifying petitions for candidates and referenda always have a minimum number in order to get on the ballot. Almost always, signers must be registered voters.

There is no way to check the number of qualifying valid signatures without knowing who signed the petition ...

I never, ever understood how the signatures could be kept private without depriving opponents of the right to challenge the propriety of getting a proposal on the ballot in the first place.

[superconnected]

20. There's no problem with checking for registered voters, my issue is people who sign petition's

getting out there on lists that anyone can check up on with say, a google search. Good luck with your petitions when it's public info, I won't be signing. The lack of respect for my privacy is enough not to sign.

At this point - of demanding names be out there, I suggest all gay people should get on a list so people can google them and see who is and who's not. Oh wait, I don't think they'd want that. Well considering the lack of respect for others' privacy I would say they should eat it and be published. I mean, lack of respect for others should deem their privacy void imo.

The truth is, I'm sad to see it's the gays pushing this. I'd expect it from the extreme right.

[Unvanguard]

22. This is not an evil gay conspiracy.

It is the law of Washington State, like most other states that have an initiative-referendum process.

As it happens, I agree with you as far as the social policy question: petition signatures should not be released to the public. But in this case, those arguing against disclosure had no credible constitutional argument, and the Supreme Court rightly rejected their challenge.

[bluestateguy]

3. Signing a petition is not the same thing as casting a ballot in an election

and truth be told, there is no constitutional right to a secret ballot either. Prior to the 1880's most elections in this country were in fact not by secret ballot.

[droidamus2]

19. You have a point

I grew up in California and I have signed petitions for subjects that I thought deserved a vote even though I wasn't necessarily going to vote for the initiative if it made it to the ballot.

[Demit]

5. Of course he was—

"Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter."


I figured either Scalia or Thomas so went to the link. Scalia has occasional bouts of clarity.

[Unvanguard]

7. Scalia actually was at the other extreme.

He argued that there were no important First Amendment interests at stake here on the part of the petition signers. The seven justices in the middle disagreed, though they thought that, at least for referendums in general, the government interest in accountability and transparency outweighed those interests.

[KT2000]

6. Very good!

did not expect it though. Thought they were going to come up with another of their crooked decisions.

Now I wish someone would require Tim Eyeman's signature getters to tell the truth while they get paid to get signatures.

[superconnected]

8. double edged sword. I don't think people/ your employer should be able to go find your policitcal

views by looking up what petitions you signed.

Sure this one's against gays, but what about the ones for gays that I would sign. If this one is legal to see the names of who signed, that one should and likely will eventually be too. I've had some absolutely nuts bosses that would find a reason to get rid of me immediately if they saw the petitions I've signed.

[Demit]

13. Wouldn't your nut bosses be able to find reasons anywhere, if they're that determined to fire you?

Everything you do is a double-edged sword in that respect. The way you dress, what you read, comments you make, the way you comport yourself. Your bosses are getting an idea of who you are every day. Do you think you are keeping your political views so well-hidden that your bosses won't know what they are without looking up what petitions you signed?

[superconnected]

18. I think I'll just put you on ignore and not waste my breath. It's none of their business what

petitions I sign, or yours for that matter. May people feel like I do. But frankly, I'll just put your on ignore for having no respect for others.

[txlibdem]

12. the big picture

I am a proponent of gay rights (actually of ending discrimination against gays or any other group).

But this ruling may have adverse effects. If the right wing are back in power they will have the names of all persons who sign petitions against their insane policies. There will be reprisals. Rethugs have no human decency, nor reverence for anything but the almighty dollar.

[superconnected]

21. +1

[amandabeech]

24. I agree. This thing cuts both ways.

Don't advocate for something like this unless you want the Republican Teabaggers to be able to do the same thing.

If my state decides to make names on petitions public, I'm going to be very careful about any petition I sign.

[SemperEadem]

14. AAAHHH! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

Wow!!!! yep.. if you're grown enough to say it, be grown enough to stand by it. If that's what you believe and right is so on your side, then stand in your truth and take your ass whippin' for your beliefs. The early xtians did. What's the problem?

[Lil Missy]

15. How ironic. Those opposed to gay equality/rights were afraid of being singled out for harassment.

:eyes:

[Lil Missy]

16. PS - they won't be "outed" if they don't sign such petitions.

Or something like that .... :think:

[customerserviceguy]

17. I guess I have to say that I find this slightly ironic

Back in 1975, one of the teaching assistants in the Speech department at the University of Washington in Seattle revealed he was gay. He taught the speech class under indirect supervision of a professor, so he was the only person we dealt with in the department.

At one point, while dealing with how minorities have to guard their speech, he made the revelation, and we all learned how gay people had to hide their status. I do remember that he was in opposition to the release of a list of donors to a measure to add sexual orientation to the list of those whose civil rights would be protected in Seattle. He wanted to be able to keep his orientation secret from those with whom he did not want to share it with. Some fundies were trying to get the list revealed, and as this was in the early days of campaign reform laws, it was secret.

Deeply ironic, that's all I can say...

[IndianaGreen]

23. Consumers have the right to know if the business they frequent supports homophobic laws

It is the American way!

[rantormusing]

25. Ridiculous

What happens when employers start screening to see if you've signed any Pro Labor petitions? That will work real wonders for your employability. If this is being pushed as a tactic to silence the anti marriage crowd, it's a really stupid and short sighted one.