Supremes won’t block release of Ref. 71 names

[WillParkinson]

Source: Seattle PI

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to block release of names of those who signed petitions for Referendum 71, the unsuccessful 2009 challenge to the state’s “everything but marriage” rights for same-sex couples.

“This means we can once again release these public records,” said Katie Blinn, co-director of state elections in the office of Secretary of State Sam Reed.

The case entitled Doe v. Reed has bounced up and down in the federal court system. The Supreme Court earlier rules, in an 8-1 decision, that signatures on initiative petitions should be a matter of public record.

The Supremes sent the case back to U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma. Leighton has ruled that sponsors of the anti-gay measure did not prove that they have been harassed — or would face harassment — if named on the Ref. 71 petitions were released.

Several plaintiffs seeking to block release of the names — e.g. Rev. Ken Hutcherson, Faith and Freedom leader Gary Randall and State Sen. Val Stevens — are longtime public leaders and advocates in opposition to marriage equality.

Read more: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2011/11/21/supremes-wont-block-release-of-ref-71-names/

[lsewpershad]

1. Affraid

of their own convictions, are they?

[MinneapolisMatt]

2. Bingo.

:nopity:

[nahant]

3. chicken shits

Nothing but Chicken Shits who don't want everyone to know they are True BIGOTS!! Poor Babies...

[William769]

4. K&R.

Lets hope this gets more attention here.

[PoliticAverse]

5. Not surprising, for much of US history even ballots weren't secret. n/t

[ooglymoogly]

6. Hoist on their own petard....bad actors exposed.

[ooglymoogly]

7. sorry wrong place

[ooglymoogly]

8. Kr nt

[SecularMotion]

9. Take off the hoods!

[totodeinhere]

10. If they really believe in their bigotry and stand by it then they should have no problem

with having their identities revealed.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

11. Is the list anywhere yet? nt

[pinto]

12. Kick

:kick:

[pkdu]

13. ..and Alito was the single Justice dissenter. How facist are you when you are right of Scalia? n/t

[PoliticAverse]

16. (deleted)

[rpannier]

19. That would be an understandable mistake

Usually whatever Scalia decides Thomas agrees with.

[eridani]

14. Don't know why people keep on confusing the initiative process with free speech

An initiative is an attempt to make law. We do not allow our legislators to keep their votes secret. Therefore citizens who aspire to be legislators should not be able to do it in secrecy either.

[PoliticAverse]

17. Actually we do allow our legislators to keep their votes secret.

There isn't a recording of the yays and nays for every vote.

[eridani]

20. If we had no record at all of our representatives' votes, would the public stand for it?

I think not.

[Deep13]

22. What would they do about it? nt

[eridani]

23. Occupy folks would probably storm the sessions n/t

[Heywood J]

25. Happens all the time.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Voice_vote#United_States

[No Elephants]

24. Should be

[rasputinkhlyst]

15. List it here when it comes out

[rpannier]

18. I thought they were proud of their participation

Besides, many people sign petitions without really knowing what's on it

[Generic Other]

21. You can hate in private where no one will know

but when you hate in public everyone will know your name.

Public records last forever.