Supreme Court on R-71: Names on anti-gay rights petition public

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/24/10 at 11:40am

What's interesting to me is that this was an attempt to reverse not gay marriage, but rights given to gay people to help give the equivalent of marriage. Any time someone says that are against gay marriage, but not against gay unions, I believe that person is a big fat liar.


The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the names of people who signed petitions in an attempt to overturn a new gay rights law in Washington must be made public, a victory for state officials who said the case was a test of open government laws.

Justices ruled in a case called Doe V. Reed. They heard oral arguments in Washington, D.C., April 28.

The conservative group that tried to block release of the signatures wanted the nation's high court to uphold a lower court ruling that said signing petitions and referendum is constitutionally protected political speech - which by law is OK to engage in anonymously.

The group, Protect Marriage Washington, asked justices to shield the names of the 138,000 people who signed Referendum 71 petitions in hopes of overturning the "everything but marriage" same-sex domestic partner law. In November Washington voters upheld the new statute. Gay rights groups have said they'll post the petition signers' names online, and some fear harassment or threats if their names are revealed.

State officials had said there are laws in place to protect people who might be threatened.

When people sign petitions or referendums they are acting as legislators, state Attorney General Rob McKenna said, because they are trying to enact or change laws.

The ultimate decision could have far-reaching impacts, not just on the state's initiative and referendum process, but also for other "open government" laws like the disclosure of who contributes to political campaigns, and how much they give. Legal scholars nationwide followed the case.

In September U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that releasing the petition names would violate those people's constitutional rights. Settle said the petition signers were engaging in political speech - which people are allowed to conduct anonymously under the First Amendment.

However in October 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled Settle, saying signing a petition in public is not an anonymous activity and people should recognize that other petition signers could see their names and government officials will be verifying their identity.

The Supreme Court stayed that decision.

One of the attorneys for the group seeking to keep the names private, James Bopp, Jr., had said people have a right to participate in the political system without the government compelling them to identify themselves.

Bopp, the general counsel for the Indiana-based James Madison Center for Free Speech, said it's appropriate for governments to check and make sure initiative and referendums have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, but releasing that information to the public would violate people's rights.

McKenna said Washington has a liberal public disclosure law and that most people in the state want access to records to keep government in check.

Seattle PI