Gay rights opponents try again to keep R-71 names secret
OLYMPIA, Wash. - Opponents of the state's expanded domestic partnership law are going back to court to try to block the release of names of people who wanted the law overturned.
On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that generally, the release of petition signatures does not violate voters' constitutional rights.
The court ruled now says disclosing names on a petition for a public referendum does not chill the signer's freedom of speech enough to warrant overturning the state's disclosure law.
"Voters of Washington want their government operating in open, transparent and accountable ways, and treating petitions as a public record is in keeping with that desire," said Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed. "The Supreme Court has made it clear that there can be no blanket ban on releasing petitions and that it will be a tall order for challengers to make the case for keeping this information secret."
However, the high court said Protect Marriage Washington could go back to the lower courts and try to prove that the release of their names would put them in danger.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the 8-1 judgment for the court, said it is vitally important that states be able to ensure that signatures on referendum petitions are authentic.
"Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures," Roberts said. "Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot."
But Roberts also said that the court's opinion deals with whether disclosure of the names on referendum petitions as a whole violates the First Amendment, not solely the Protect Marriage Washington case.
The intimidation that anti-gay rights supporters fear is not present in other referendum issues like tax policy, revenue, budget or other state law issues, Roberts said. "Voters care about such issues, some quite deeply - but there is no reason to assume that any burdens imposed by disclosure of typical referendum petitions would be remotely like the burdens plaintiffs fear in this case," he said.
But the chief justice added that Protect Marriage Washington could go back to the lower courts and try again on their specific concern in hopes of getting an exemption.
And that's what Protect Marriage has done, asking the U.S. District Court in Tacoma to continue blocking release of the names and addresses of people who signed Referendum 71 petitions. A hearing has been requested but no date has been set.
On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that generally, the release of petition signatures does not violate voters' constitutional rights.
The court ruled now says disclosing names on a petition for a public referendum does not chill the signer's freedom of speech enough to warrant overturning the state's disclosure law.
"Voters of Washington want their government operating in open, transparent and accountable ways, and treating petitions as a public record is in keeping with that desire," said Washington Secretary of State Sam Reed. "The Supreme Court has made it clear that there can be no blanket ban on releasing petitions and that it will be a tall order for challengers to make the case for keeping this information secret."
However, the high court said Protect Marriage Washington could go back to the lower courts and try to prove that the release of their names would put them in danger.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the 8-1 judgment for the court, said it is vitally important that states be able to ensure that signatures on referendum petitions are authentic.
"Public disclosure thus helps ensure that the only signatures counted are those that should be, and that the only referenda placed on the ballot are those that garner enough valid signatures," Roberts said. "Public disclosure also promotes transparency and accountability in the electoral process to an extent other measures cannot."
But Roberts also said that the court's opinion deals with whether disclosure of the names on referendum petitions as a whole violates the First Amendment, not solely the Protect Marriage Washington case.
The intimidation that anti-gay rights supporters fear is not present in other referendum issues like tax policy, revenue, budget or other state law issues, Roberts said. "Voters care about such issues, some quite deeply - but there is no reason to assume that any burdens imposed by disclosure of typical referendum petitions would be remotely like the burdens plaintiffs fear in this case," he said.
But the chief justice added that Protect Marriage Washington could go back to the lower courts and try again on their specific concern in hopes of getting an exemption.
And that's what Protect Marriage has done, asking the U.S. District Court in Tacoma to continue blocking release of the names and addresses of people who signed Referendum 71 petitions. A hearing has been requested but no date has been set.
Learn about changes coming to commenting