Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

PETITIONS: Be willing to stand behind signature

Letter by Dieter Mielimonka, Steilacoom on Oct. 6, 2011 at 9:48 am with 22 Comments »
October 6, 2011 10:13 am

Re: “If you sign an initiative petition, do you need privacy shield?” (Peter Callaghan column, 10-6).

People who don’t want their names known after signing a petition are the same spineless wonders as people who write anonymous letters.

If you strongly believe in something, stand behind your conviction. As we say when playing poker, “Put up or shut up.”

Leave a comment Comments → 22
  1. Fibonacci says:

    I think the problem is that the case that they are talking about was concerned with people wanting the names to harass those that signed a petition that the group disagreed with. I have no problem with my name being made public on a petition I signed, but let me ask you this. Would it still be put up or shut up for you if your name was made public and then a group protested in front of your house, your place of work, your place of worship. If they confronted you at the Mall to try to convince you of “the error of your ways”. Somehow I think your story would change. How about we make everyones voting record public too. Is that OK with you?

  2. It doesn’t concern me at all. I’m not going to hide from anyone. But I believe the letter writer is hinting at something beyond the signing of a petition, I would venture that he is also talking about “Card Check” or open union votes. If he’s willing to hang his dirty laundry out for everyone to see, I’ll be more than glad to hang mine right next to his. Liberals don’t scare me.

  3. old_benjamin says:

    What is the essential difference in making public the names of those who sign petitions and in publicizing the names of those who vote for the resultant ballot measure? If voters deserve privacy, why not petition signers? The animus against the latter is sufficient indication that they do in fact need and deserve privacy.

  4. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Great, Dieter, except you forgot to post your address and phone number.

  5. LarryFine says:

    LMAO … no kidding Vox. Great points O.B.

  6. Such a pity that the right has forgotten the concept of a secret ballot.

    What’s next publishing the voter rolls showing how we voted?

    Also why should Corporations to allowed to keep their donations and support secret but WE THE PEOPLE must disclose ours?

  7. LarryFine says:

    You think the letter writer is from the right ? Did you read any of the responses ? Corporations are allowed to keep their political contributions secret ?

    You’re 0 for 3…

  8. I agree with you, Dieter.

  9. oldman4 says:

    Dieter I believe this was about people signing petitions concerning same sex marrige and not wanting to have their names made public. If i remember it correctly the same people who wanted the names were the same people who wanted to make sure that HIV possitive individuals names were kept secret for the sake of their right to privacy. Whats good for the goose should be good for the gander.

  10. LF – prove me wrong.

    You’ve tried before.

    And the next time will be the first time.

  11. Dieter? We’re still waiting for you to stand behind your letter and post your own information. (Seriously … don’t do it- just reiterating the brilliant point that you are just as gutless.)

  12. The most recent dustup concerning the privacy of signatures on petitions was over the gay marriage issue. I don’t think it was the conservatiaves who were pushing for the release of names of those who signed. Prove me wrong, xring.

  13. Frita is confused as usual. She doesn’t realize that it was the pro-gay alliance folks who wanted names published. Oh well, what else is new?

  14. LarryFine says:

    xring is just white noise…

  15. L-F – as always reverts to name calling because he cannot refudiate my statements and arguments.

  16. xring, no one will ever make a mistake in misunderestimating the power of your arguments.

  17. Frosty is wrong as usual.

    The pro-gay wanted to keep the names unpublilshed.

    The anti-gay wanted to have the names published.

  18. Fibonacci says:


    We usually agree but this time I am afraid YOU are wrong. It was those agaisnt the initiative that wanted the names published so they could “educate” those they thaught were anti-gay.

  19. LarryFine says:

    … at least xring is consistent…ly wrong.

  20. commoncents says:

    frosty’s right it’s the pro-gay marriage folks who wanted to publish the names. Which is wrong. I can understand the need for transparency and fraud prevention but that can be accomplished by the auditors of record (county auditors or sec of state). I have the utmost respect for the SCOTUS but they got this one wrong. And I walk the walk…I am firmly on the side of those who believe gays have the right to marry. However, I do not believe that the signers of that initiative should have their names published – even if there was no fear of retaliation.

  21. xring??? waiting for your next post…

  22. theglovesRoff says:

    Don’t hold your breath, frosty.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0