Inside Opinion

What's on the minds of Tacoma News Tribune editorial writers

NOTICE: Inside Opinion has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Inside Opinion.
Visit the new section.

A partial victory for disclosure in the R-71 case

Post by Patrick O'Callahan on June 24, 2010 at 7:43 pm with 6 Comments »
June 24, 2010 5:55 pm

This editorial will appear in tomorrow’s print edition.

One legal skirmish has yet to be fought, but Washington won the major battle over its Public Records Act on Thursday.

With a crushing 8-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is no sweeping constitutional right to sign petitions in anonymity. The decision doesn’t force the release of the signatures that put Referendum 71 one the ballot last November – that’s the unfought skirmish – but it repudiates a claim that could have sealed all petitions on all issues, in Washington and everywhere else citizens enjoy the right to initiative and referendum.

This lawsuit was brought by opponents of last year’s “everything but marriage” domestic partnership law, who launched a petition drive to reverse the measure at the polls. They have asked the courts to prevent the Secretary of State’s Office from releasing the identities of Washingtonians who signed the petition, arguing that disclosure would put the signers at risk of harassment from gay-rights advocates.

It didn’t help that a few gay-rights advocates actually did threaten identified signers with “uncomfortable conversations,” nor that others reportedly threatened the initiative’s sponsors with physical harm.

But the stakes in the lawsuit were far bigger than R-71. It challenged the constitutionality of any disclosure on the grounds that petition signers had a First Amendment right to anonymous political expression.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts rightly rejected that sweeping claim. He noted that Washington has good reasons to allow public scrutiny of petitions, including the possibility of fraudulent signatures and “promoting transparency and accountability in the electoral process.”

That’s a relief to defenders of the “transparency and accountability” mandated by the state’s Public Records Act.

But the R-71 lawsuit is by no means dead. Thursday’s decision addressed only the argument that the First Amendment categorically requires the sealing of all petitions everywhere. Roberts cited earlier rulings that a particular group could be exempted from disclosure rules if it demonstrated a likelihood that its members would be threatened if their names were made public.

Whether that applies to the R-71 signatures will likely be argued in a trial court, and most of the justices showed a willingness – an outright enthusiasm, in the case of Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas – to exempt petition signers from the Public Records Act if a trial produced concrete evidence that they might be harmed.

So Washingtonians who oppose a petition drive – about gay rights or anything else – bear some responsibility here. In the eyes of this court, personal threats are the enemies of public disclosure. Anyone who doesn’t want petitions sealed shouldn’t help their opponents build the case for sealing them.

Leave a comment Comments → 6
  1. Novelist3 says:

    Nothing like the threat of knowing any old nutcase can now hunt you down for an unpopular vote. What a way to help “assist” in the democratic process.


  2. “Nothing like the threat of knowing any old nutcase can now hunt you down for an unpopular vote.”

    Just how many times has this happened? None. Not likely too either. This old whine is just that, old and vinegary.

  3. Nov- I understand and sympathize with your concern for personal safety, but remember: the 1st amendment is followed rapidly by …the 2 nd…

  4. speakeasy says:

    If you believe persons who simply recommend an initiative be placed on the ballot have their names made public, then you probably believe anyone who actually VOTES FOR the measure should have his/her name published in the Tribune and read on the evening news……… Right???

  5. In regards to larsmans view on the 1st and 2nd amendments,If a kook wants to harm you for any reason,all the amendments in the world is not going to stop this from happening,if the kook knows who you are!This is a good way for would be petition signers to forgo signing any more petitions.But I feel that is what is wanted by some.

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