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.

How the justices broke on the R-71 decision

Post by Patrick O'Callahan on June 24, 2010 at 6:52 pm with 5 Comments »
June 25, 2010 9:09 am

People who take a “Rah, rah, our team won!” approach to Supreme Court decisions may overlook some important things about Thursday’s ruling about public disclosure and Referendum 71.

Attorney General Rob McKenna, who defended Washington’s Public Records Act, won a battle he shouldn’t have had to fight.

The people who collected signatures to put R-71 on the November ballot had asked U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle to prevent the state’s release of their petitions. Settle granted the injunction on astonishingly broad grounds, holding that they were likely to succeed in arguing that the First Amendment could require that any petition – not just theirs – be sealed upon request.

That conclusion seemed absurd, but the high court took the claim seriously enough to review it. McKenna wound up having to play defense in a game with very high stakes.

Thursday’s ruling was a matter of dodging an asteroid few people had seen coming. As far as R-71 – by itself – is concerned, the fight remains to be fought in a trial court. It will turn on whether the petitioners can produce believable evidence that they were genuinely threatened by gay-rights supporters.

Eight justices – Clarence Thomas was the dissenter – found it easy to dismiss an across-the-board constitutional right of anonymity for petitioners. But the concurring opinions showed varying degrees of receptiveness to evidence-based, case-by-case challenges to laws like the Public Records Act.

Antonin Scalia was hostile to any claim of anonymity, noting that even ballots weren’t secret for much of the country’s history.

John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Sonia Sotomayor in opining that evidence-based arguments for anonymity should have to clear a high bar.

Samuel Alito disagreed – to the point of suggesting the R-71 folks “have a strong argument” for exemption from the PRA.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy appear to be on the same page: Open to a challenge grounded in facts, but neither hostile nor enthusiastic.

I count – including Thomas – four justices willing uphold anonymity if a group approached them with specific evidence of threats instead of cosmic constitutional generalizations. Four more who could be persuaded if the threats were dire enough. Scalia: Maybe if someone was holding a knife to the petitioner’s throat.

Leave a comment Comments → 5
  1. villager98 says:

    If anyone who signed the petition was actually threatened with real harm it would probably be a criminal act and should be referred to the appropriate authority. Were any police reports filed and investigated? Being fearful is not cause to create secrecy for legislative actions.

  2. good ruling, tough case. Gotta love ROB MCKENNA. What a stand-up guy. And all these goofballs out there that claim he is making a political statement by going after the contsitutionality of the commerce clause in the takeover of healthcare.

  3. tubbythetuba says:

    It’s a good call. Can’t believe all the wussies that are afraid to speak their mind.

  4. Again-If there is a recordable legal infraction, threat, property damage etc.,there needs to be a charge filed and due process followed. Additionally however, the first amendment is immediately followed by …the second…

*
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