U.S. high court to take up referendum signatures case (Washington Ref 71)

[struggle4progress]

OLYMPIA – The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the names of Washington voters who sign a petition to put a law on the ballot can be made public.

The high court could hear the case of Doe v. Reed as early as April, taking up the fight over the names and addresses of people who signed petitions to put Referendum 71 on last year’s November ballot.

That referendum sought to overturn expanded rights for same-sex and elderly heterosexual couples. Supporters of gay rights filed a public records request for the names of everyone who signed the petitions; referendum sponsors objected, saying they feared the signers would be harassed ...

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jan/16/us-high-court-to-take-up-referendum-signatures/



U.S. Supreme Court accepts Ref. 71 case
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the case surrounding the public release of names of voters who signed petitions for Referendum 71.
By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times staff reporter

... At issue before the court is whether signing a ballot petition is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. And if so, whether a portion of the state's Public Records Act violates the signers' First Amendment rights. The law subjects to public disclosure the identities of those who sign referendum or initiative petitions.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case that seeks to protect the rights of citizens who support a traditional definition of marriage to speak freely and without fear," said James Bopp Jr., attorney for Protect Marriage Washington, the group that brought the suit.

Secretary of State Sam Reed, a respondent in the case, said: "We welcome an opportunity to go to the highest court in the land to defend Washington citizens' strong desire for transparency, openness and accountability in government, and the public's belief that our state and local public documents must be available for public inspection" ...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2010807994_referendum16m.html

[WillParkinson]

1. We'll do what we damn well please to you...

And you don't need to know it's us.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

3. If a state allows a petition-process to put a referendum on the ballot, why should petition

signatures be anything other than public record? Transparency in this matter is part of preserving the integrity of the process: the issue will go to voters if enough voters demand it, and clearly citizens have some right to ensure that enough actual voters have actually made the demand

[plantwomyn]

4. They have

"the rights of citizens who support a traditional definition of marriage to speak freely and without fear". They don't have the right to change the rules after the fact. They knew that their names would be made public if they signed the petition. If they didn't too bad, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Get over yourselves. You can't hide under your pointy white hoods and "speak freely" at the same time.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

5. The Time Is Coming...

when bigots will no longer be able to hide. Do the crime (sign a petition), do the crime (your name is public record).