Advertise Here

A Matter Of Opinion

Supremes say no hiding names on petitions

Court rules 8-1 against those seeking to keep their names from public view. The name of the lone dissenter was withheld. Just kidding. It was Clarence Thomas.

Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, said the Protect Marriage Act folks can try for an exemption at the lower court level.

The course of this litigation, however, has framed thelegal question before us more broadly. The issue at this stage of the case is not whether disclosure of this particu-lar petition would violate the First Amendment, butwhether disclosure of referendum petitions in generalwould do so. We conclude that such disclosure does not as a general matter violate the First Amendment, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. We leave it to the lower courts to consider in the first instance the signers’ more focused claim concerning disclosure ofthe information on this particular petition, which is pend-ing before the District Court.

Please keep it civil. Don't post comments that are obscene, defamatory, threatening, off-topic, an infringement of copyright or an invasion of privacy. Read our forum standards and community guidelines.

You must be logged in to post comments. Please log in here or click the comment box below for options.

comments powered by Disqus
« Back to A Matter Of Opinion

Get blog updates by email

About this blog

A Matter of Opinion is really a matter of many opinions — those held by the people responsible for the opinion pages of The Spokesman-Review ... and yours. Check in regularly to follow the discussion and help keep it lively.

Joust offline!

We welcome letters to the editor (all are subject to editing). Letters can be sent to:

Search this blog
Subscribe to this blog
Advertise Here